Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[sealybobo]

Please don't try to associate words that belong to your religion(s) with us atheists.

e·van·gel·i·cal
ˌadjective

1. 
   of or according to the teaching of the gospel or the Christian religion.
   

   synonyms:

   scriptural, biblical; fundamentalist "evangelical Christianity"

   [TBODY] [/TBODY]
   • of or denoting a tradition within Protestant Christianity emphasizing the authority of the Bible, personal conversion, and the doctrine of salvation by faith in the Atonement.
     

     synonyms:

     evangelistic, evangelizing, missionary, crusading, proselytizing; informalBible-thumping "an evangelical preacher"

     [TBODY] [/TBODY]
   • zealous in advocating something.

noun
noun: evangelical; plural noun: evangelicals

1. 1.
   a member of the evangelical tradition in the Christian Church.

So, let me see if I understand you, when they try to convert others that is evangelism. When you try to convert other, that isn't. Is that about it? What exactly is the difference?

There is no cult I'm trying to get them to convert to. I'm not asking for any money EVERY FUCKING WEEK. I don't ask them to come hang out with me on Sundays and leave their kids so I can molest them.

I don't approach them on the street. I don't tell them they are going to hell if they don't believe me.

I see the similarities though. Do you see the differences?

Nothing in the definition you provided above mentioned money or streets. It even doesn't require child molestation. Basically, what it does define is the attempt to convert others to your beliefs. So again I ask you, how is what you said you do not evangelizing?

I come pretty close to it on USMB that's for sure.

I'm not talking about here. You said you try to convert others. I am taking what you say as true. You certainly know what you do and the motives behind it far better than I possibly can. If a Christian attempts to convert others, he's an evangelist. If an Atheist does exactly the same thing, then how is he not an evangelist? If I attempted to convert you to Buddhism, how would I not be an evangelist?

How is it different? As different as straight and gay marriage.

Actually more different. Polar opposites. If anything it is anti evalelizing. Just as different as atheist and theist are, so is what we're doing compared to you.

And I would love nothing more to learn how to wake more people up. For now, I have to let it happen naturally and gradually over time. First it was the North East part of the country, now it's the NE and NW parts of the country. The last will be the bible belt hold outs. But even them one day their kids are going to evolve into smarter more progressive people one would assume. But then again, if it takes a red neck 1000 years to evolve, it'll take the Muslims 5000. We're in for a long enlightenment period where humans no longer cling to irrational thoughts passed on to them from their stupid ancestors who were fooled into believing a lie because they were DUMB!

 

[sealybobo]

Why there is no god

I already explained why it was wrong and no one here refuted it. See post #2179

That wasn't a joke?

You feel you are being spoon fed definitions so what do you do? You add another definition.
Every activity a person does can be interesting to them, including stamp collecting, watching TV, eating, screwing, coluring in stencils...etc Are you suggesting these all be classified as religions. If you or anyone else says yes then I cannot help your lack of reasoning.

RFOLMAO.

OK, that is out of my system, for now.

This is the definition you insist is wrong.

A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.​

Funny how you ignore the words supreme importance in your response, isn't it?

In other words, the only thing you refuted is your claim that you refuted anything.

So, one again, why are atheist that say their religion is atheism wrong? Have you even considered the possibility that you might be the one that is wrong?

As for writing a letter to Webster, they only accept business or advertising letters or someone wishing to add a new word.

And you know this because...

Number 24 addresses all your questions

#24 is wrong, because its built upon the premise that "Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more."........that simply isn't true.......

That simply is true. Your inability to understand some very simple concepts is concerning.

it may be that atheists simply lack intelligence, but the definition isn't that they simply lack belief......if that were so, everyone apathetic would be an atheist......

Its because many people believe that even though they don't believe, people who believe in god are better than a society that doesn't believe. I've seen all the arguments don't bother. Stalin may have been an atheist but he didn't start any wars over it. Sure some atheist rulers killed theists in the past but that was only returning the favor. You guys gave three choices. Leave, Convert or Die. Pick one! Anyways, I can give you a lot of reasons why people who are apathetic are the way they are.

