Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[sealybobo]

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 is right. I can't wait for you to get past this "gocha" moment you think you are in about definitions and dogma. We got it lady. Now explain further because clearly we don't get what you are getting at! Maybe if you explained further??? Just don't make it too long. Elevator pitch.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

What has been said? Oh that even most atheists are admittedly agnostic atheists? That's because you would have to be a god yourself to know that for sure.

Most ATHEISTS are ATHEIST about any and all organized religions. So if you are talking generic god, I'm an agnostic atheist. If you are talking about Jesus, Mo or Jo Smith I'm an atheist. Don't buy one word of it.

The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief such as the Jesus Mo or Jo stories, is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

 

[sealybobo]

I can't even say 100% sure that there were no talking snakes or 350 year old men so I guess I can't even be a true atheist about Jesus Mo or Jo. I wasn't there.

But then again I'd have to see that shit to believe it so I'm as close to 100% as you can get. Is that what we are arguing over? Less than 1%?

 

[sealybobo]

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.

You do agree though it would be impossible to say 100% for sure there is no generic thing that made everything we see? To KNOW that you'd have to be a god yourself. So even most atheists admit that. But as far as believing any organized religion that has ever been on this planet, we are as sure as we can be those are all 100% sure of it.

So sure I guess we are even willing to bet our souls that it is, right? So tell that bitch to shut the hell up. As far as her beliefs go, we're so fucking sure we're willing to burn in hell for eternity if we are right.

I wish they had to give something up if they are wrong. Wouldn't that be cool? We go to hell if there is a god and they go to hell if there isn't.

 

[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.

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.

I'm not a Christian. Unlike you, I have never been a Christian. I have told you this many times.

I am the closest thing to an Atheist under the definition that an Atheist is one who lacks beliefs in gods because I really don't give a damn whether or not there is a God. I fully admit that there is zero evidence to support either side of the issue, so the chances of either being correct is the same - 50/50. The only way one can actually lack beliefs in gods is if one is entirely neutral on the subject, because any position other than neutrality is a belief.

The definition is not important because what you are is what you are, not what you say you are. I can define myself as anything I like, but that does not make me that thing. I can define Buddhism as the attainment of spiritual perfection, but that does not mean by calling myself a Buddhist that I have attained spiritual perfection.

If you lack beliefs in gods, it is only true if you actually lack beliefs in gods. If your only support to that claim is because you define yourself as lacking beliefs, then it is a worthless claim. If while you are defining yourself as such you continue to make claims which are beliefs, then the claim is false. It is not the definition which makes you what you are.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

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.

The only dogma I have presented here is that any conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief. Do you dispute that?

 

[PratchettFan]

I can't even say 100% sure that there were no talking snakes or 350 year old men so I guess I can't even be a true atheist about Jesus Mo or Jo. I wasn't there.

But then again I'd have to see that shit to believe it so I'm as close to 100% as you can get. Is that what we are arguing over? Less than 1%?

No, that you are a believer has been established. Your willingness to concede there is a 1% chance your belief is wrong does not make it any less a belief. What we are arguing over is this unquestioned adherence to a definition and the insistence that the definition creates reality. This is the essence of dogma and dogma is one of the attributes of religion.

The definition given is that Atheists lack beliefs in gods. You clearly don't lack beliefs but you go back and forth on admitting this because it conflicts with the definition. Dogma.

It is said Atheists don't evangelize. You have admitted you do exactly that, but you deny it is evangelizing (though you agree you are doing exactly what evangelists do) because you are an Atheist and Atheists don't evangelize. Dogma.

Atheism as the belief there is no God (and you can only arrive at that conclusion via belief) is not religion. It's just a belief and as valid as any other belief. It is this dogmatic approach that an Atheist's beliefs aren't beliefs because Atheists lack beliefs that takes what is just a belief and transforms it into religion. Now you are setting up standards that "this is what an Atheist is" and "they are doing Atheism wrong", and that is nothing but dogma.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

You do agree though it would be impossible to say 100% for sure there is no generic thing that made everything we see? To KNOW that you'd have to be a god yourself. So even most atheists admit that. But as far as believing any organized religion that has ever been on this planet, we are as sure as we can be those are all 100% sure of it.

So sure I guess we are even willing to bet our souls that it is, right? So tell that bitch to shut the hell up. As far as her beliefs go, we're so fucking sure we're willing to burn in hell for eternity if we are right.

I wish they had to give something up if they are wrong. Wouldn't that be cool? We go to hell if there is a god and they go to hell if there isn't.

