Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[PostmodernProph]

You are just blanket saying that all 46 have no merit.

of course I am.....none of them have merit......

We all know that the bible was written by hearsay.

no we don't all know it....some atheist somewhere claimed it and you keep repeating it......what we know is that that particular argument is one of those without merit.....

Fuck all 46 arguments.

I'm pretty sure that's been the plan all along.......all of them are worthless.....

What more proof should I need?

One item of real evidence......just as I asked for before......

So you don't believe the majority of scholars when they admit that, for example:

Authorship of the Bible - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

According to tradition and early church fathers, the author of Mark is Mark the Evangelist, the companion of the apostle Peter. The gospel, however, appears to rely on several underlying sources, varying in form and in theology, and which tells against the tradition that the gospel was based on Peter's preaching. Various elements within the gospel, including the importance of the authority of Peter and the broadness of the basic theology, suggest that the author wrote in Syria or Palestine for a non-Jewish Christian community which had earlier absorbed the influence of pre-Pauline beliefs and then developed them further independent of Paul.

In other words Mark didn't write Mark.

And Matthew, Luke & John didn't write their books either. Amazing so many Christians don't know this. But even the ones who do somehow are able to explain it away.

All claims of Jesus come from hearsay.

Did Jesus exist

obviously I'm not stupid enough to believe that a majority of scholars actually believe that.....I will concede a majority of atheist scholars believe that.....but after all, who actually listens to atheists who claim to be scholars of biblical theology.........

 

[PostmodernProph]

The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument, is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical ‘cause’ have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the ‘cause’ a specific god?, Why can’t the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?

only a god could be a 'cause'......
......the universe can't be causeless because it had a beginning......what other explanations do you suggest?.....shit happening randomly?......

Only a god could be a cause? That's what they said about lightening.

that would be the abiogenesis guys......lightning strikes a mud puddle and life crawls out......

Nope. Per you YEC'ists, the gawds just snapped their eternal digits 6,000 years ago and all of existence was set in place.

If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe

of course to do that one has to completely disregard the scientific method........

 

[Hollie]

only a god could be a 'cause'......
......the universe can't be causeless because it had a beginning......what other explanations do you suggest?.....shit happening randomly?......

Only a god could be a cause? That's what they said about lightening.

that would be the abiogenesis guys......lightning strikes a mud puddle and life crawls out......

Nope. Per you YEC'ists, the gawds just snapped their eternal digits 6,000 years ago and all of existence was set in place.

If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe

of course to do that one has to completely disregard the scientific method........

You YEC'ists do that with literal interpretations of bible tales and fables.

 

[Hollie]

You are just blanket saying that all 46 have no merit.

of course I am.....none of them have merit......

We all know that the bible was written by hearsay.

no we don't all know it....some atheist somewhere claimed it and you keep repeating it......what we know is that that particular argument is one of those without merit.....

Fuck all 46 arguments.

I'm pretty sure that's been the plan all along.......all of them are worthless.....

What more proof should I need?

One item of real evidence......just as I asked for before......

So you don't believe the majority of scholars when they admit that, for example:

Authorship of the Bible - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

According to tradition and early church fathers, the author of Mark is Mark the Evangelist, the companion of the apostle Peter. The gospel, however, appears to rely on several underlying sources, varying in form and in theology, and which tells against the tradition that the gospel was based on Peter's preaching. Various elements within the gospel, including the importance of the authority of Peter and the broadness of the basic theology, suggest that the author wrote in Syria or Palestine for a non-Jewish Christian community which had earlier absorbed the influence of pre-Pauline beliefs and then developed them further independent of Paul.

In other words Mark didn't write Mark.

And Matthew, Luke & John didn't write their books either. Amazing so many Christians don't know this. But even the ones who do somehow are able to explain it away.

All claims of Jesus come from hearsay.

Did Jesus exist

obviously I'm not stupid enough to believe that a majority of scholars actually believe that.....I will concede a majority of atheist scholars believe that.....but after all, who actually listens to atheists who claim to be scholars of biblical theology.........

Yeah, you're stupid enough. Give yourself credit for that.