1. They're too busy with other shit to be worrying about this.
2. They've been brainwashed since they were kids.
3. Don't want to be shunned by your community or the majority of your neighbors who are "Chrisians" and "Jews" who like to keep to themselves mostly.
4. A lot of people lie and say they believe.
5. I think religion is bad for people. A lie is a lie no matter how good it makes you feel. Ignorant bliss.
6. Politics uses religion as a wedge issue. Makes people dumb. They use it to manipulate the masses and divide us.
7.

And honestly, if there were a god, he would reward our intelligence for not believing primitive man's lies of burning bushes and angels and ghosts and devils and gods oh my.

Apathetic? So you basically want us to shut up as you spread your lies and not say anything? When we believe you are trying to push that shit on the rest of society? You cry if you can't have it engrained on our public buildings. Sorry, not every American believes in god(s).

 

[sealybobo]

For those of you who think God is the source of morality: Why there is no god

Morality is a cultural concept with a basis in evolutionary psychology and game theory. Species whose members were predisposed to cooperate were more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Reciprocacy, altruism and other so-called ‘moral’ characteristics are evident in many species. The neurochemical thought to regulate morality and empathy is oxytocin.

Religious texts are simply part of many early attempts to codify moral precepts. Secular law, flexible with the shifting moral zeitgeist, has long since superseded religion as a source of moral directives for the majority of developed societies. Secular ethics offers a number of competing moral frameworks which do not derive from a purported supernatural source.

See also: Dawkins – Source of Morality, Babies can tell right from wrong, Moral behaviour in animals, Altruism in Chimps and Toddlers, Trust, Morality and Oxytocin (a must watch), Evolution of Cooperation, Science of Morality. Animals Cooperating: Monkeys, Birds, Chimps.

The god character of the Bible is a misogynistic tyrant that condones and even orders the practice of slavery, rape of women and murder of children. The moment you disagree with a single instruction of the Bible, such as the command to kill any bride who is not a virgin or any child who disrespects their parents, then you acknowledge that there exists a superior standard by which to judge moral action and thus no need to rely on an ancient, primitive and barbaric fantasy.

 

[sealybobo]

And for those who think:

People need to believe in god / Without god people will do bad things.
Argument from adverse consequences.

Just because something is perceived as having good consequences if it is true, does not actually make it true.

The fact that religiously free societies with a proportionally large number of atheists are generally more peaceful than otherwise is evidence this perception is incorrect.

(They don't get suckered into wars with Muslims from a country that didn't even hit us on 9-11 so Bush & Chaney could bankrupt this country in order to pass their radical policies that would never get passed otherwise for example spying and tax breaks. I added this part)

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” – Steven Weinberg

 

[PratchettFan]

So, let me see if I understand you, when they try to convert others that is evangelism. When you try to convert other, that isn't. Is that about it? What exactly is the difference?

There is no cult I'm trying to get them to convert to. I'm not asking for any money EVERY FUCKING WEEK. I don't ask them to come hang out with me on Sundays and leave their kids so I can molest them.

I don't approach them on the street. I don't tell them they are going to hell if they don't believe me.

I see the similarities though. Do you see the differences?

Nothing in the definition you provided above mentioned money or streets. It even doesn't require child molestation. Basically, what it does define is the attempt to convert others to your beliefs. So again I ask you, how is what you said you do not evangelizing?

I come pretty close to it on USMB that's for sure.

I'm not talking about here. You said you try to convert others. I am taking what you say as true. You certainly know what you do and the motives behind it far better than I possibly can. If a Christian attempts to convert others, he's an evangelist. If an Atheist does exactly the same thing, then how is he not an evangelist? If I attempted to convert you to Buddhism, how would I not be an evangelist?

How is it different? As different as straight and gay marriage.

Actually more different. Polar opposites. If anything it is anti evalelizing. Just as different as atheist and theist are, so is what we're doing compared to you.

And I would love nothing more to learn how to wake more people up. For now, I have to let it happen naturally and gradually over time. First it was the North East part of the country, now it's the NE and NW parts of the country. The last will be the bible belt hold outs. But even them one day their kids are going to evolve into smarter more progressive people one would assume. But then again, if it takes a red neck 1000 years to evolve, it'll take the Muslims 5000. We're in for a long enlightenment period where humans no longer cling to irrational thoughts passed on to them from their stupid ancestors who were fooled into believing a lie because they were DUMB!