There is no hell. There is no Christian God. I'm 100% certain of that. Not a shred of doubt in my mind. Why is there doubt in yours?

 

[Hollie]

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.

The only dogma I have presented here is that any conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief. Do you dispute that?

That's been disputed and refuted throughout this thread. How many more times do you need that spelled out?

 

[Hollie]

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.

You do agree though it would be impossible to say 100% for sure there is no generic thing that made everything we see? To KNOW that you'd have to be a god yourself. So even most atheists admit that. But as far as believing any organized religion that has ever been on this planet, we are as sure as we can be those are all 100% sure of it.

So sure I guess we are even willing to bet our souls that it is, right? So tell that bitch to shut the hell up. As far as her beliefs go, we're so fucking sure we're willing to burn in hell for eternity if we are right.

I wish they had to give something up if they are wrong. Wouldn't that be cool? We go to hell if there is a god and they go to hell if there isn't.

There is no hell. There is no Christian God. I'm 100% certain of that. Not a shred of doubt in my mind. Why is there doubt in yours?

Such is the religious belief of you A-Christians.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

The only dogma I have presented here is that any conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief. Do you dispute that?

That's been disputed and refuted throughout this thread. How many more times do you need that spelled out?

One more time. How is a conclusion made in the absence of evidence not a belief?

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

You do agree though it would be impossible to say 100% for sure there is no generic thing that made everything we see? To KNOW that you'd have to be a god yourself. So even most atheists admit that. But as far as believing any organized religion that has ever been on this planet, we are as sure as we can be those are all 100% sure of it.

So sure I guess we are even willing to bet our souls that it is, right? So tell that bitch to shut the hell up. As far as her beliefs go, we're so fucking sure we're willing to burn in hell for eternity if we are right.

I wish they had to give something up if they are wrong. Wouldn't that be cool? We go to hell if there is a god and they go to hell if there isn't.

There is no hell. There is no Christian God. I'm 100% certain of that. Not a shred of doubt in my mind. Why is there doubt in yours?

Such is the religious belief of you A-Christians.

Yes. I am quite capable of discerning the difference between what I believe and what I know and admitting I have beliefs doesn't bother me at all. Why does it bother you so much?

 

[sealybobo]

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.

I'm not a Christian. Unlike you, I have never been a Christian. I have told you this many times.

I am the closest thing to an Atheist under the definition that an Atheist is one who lacks beliefs in gods because I really don't give a damn whether or not there is a God. I fully admit that there is zero evidence to support either side of the issue, so the chances of either being correct is the same - 50/50. The only way one can actually lack beliefs in gods is if one is entirely neutral on the subject, because any position other than neutrality is a belief.

The definition is not important because what you are is what you are, not what you say you are. I can define myself as anything I like, but that does not make me that thing. I can define Buddhism as the attainment of spiritual perfection, but that does not mean by calling myself a Buddhist that I have attained spiritual perfection.

If you lack beliefs in gods, it is only true if you actually lack beliefs in gods. If your only support to that claim is because you define yourself as lacking beliefs, then it is a worthless claim. If while you are defining yourself as such you continue to make claims which are beliefs, then the claim is false. It is not the definition which makes you what you are.

The only difference between you and me then is that I do give a damn because I think the idea is bad for people.

But I see what you are saying now:

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Implicit atheism is defined by Smith as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". Explicit atheism is defined as "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it"

Explicit atheists have considered the idea of deities and have rejected belief that any exist. Implicit atheists thus either have not given the idea of deities much consideration, or, though they do not believe, have not rejected belief.

Number 24 on the list. This is the best site ever. Answers every question. Why there is no god

 

[sealybobo]

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.

You do agree though it would be impossible to say 100% for sure there is no generic thing that made everything we see? To KNOW that you'd have to be a god yourself. So even most atheists admit that. But as far as believing any organized religion that has ever been on this planet, we are as sure as we can be those are all 100% sure of it.

So sure I guess we are even willing to bet our souls that it is, right? So tell that bitch to shut the hell up. As far as her beliefs go, we're so fucking sure we're willing to burn in hell for eternity if we are right.

I wish they had to give something up if they are wrong. Wouldn't that be cool? We go to hell if there is a god and they go to hell if there isn't.

There is no hell. There is no Christian God. I'm 100% certain of that. Not a shred of doubt in my mind. Why is there doubt in yours?

Smith defines implicit atheism as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". "Absence of theistic belief" encompasses all forms of non-belief in deities. This would categorize as implicit atheists those adults who have never heard of the concept of deities, and those adults who have not given the idea any real consideration. Also included are agnostics who assert they do not believe in any deities (even if they claim not to be atheists)

vs me:

Smith observes that some motivations for explicit atheism are rational and some not. Of the rational motivations, he says:

The most significant variety of atheism is explicit atheism of a philosophical nature. This atheism contends that the belief in god is irrational and should therefore be rejected. Since this version of explicit atheism rests on a criticism of theistic beliefs, it is best described as critical atheism.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

You do agree though it would be impossible to say 100% for sure there is no generic thing that made everything we see? To KNOW that you'd have to be a god yourself. So even most atheists admit that. But as far as believing any organized religion that has ever been on this planet, we are as sure as we can be those are all 100% sure of it.

So sure I guess we are even willing to bet our souls that it is, right? So tell that bitch to shut the hell up. As far as her beliefs go, we're so fucking sure we're willing to burn in hell for eternity if we are right.

I wish they had to give something up if they are wrong. Wouldn't that be cool? We go to hell if there is a god and they go to hell if there isn't.

There is no hell. There is no Christian God. I'm 100% certain of that. Not a shred of doubt in my mind. Why is there doubt in yours?

Such is the religious belief of you A-Christians.

OMG! Smith actually argues the opposite of what Prachett is saying! It is he/she who is not the true atheist!

For Smith, explicit atheism is subdivided further into three groups:

• a) the view usually expressed by the statement "I do not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being";
• b) the view usually expressed by the statement "God does not exist" or "the existence of God is impossible"; and
• c) the view which "refuses to discuss the existence of a god" because "the concept of a god is unintelligible" (p. 17).[1]

Although, as mentioned above, Nagel opposes identifying what Smith calls "implicit atheism" as atheism, the two authors do very much agree on the three-part subdivision of "explicit atheism" above, though Nagel does not use the term "explicit"

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

You do agree though it would be impossible to say 100% for sure there is no generic thing that made everything we see? To KNOW that you'd have to be a god yourself. So even most atheists admit that. But as far as believing any organized religion that has ever been on this planet, we are as sure as we can be those are all 100% sure of it.

So sure I guess we are even willing to bet our souls that it is, right? So tell that bitch to shut the hell up. As far as her beliefs go, we're so fucking sure we're willing to burn in hell for eternity if we are right.

I wish they had to give something up if they are wrong. Wouldn't that be cool? We go to hell if there is a god and they go to hell if there isn't.

There is no hell. There is no Christian God. I'm 100% certain of that. Not a shred of doubt in my mind. Why is there doubt in yours?

Smith defines implicit atheism as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". "Absence of theistic belief" encompasses all forms of non-belief in deities. This would categorize as implicit atheists those adults who have never heard of the concept of deities, and those adults who have not given the idea any real consideration. Also included are agnostics who assert they do not believe in any deities (even if they claim not to be atheists)

vs me:

Smith observes that some motivations for explicit atheism are rational and some not. Of the rational motivations, he says:

The most significant variety of atheism is explicit atheism of a philosophical nature. This atheism contends that the belief in god is irrational and should therefore be rejected. Since this version of explicit atheism rests on a criticism of theistic beliefs, it is best described as critical atheism.

If by irrational it is meant the belief is based upon no evidence of any kind, I would agree. However, if a belief based upon no evidence of any kind is irrational, then that term must be applied to all such beliefs - which would includes Atheism.

This really has nothing to do with philosophy, it is a realistic examination of facts. If you want to look at a specific deity, or a specific attribute of a deity, sound arguments can be made about it. I think we can establish through hard evidence the sun is not Apollo riding his chariot across the sky. I think we can establish lightning is not Zeus throwing stuff around in a snit. But in terms of generality, the amount of information available to support either side is equal - zero. Whether one says there is or there is not, either position is equally irrational.

Consider a foot race and you are going to bet on the outcome. There are two racers, called racer a and racer b. Who the actual racers will be will be determined by drawing their name, at random, from a container with the name of every living human being on the planet. Who do you think will win, a or b? There is no way to judge that, so it is a 50/50 proposition. And in this situation, you at least have some information - which is more than you have regarding the existence of God. Yet you think you can come to a rational conclusion about the existence of God? The notion is absurd.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

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.

You do agree though it would be impossible to say 100% for sure there is no generic thing that made everything we see? To KNOW that you'd have to be a god yourself. So even most atheists admit that. But as far as believing any organized religion that has ever been on this planet, we are as sure as we can be those are all 100% sure of it.