I see. You are doing exactly the same thing but it is entirely different.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Why there is no god

That wasn't a joke?

RFOLMAO.

OK, that is out of my system, for now.

This is the definition you insist is wrong.

A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.​

Funny how you ignore the words supreme importance in your response, isn't it?

In other words, the only thing you refuted is your claim that you refuted anything.

So, one again, why are atheist that say their religion is atheism wrong? Have you even considered the possibility that you might be the one that is wrong?

And you know this because...

Number 24 addresses all your questions

#24 is wrong, because its built upon the premise that "Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more."........that simply isn't true.......

That simply is true. Your inability to understand some very simple concepts is concerning.

it may be that atheists simply lack intelligence, but the definition isn't that they simply lack belief......if that were so, everyone apathetic would be an atheist......

Its because many people believe that even though they don't believe, people who believe in god are better than a society that doesn't believe. I've seen all the arguments don't bother. Stalin may have been an atheist but he didn't start any wars over it. Sure some atheist rulers killed theists in the past but that was only returning the favor. You guys gave three choices. Leave, Convert or Die. Pick one! Anyways, I can give you a lot of reasons why people who are apathetic are the way they are.

1. They're too busy with other shit to be worrying about this.
2. They've been brainwashed since they were kids.
3. Don't want to be shunned by your community or the majority of your neighbors who are "Chrisians" and "Jews" who like to keep to themselves mostly.
4. A lot of people lie and say they believe.
5. I think religion is bad for people. A lie is a lie no matter how good it makes you feel. Ignorant bliss.
6. Politics uses religion as a wedge issue. Makes people dumb. They use it to manipulate the masses and divide us.
7.

And honestly, if there were a god, he would reward our intelligence for not believing primitive man's lies of burning bushes and angels and ghosts and devils and gods oh my.

Apathetic? So you basically want us to shut up as you spread your lies and not say anything? When we believe you are trying to push that shit on the rest of society? You cry if you can't have it engrained on our public buildings. Sorry, not every American believes in god(s).

apparently you've confused apathetic with pathetic.....

 

[Hollie]

Why there is no god

Number 24 addresses all your questions

#24 is wrong, because its built upon the premise that "Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more."........that simply isn't true.......

That simply is true. Your inability to understand some very simple concepts is concerning.

it may be that atheists simply lack intelligence, but the definition isn't that they simply lack belief......if that were so, everyone apathetic would be an atheist......

Its because many people believe that even though they don't believe, people who believe in god are better than a society that doesn't believe. I've seen all the arguments don't bother. Stalin may have been an atheist but he didn't start any wars over it. Sure some atheist rulers killed theists in the past but that was only returning the favor. You guys gave three choices. Leave, Convert or Die. Pick one! Anyways, I can give you a lot of reasons why people who are apathetic are the way they are.

1. They're too busy with other shit to be worrying about this.
2. They've been brainwashed since they were kids.
3. Don't want to be shunned by your community or the majority of your neighbors who are "Chrisians" and "Jews" who like to keep to themselves mostly.
4. A lot of people lie and say they believe.
5. I think religion is bad for people. A lie is a lie no matter how good it makes you feel. Ignorant bliss.
6. Politics uses religion as a wedge issue. Makes people dumb. They use it to manipulate the masses and divide us.
7.

And honestly, if there were a god, he would reward our intelligence for not believing primitive man's lies of burning bushes and angels and ghosts and devils and gods oh my.

Apathetic? So you basically want us to shut up as you spread your lies and not say anything? When we believe you are trying to push that shit on the rest of society? You cry if you can't have it engrained on our public buildings. Sorry, not every American believes in god(s).

apparently you've confused apathetic with pathetic.....

Not at all. Apathy is not what has prevented you religious extremists from pressing your fundamentalist views into the public school system. The humiliating defeats suffered by you extremists in the courts has served only to detail the pathetic failure of the extremist Christian Right.

 

[sealybobo]

There is no cult I'm trying to get them to convert to. I'm not asking for any money EVERY FUCKING WEEK. I don't ask them to come hang out with me on Sundays and leave their kids so I can molest them.

I don't approach them on the street. I don't tell them they are going to hell if they don't believe me.

I see the similarities though. Do you see the differences?

Nothing in the definition you provided above mentioned money or streets. It even doesn't require child molestation. Basically, what it does define is the attempt to convert others to your beliefs. So again I ask you, how is what you said you do not evangelizing?

I come pretty close to it on USMB that's for sure.

I'm not talking about here. You said you try to convert others. I am taking what you say as true. You certainly know what you do and the motives behind it far better than I possibly can. If a Christian attempts to convert others, he's an evangelist. If an Atheist does exactly the same thing, then how is he not an evangelist? If I attempted to convert you to Buddhism, how would I not be an evangelist?

How is it different? As different as straight and gay marriage.

Actually more different. Polar opposites. If anything it is anti evalelizing. Just as different as atheist and theist are, so is what we're doing compared to you.

And I would love nothing more to learn how to wake more people up. For now, I have to let it happen naturally and gradually over time. First it was the North East part of the country, now it's the NE and NW parts of the country. The last will be the bible belt hold outs. But even them one day their kids are going to evolve into smarter more progressive people one would assume. But then again, if it takes a red neck 1000 years to evolve, it'll take the Muslims 5000. We're in for a long enlightenment period where humans no longer cling to irrational thoughts passed on to them from their stupid ancestors who were fooled into believing a lie because they were DUMB!

I see. You are doing exactly the same thing but it is entirely different.

Now you are getting it. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.

 

[PratchettFan]

Nothing in the definition you provided above mentioned money or streets. It even doesn't require child molestation. Basically, what it does define is the attempt to convert others to your beliefs. So again I ask you, how is what you said you do not evangelizing?

I come pretty close to it on USMB that's for sure.

I'm not talking about here. You said you try to convert others. I am taking what you say as true. You certainly know what you do and the motives behind it far better than I possibly can. If a Christian attempts to convert others, he's an evangelist. If an Atheist does exactly the same thing, then how is he not an evangelist? If I attempted to convert you to Buddhism, how would I not be an evangelist?

How is it different? As different as straight and gay marriage.

Actually more different. Polar opposites. If anything it is anti evalelizing. Just as different as atheist and theist are, so is what we're doing compared to you.

And I would love nothing more to learn how to wake more people up. For now, I have to let it happen naturally and gradually over time. First it was the North East part of the country, now it's the NE and NW parts of the country. The last will be the bible belt hold outs. But even them one day their kids are going to evolve into smarter more progressive people one would assume. But then again, if it takes a red neck 1000 years to evolve, it'll take the Muslims 5000. We're in for a long enlightenment period where humans no longer cling to irrational thoughts passed on to them from their stupid ancestors who were fooled into believing a lie because they were DUMB!

I see. You are doing exactly the same thing but it is entirely different.

Now you are getting it. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.

Oh, I got it before. Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding. You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe. I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian. So yes, I got it. You are still wrong.

If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist. In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist. You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma. You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.

 

[Hollie]

I come pretty close to it on USMB that's for sure.

I'm not talking about here. You said you try to convert others. I am taking what you say as true. You certainly know what you do and the motives behind it far better than I possibly can. If a Christian attempts to convert others, he's an evangelist. If an Atheist does exactly the same thing, then how is he not an evangelist? If I attempted to convert you to Buddhism, how would I not be an evangelist?

How is it different? As different as straight and gay marriage.

Actually more different. Polar opposites. If anything it is anti evalelizing. Just as different as atheist and theist are, so is what we're doing compared to you.

And I would love nothing more to learn how to wake more people up. For now, I have to let it happen naturally and gradually over time. First it was the North East part of the country, now it's the NE and NW parts of the country. The last will be the bible belt hold outs. But even them one day their kids are going to evolve into smarter more progressive people one would assume. But then again, if it takes a red neck 1000 years to evolve, it'll take the Muslims 5000. We're in for a long enlightenment period where humans no longer cling to irrational thoughts passed on to them from their stupid ancestors who were fooled into believing a lie because they were DUMB!

I see. You are doing exactly the same thing but it is entirely different.

Now you are getting it. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.

Oh, I got it before. Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding. You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe. I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian. So yes, I got it. You are still wrong.

If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist. In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist. You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma. You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.

You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.

 

[PratchettFan]

I'm not talking about here. You said you try to convert others. I am taking what you say as true. You certainly know what you do and the motives behind it far better than I possibly can. If a Christian attempts to convert others, he's an evangelist. If an Atheist does exactly the same thing, then how is he not an evangelist? If I attempted to convert you to Buddhism, how would I not be an evangelist?