So sure I guess we are even willing to bet our souls that it is, right? So tell that bitch to shut the hell up. As far as her beliefs go, we're so fucking sure we're willing to burn in hell for eternity if we are right.

I wish they had to give something up if they are wrong. Wouldn't that be cool? We go to hell if there is a god and they go to hell if there isn't.

There is no hell. There is no Christian God. I'm 100% certain of that. Not a shred of doubt in my mind. Why is there doubt in yours?

Such is the religious belief of you A-Christians.

OMG! Smith actually argues the opposite of what Prachett is saying! It is he/she who is not the true atheist!

For Smith, explicit atheism is subdivided further into three groups:

• a) the view usually expressed by the statement "I do not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being";
• b) the view usually expressed by the statement "God does not exist" or "the existence of God is impossible"; and
• c) the view which "refuses to discuss the existence of a god" because "the concept of a god is unintelligible" (p. 17).[1]

Although, as mentioned above, Nagel opposes identifying what Smith calls "implicit atheism" as atheism, the two authors do very much agree on the three-part subdivision of "explicit atheism" above, though Nagel does not use the term "explicit"

I never said I was a true Atheist. I said I was the closest here to meet the definition that an Atheist was one who lacked beliefs in gods. According to Smith, I would fall under "c".

 

[Hollie]

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.

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.

You do agree though it would be impossible to say 100% for sure there is no generic thing that made everything we see? To KNOW that you'd have to be a god yourself. So even most atheists admit that. But as far as believing any organized religion that has ever been on this planet, we are as sure as we can be those are all 100% sure of it.

So sure I guess we are even willing to bet our souls that it is, right? So tell that bitch to shut the hell up. As far as her beliefs go, we're so fucking sure we're willing to burn in hell for eternity if we are right.

I wish they had to give something up if they are wrong. Wouldn't that be cool? We go to hell if there is a god and they go to hell if there isn't.

There is no hell. There is no Christian God. I'm 100% certain of that. Not a shred of doubt in my mind. Why is there doubt in yours?

Such is the religious belief of you A-Christians.

Yes. I am quite capable of discerning the difference between what I believe and what I know and admitting I have beliefs doesn't bother me at all. Why does it bother you so much?

It bothers you immensely. It bothers you enough to make the same arguments that have been refuted relentlessly and tediously in now, 120 pages of this thread.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

You do agree though it would be impossible to say 100% for sure there is no generic thing that made everything we see? To KNOW that you'd have to be a god yourself. So even most atheists admit that. But as far as believing any organized religion that has ever been on this planet, we are as sure as we can be those are all 100% sure of it.

So sure I guess we are even willing to bet our souls that it is, right? So tell that bitch to shut the hell up. As far as her beliefs go, we're so fucking sure we're willing to burn in hell for eternity if we are right.

I wish they had to give something up if they are wrong. Wouldn't that be cool? We go to hell if there is a god and they go to hell if there isn't.

There is no hell. There is no Christian God. I'm 100% certain of that. Not a shred of doubt in my mind. Why is there doubt in yours?

Such is the religious belief of you A-Christians.

Yes. I am quite capable of discerning the difference between what I believe and what I know and admitting I have beliefs doesn't bother me at all. Why does it bother you so much?

It bothers you immensely. It bothers you enough to make the same arguments that have been refuted relentlessly and tediously in now, 120 pages of this thread.

Not refuted, just denied.

 

[Hollie]

You do agree though it would be impossible to say 100% for sure there is no generic thing that made everything we see? To KNOW that you'd have to be a god yourself. So even most atheists admit that. But as far as believing any organized religion that has ever been on this planet, we are as sure as we can be those are all 100% sure of it.

So sure I guess we are even willing to bet our souls that it is, right? So tell that bitch to shut the hell up. As far as her beliefs go, we're so fucking sure we're willing to burn in hell for eternity if we are right.

I wish they had to give something up if they are wrong. Wouldn't that be cool? We go to hell if there is a god and they go to hell if there isn't.

There is no hell. There is no Christian God. I'm 100% certain of that. Not a shred of doubt in my mind. Why is there doubt in yours?

Such is the religious belief of you A-Christians.

Yes. I am quite capable of discerning the difference between what I believe and what I know and admitting I have beliefs doesn't bother me at all. Why does it bother you so much?

It bothers you immensely. It bothers you enough to make the same arguments that have been refuted relentlessly and tediously in now, 120 pages of this thread.

Not refuted, just denied.

Denial is easier, right? It saves you the burdensome task of actually composing a coherent argument.