How is it different? As different as straight and gay marriage.

Actually more different. Polar opposites. If anything it is anti evalelizing. Just as different as atheist and theist are, so is what we're doing compared to you.

And I would love nothing more to learn how to wake more people up. For now, I have to let it happen naturally and gradually over time. First it was the North East part of the country, now it's the NE and NW parts of the country. The last will be the bible belt hold outs. But even them one day their kids are going to evolve into smarter more progressive people one would assume. But then again, if it takes a red neck 1000 years to evolve, it'll take the Muslims 5000. We're in for a long enlightenment period where humans no longer cling to irrational thoughts passed on to them from their stupid ancestors who were fooled into believing a lie because they were DUMB!

I see. You are doing exactly the same thing but it is entirely different.

Now you are getting it. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.

Oh, I got it before. Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding. You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe. I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian. So yes, I got it. You are still wrong.

If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist. In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist. You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma. You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.

You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.

You see? It is the definition which is important to you. You just can't see past your dogma.

 

[Hollie]

How is it different? As different as straight and gay marriage.

Actually more different. Polar opposites. If anything it is anti evalelizing. Just as different as atheist and theist are, so is what we're doing compared to you.

And I would love nothing more to learn how to wake more people up. For now, I have to let it happen naturally and gradually over time. First it was the North East part of the country, now it's the NE and NW parts of the country. The last will be the bible belt hold outs. But even them one day their kids are going to evolve into smarter more progressive people one would assume. But then again, if it takes a red neck 1000 years to evolve, it'll take the Muslims 5000. We're in for a long enlightenment period where humans no longer cling to irrational thoughts passed on to them from their stupid ancestors who were fooled into believing a lie because they were DUMB!

I see. You are doing exactly the same thing but it is entirely different.

Now you are getting it. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.

Oh, I got it before. Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding. You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe. I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian. So yes, I got it. You are still wrong.

If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist. In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist. You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma. You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.

You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.

You see? It is the definition which is important to you. You just can't see past your dogma.

How is it different? As different as straight and gay marriage.

Actually more different. Polar opposites. If anything it is anti evalelizing. Just as different as atheist and theist are, so is what we're doing compared to you.

And I would love nothing more to learn how to wake more people up. For now, I have to let it happen naturally and gradually over time. First it was the North East part of the country, now it's the NE and NW parts of the country. The last will be the bible belt hold outs. But even them one day their kids are going to evolve into smarter more progressive people one would assume. But then again, if it takes a red neck 1000 years to evolve, it'll take the Muslims 5000. We're in for a long enlightenment period where humans no longer cling to irrational thoughts passed on to them from their stupid ancestors who were fooled into believing a lie because they were DUMB!

I see. You are doing exactly the same thing but it is entirely different.

Now you are getting it. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.

Oh, I got it before. Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding. You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe. I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian. So yes, I got it. You are still wrong.

If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist. In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist. You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma. You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.

You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.

You see? It is the definition which is important to you. You just can't see past your dogma.

You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.

Make up one that suits you.

 

[PratchettFan]

I see. You are doing exactly the same thing but it is entirely different.

Now you are getting it. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.

Oh, I got it before. Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding. You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe. I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian. So yes, I got it. You are still wrong.

If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist. In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist. You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma. You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.

You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.

You see? It is the definition which is important to you. You just can't see past your dogma.

I see. You are doing exactly the same thing but it is entirely different.

Now you are getting it. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.

Oh, I got it before. Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding. You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe. I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian. So yes, I got it. You are still wrong.

If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist. In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist. You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma. You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.

You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.

You see? It is the definition which is important to you. You just can't see past your dogma.

You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.

Make up one that suits you.

I see fine. It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there. I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist. I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.

But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition. Dogma.

 

[Hollie]

Now you are getting it. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.

Oh, I got it before. Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding. You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe. I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian. So yes, I got it. You are still wrong.

If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist. In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist. You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma. You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.

You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.

You see? It is the definition which is important to you. You just can't see past your dogma.

Now you are getting it. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.

Oh, I got it before. Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding. You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe. I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian. So yes, I got it. You are still wrong.

If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist. In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist. You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma. You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.

You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.

You see? It is the definition which is important to you. You just can't see past your dogma.

You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.

Make up one that suits you.

I see fine. It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there. I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist. I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.

But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition. Dogma.

Now you are getting it. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.

Oh, I got it before. Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding. You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe. I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian. So yes, I got it. You are still wrong.

If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist. In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist. You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma. You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.

You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.

You see? It is the definition which is important to you. You just can't see past your dogma.

Now you are getting it. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.

Oh, I got it before. Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding. You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe. I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian. So yes, I got it. You are still wrong.

If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist. In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist. You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma. You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.

You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.

You see? It is the definition which is important to you. You just can't see past your dogma.

You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.

Make up one that suits you.

I see fine. It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there. I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist. I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.

But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition. Dogma.

You can't possibly still be confused with this. After 119 pages, your errors, misconceptions and bad analogies have been addressed at least a couple of dozen times now. This horse is not only dead, but has joined Eohippus as a Montanan fossil. Your religion of atheism obsession has taken on OCD-like proportions. As I noted earlier, make up any definition you wish. Do whatever it is that satiates your need and desire to equate nothing that approaches religion (atheism), with religion.

 

[PratchettFan]

Oh, I got it before. Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding. You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe. I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian. So yes, I got it. You are still wrong.

If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist. In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist. You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma. You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.

You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.

You see? It is the definition which is important to you. You just can't see past your dogma.

Oh, I got it before. Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding. You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe. I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian. So yes, I got it. You are still wrong.

If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist. In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist. You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma. You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.

You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.

You see? It is the definition which is important to you. You just can't see past your dogma.

You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.

Make up one that suits you.

I see fine. It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there. I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist. I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.

But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition. Dogma.

Oh, I got it before. Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding. You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe. I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian. So yes, I got it. You are still wrong.

If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist. In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist. You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma. You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.

You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.

You see? It is the definition which is important to you. You just can't see past your dogma.

Oh, I got it before. Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding. You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe. I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian. So yes, I got it. You are still wrong.

If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist. In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist. You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma. You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.

You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.

You see? It is the definition which is important to you. You just can't see past your dogma.

You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.

Make up one that suits you.

I see fine. It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there. I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist. I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.

But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition. Dogma.

You can't possibly still be confused with this. After 119 pages, your errors, misconceptions and bad analogies have been addressed at least a couple of dozen times now. This horse is not only dead, but has joined Eohippus as a Montanan fossil. Your religion of atheism obsession has taken on OCD-like proportions. As I noted earlier, make up any definition you wish. Do whatever it is that satiates your need and desire to equate nothing that approaches religion (atheism), with religion.

Changes nothing. You do not lack beliefs in god. Repeating the same mantra over and over again does not change that. So long as you insist that defining yourself as something makes you that something, you will continue to treat Atheism as a religion. I am not equating it, you are making it so. So long as you continue to insist your definition creates reality, I will continue to tell you that you are mistaken.

 

[Hollie]

You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.

You see? It is the definition which is important to you. You just can't see past your dogma.

You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.

You see? It is the definition which is important to you. You just can't see past your dogma.

You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.

Make up one that suits you.

I see fine. It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there. I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist. I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.

But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition. Dogma.

You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.

You see? It is the definition which is important to you. You just can't see past your dogma.

You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.

You see? It is the definition which is important to you. You just can't see past your dogma.

You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.

Make up one that suits you.

I see fine. It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there. I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist. I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.

But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition. Dogma.

You can't possibly still be confused with this. After 119 pages, your errors, misconceptions and bad analogies have been addressed at least a couple of dozen times now. This horse is not only dead, but has joined Eohippus as a Montanan fossil. Your religion of atheism obsession has taken on OCD-like proportions. As I noted earlier, make up any definition you wish. Do whatever it is that satiates your need and desire to equate nothing that approaches religion (atheism), with religion.

Changes nothing. You do not lack beliefs in god. Repeating the same mantra over and over again does not change that. So long as you insist that defining yourself as something makes you that something, you will continue to treat Atheism as a religion. I am not equating it, you are making it so. So long as you continue to insist your definition creates reality, I will continue to tell you that you are mistaken.

As I noted earlier, whatever definition you are comfortable with is fine. You seem to have some fetish about assigning definitions and even though you misapply those, it seems only you are obsessing over that.

You are, for some reason, concerned with definitions but seem negligent regarding your ability to actually apply your definitions in an appropriate manner.

 

[PratchettFan]

You see? It is the definition which is important to you. You just can't see past your dogma.

You see? It is the definition which is important to you. You just can't see past your dogma.

You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.

Make up one that suits you.

I see fine. It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there. I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist. I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.

But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition. Dogma.

You see? It is the definition which is important to you. You just can't see past your dogma.

You see? It is the definition which is important to you. You just can't see past your dogma.

You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.

Make up one that suits you.

I see fine. It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there. I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist. I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.

But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition. Dogma.

You can't possibly still be confused with this. After 119 pages, your errors, misconceptions and bad analogies have been addressed at least a couple of dozen times now. This horse is not only dead, but has joined Eohippus as a Montanan fossil. Your religion of atheism obsession has taken on OCD-like proportions. As I noted earlier, make up any definition you wish. Do whatever it is that satiates your need and desire to equate nothing that approaches religion (atheism), with religion.

Changes nothing. You do not lack beliefs in god. Repeating the same mantra over and over again does not change that. So long as you insist that defining yourself as something makes you that something, you will continue to treat Atheism as a religion. I am not equating it, you are making it so. So long as you continue to insist your definition creates reality, I will continue to tell you that you are mistaken.

As I noted earlier, whatever definition you are comfortable with is fine. You seem to have some fetish about assigning definitions and even though you misapply those, it seems only you are obsessing over that.

You are, for some reason, concerned with definitions but seem negligent regarding your ability to actually apply your definitions in an appropriate manner.

Changes nothing. You do not lack beliefs. Claiming you do lack beliefs solely on the basis of a definition is dogma. You have turned Atheism into a religion. I get you blame others for that, but it is all you.

 

[Hollie]

You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.

Make up one that suits you.

I see fine. It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there. I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist. I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.

But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition. Dogma.

You're not seeing clearly. It was your post that was complaining about definitions. I noted very clearly that you can apply any definition you wish.

Make up one that suits you.

I see fine. It is you who seem to be reading what you want rather than what is there. I said if the definition you insist upon is true, then you are not an Atheist. I am applying your definition to your posts, and the posts of Sealy and Carla.

But again, rather than focus on what has been said, you want to focus on the definition. Dogma.

You can't possibly still be confused with this. After 119 pages, your errors, misconceptions and bad analogies have been addressed at least a couple of dozen times now. This horse is not only dead, but has joined Eohippus as a Montanan fossil. Your religion of atheism obsession has taken on OCD-like proportions. As I noted earlier, make up any definition you wish. Do whatever it is that satiates your need and desire to equate nothing that approaches religion (atheism), with religion.

Changes nothing. You do not lack beliefs in god. Repeating the same mantra over and over again does not change that. So long as you insist that defining yourself as something makes you that something, you will continue to treat Atheism as a religion. I am not equating it, you are making it so. So long as you continue to insist your definition creates reality, I will continue to tell you that you are mistaken.

As I noted earlier, whatever definition you are comfortable with is fine. You seem to have some fetish about assigning definitions and even though you misapply those, it seems only you are obsessing over that.

You are, for some reason, concerned with definitions but seem negligent regarding your ability to actually apply your definitions in an appropriate manner.

Changes nothing. You do not lack beliefs. Claiming you do lack beliefs solely on the basis of a definition is dogma. You have turned Atheism into a religion. I get you blame others for that, but it is all you.

It changes everything, actually. You simply need an audience for your dogma. It is you who has turned atheism into a religion. You press your dogma with the zeal of the true extremist.

 

[sealybobo]

I come pretty close to it on USMB that's for sure.

I'm not talking about here. You said you try to convert others. I am taking what you say as true. You certainly know what you do and the motives behind it far better than I possibly can. If a Christian attempts to convert others, he's an evangelist. If an Atheist does exactly the same thing, then how is he not an evangelist? If I attempted to convert you to Buddhism, how would I not be an evangelist?

How is it different? As different as straight and gay marriage.

Actually more different. Polar opposites. If anything it is anti evalelizing. Just as different as atheist and theist are, so is what we're doing compared to you.

And I would love nothing more to learn how to wake more people up. For now, I have to let it happen naturally and gradually over time. First it was the North East part of the country, now it's the NE and NW parts of the country. The last will be the bible belt hold outs. But even them one day their kids are going to evolve into smarter more progressive people one would assume. But then again, if it takes a red neck 1000 years to evolve, it'll take the Muslims 5000. We're in for a long enlightenment period where humans no longer cling to irrational thoughts passed on to them from their stupid ancestors who were fooled into believing a lie because they were DUMB!

I see. You are doing exactly the same thing but it is entirely different.

Now you are getting it. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.

Oh, I got it before. Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding. You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe. I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian. So yes, I got it. You are still wrong.

If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist. In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist. You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma. You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.

No actually one of the biggest problems I had with the Christian story is all non believers wouldn't go to heaven. I could not imagine every Chinese and Russian and Muslim burning in hell.

Your Christian religion is the reason Joseph Smith was able to convert so many people away from your traditional "corrupt" churches and go join his cult. Same thing I'm saying about your religion is the same thing God told Joseph Smith about it. Why mad at me?

As for your comments, please explain to me what I'm missing. How are you the closest thing to an atheist? Explain what you mean please. How come the definition isn't important? You've peaked my interest.

 

[sealybobo]

I'm not talking about here. You said you try to convert others. I am taking what you say as true. You certainly know what you do and the motives behind it far better than I possibly can. If a Christian attempts to convert others, he's an evangelist. If an Atheist does exactly the same thing, then how is he not an evangelist? If I attempted to convert you to Buddhism, how would I not be an evangelist?

How is it different? As different as straight and gay marriage.

Actually more different. Polar opposites. If anything it is anti evalelizing. Just as different as atheist and theist are, so is what we're doing compared to you.

And I would love nothing more to learn how to wake more people up. For now, I have to let it happen naturally and gradually over time. First it was the North East part of the country, now it's the NE and NW parts of the country. The last will be the bible belt hold outs. But even them one day their kids are going to evolve into smarter more progressive people one would assume. But then again, if it takes a red neck 1000 years to evolve, it'll take the Muslims 5000. We're in for a long enlightenment period where humans no longer cling to irrational thoughts passed on to them from their stupid ancestors who were fooled into believing a lie because they were DUMB!

I see. You are doing exactly the same thing but it is entirely different.

Now you are getting it. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. If I was running around telling everyone a fairy was up my butt and it is telling me to tell people about him and you saw I was winning people over and eventually our society started passing public policies based on what this fairy tells me and we have even gone to war over what this fairy tells me, you going around trying to wake people up from whatever brainwashing I've done to them is not the same thing as what I'm doing.

Oh, I got it before. Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding. You think that because you believe something that makes it true and superior to what others believe. I'm sure you felt exactly the same way when you were a Christian. So yes, I got it. You are still wrong.

If the definition of Atheism you, Hollie and Carla have put forward is accurate, then not one of you is an Atheist. In fact, probably the closest thing to an Atheist here, by that definition, is me - and I am a Theist. You don't see it because you consider the definition itself to be the important thing, which is the case with dogma. You can't resolve the conflict it creates, so you just pretend it isn't there.

You always have the option of embracing any definition you wish and convincing yourself it applies. Make up a definition you're comfortable with and consider it a success.

What about them? This brings the best of religion and leaves the worst out inside the atheist church hoping to take America by storm - video World news The Guardian

I do see some benefits to us organizing.

Same way for years gays said they didn't care about getting married and then they realized the tax benefits, rights of a spouse, etc. There are benefits to being a "religion". What do you say?

But then with gay marriage comes divorce which no one likes. And with religion comes us having to be lumped in with the rest of them.

But then at least we would be an option for people when they are young and finding their way. I think after they tell the Noah and Adam stories on the street corner from some evangelizer, that kid should hear why that guy is full of shit. Point out the holes in his story. Explain they are emotionally brainwashing you with that shit about hell and heaven.

The song shouldn't have been Blinding Me With Science it should have been with RELIGION. LOL