 

[sealybobo]

You are just blanket saying that all 46 have no merit.

of course I am.....none of them have merit......

We all know that the bible was written by hearsay.

no we don't all know it....some atheist somewhere claimed it and you keep repeating it......what we know is that that particular argument is one of those without merit.....

Fuck all 46 arguments.

I'm pretty sure that's been the plan all along.......all of them are worthless.....

What more proof should I need?

One item of real evidence......just as I asked for before......

So you don't believe the majority of scholars when they admit that, for example:

Authorship of the Bible - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

According to tradition and early church fathers, the author of Mark is Mark the Evangelist, the companion of the apostle Peter. The gospel, however, appears to rely on several underlying sources, varying in form and in theology, and which tells against the tradition that the gospel was based on Peter's preaching. Various elements within the gospel, including the importance of the authority of Peter and the broadness of the basic theology, suggest that the author wrote in Syria or Palestine for a non-Jewish Christian community which had earlier absorbed the influence of pre-Pauline beliefs and then developed them further independent of Paul.

In other words Mark didn't write Mark.

And Matthew, Luke & John didn't write their books either. Amazing so many Christians don't know this. But even the ones who do somehow are able to explain it away.

All claims of Jesus come from hearsay.

Did Jesus exist

obviously I'm not stupid enough to believe that a majority of scholars actually believe that.....I will concede a majority of atheist scholars believe that.....but after all, who actually listens to atheists who claim to be scholars of biblical theology.........

So basically only Christians believe that the bible was written by Paul or John or Luke. The rest of the world admits/understands that AT LEAST someone else wrote the words. You can not honestly say you believe that John or Paul took pen to paper. You'd have to be a fool to think that. But that's EXACTLY what TCT is saying! LIARS! Flat out LIARS! The Gospel According to Paul, only Paul didn't write Paul. Amazing you don't know it.

I say it wasn't even from Paul's mouth to the writers pen/paper. I'm saying it was 2 or 3 or 4 generations later and people started writing about what happened to Jesus. 80 plus years later. So not even 2nd hand accounts. This my friend is hearsay.

Anyways, I just found this and realize this is why you guys are religious. The primary psychological role of traditional religion is deathist rationalization, that is, rationalizing the tragedy of death as a good thing to alleviate the anxiety of mortality.

 

[sealybobo]

And not even all Christians believe the Gospels were first hand accounts. But that doesn't stop them from being Christians and I doubt it will stop you. You'll just explain that one away in your minds just like most of you don't believe the Noah story anymore but still you believe God had to come to earth via Mary's vagina.

 

[PostmodernProph]

I say it wasn't even from Paul's mouth to the writers pen/paper.

well, there you have it....since you've said it (or read it from some AtheistsRUs website), is there really any reason to go on with life?.....its been decided.....

 

[sealybobo]

I say it wasn't even from Paul's mouth to the writers pen/paper.

well, there you have it....since you've said it (or read it from some AtheistsRUs website), is there really any reason to go on with life?.....its been decided.....

You better go on with life! Why would you piss away this rare brief moment you have? When it's over it is OVER. Better enjoy it.

Lots of reasons to go on without god as a matter of fact "when I became convinced that the universe was natural, that all the ghosts and gods were myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell. The dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles turned to dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world, not even in infinite space.

I was free to think. Free to express my thoughts, free to live in my own ideal. Free to live for myself and those I loved. Free to use all my faculties, all my senses. Free to spread imagination’s wings, free to investigate, to guess, and dream and hope. Free to judge and determine for myself. Free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the inspired books that savages have produced, and the barbarous legends of the past. Free from sanctified mistakes and “holy” lies. Free from the fear of eternal pain, free from the winged monsters of the night. Free from devils, ghosts and gods. For the first time I was free.

There were no prohibited places in all of the realm of thought. No error, no space where fancy could not spread her painted wings. No chains for my limbs. No lashes for my back. No flames for my flesh. No Master’s frown or threat, no following in another’s steps. No need to bow or cringe or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free; I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously faced all worlds.

My heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heros, the thinkers who gave their lives for liberty of hand and brain, for the freedom of labor and thought to those who fell on the fierce fields of war. To those who died in dungeons, bound in chains, to those by fire consumed, to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then, I vowed to grasp the torch that they held, and hold it high, That light might conquer darkness still.

-Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You are just blanket saying that all 46 have no merit.

of course I am.....none of them have merit......

We all know that the bible was written by hearsay.

no we don't all know it....some atheist somewhere claimed it and you keep repeating it......what we know is that that particular argument is one of those without merit.....

Fuck all 46 arguments.

I'm pretty sure that's been the plan all along.......all of them are worthless.....

What more proof should I need?

One item of real evidence......just as I asked for before......

So you don't believe the majority of scholars when they admit that, for example:

Authorship of the Bible - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

According to tradition and early church fathers, the author of Mark is Mark the Evangelist, the companion of the apostle Peter. The gospel, however, appears to rely on several underlying sources, varying in form and in theology, and which tells against the tradition that the gospel was based on Peter's preaching. Various elements within the gospel, including the importance of the authority of Peter and the broadness of the basic theology, suggest that the author wrote in Syria or Palestine for a non-Jewish Christian community which had earlier absorbed the influence of pre-Pauline beliefs and then developed them further independent of Paul.

In other words Mark didn't write Mark.

And Matthew, Luke & John didn't write their books either. Amazing so many Christians don't know this. But even the ones who do somehow are able to explain it away.

All claims of Jesus come from hearsay.

Did Jesus exist

obviously I'm not stupid enough to believe that a majority of scholars actually believe that.....I will concede a majority of atheist scholars believe that.....but after all, who actually listens to atheists who claim to be scholars of biblical theology.........

So basically only Christians believe that the bible was written by Paul or John or Luke. The rest of the world admits/understands that AT LEAST someone else wrote the words. You can not honestly say you believe that John or Paul took pen to paper. You'd have to be a fool to think that. But that's EXACTLY what TCT is saying! LIARS! Flat out LIARS! The Gospel According to Paul, only Paul didn't write Paul. Amazing you don't know it.

I say it wasn't even from Paul's mouth to the writers pen/paper. I'm saying it was 2 or 3 or 4 generations later and people started writing about what happened to Jesus. 80 plus years later. So not even 2nd hand accounts. This my friend is hearsay.

Anyways, I just found this and realize this is why you guys are religious. The primary psychological role of traditional religion is deathist rationalization, that is, rationalizing the tragedy of death as a good thing to alleviate the anxiety of mortality.

And, of course, you'd be totally wrong

 

[doniston1]

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

Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.


re·li·gion
riˈlijən/
noun

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

   synonyms:

   faith, belief, worship, creed; More

   [TBODY] [/TBODY]

Atheism may not in itself be a religion, but atheists may have a religion, I know, because I am one and I do have a religion. I have absolute faith and belief in a higher power, but it is not a deity. It is natural phenomina and described and proven by science.

 

[Inevitable]

There are two religions that are atheist, atheist in the strictest sense that they don't believe in a god or gods.

One is scientology, which is really a cult. And the other is LaVey's church of Satan. I am not familiar with other satanic churches but LaVey states and believes that gods were created by man and therefore don't exist. Thus instead of having a religion based on the worshipping of a god the church focuses on teachings regarding the true nature of man. And it holds that gods are fiction.

 

[Carla_Danger]

There are two religions that are atheist, atheist in the strictest sense that they don't believe in a god or gods.

One is scientology, which is really a cult. And the other is LaVey's church of Satan. I am not familiar with other satanic churches but LaVey states and believes that gods were created by man and therefore don't exist. Thus instead of having a religion based on the worshipping of a god the church focuses on teachings regarding the true nature of man. And it holds that gods are fiction.

You need to do a little more research. Atheism is not Satanism, and I don't care what LaVey's Church of Satan says. Ridiculous.

 

[Esmeralda]

Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.

Oh, this is absolute nonsense. There is no empirical evidence of a god. In science, nothing is proven without empirical evidence. Your assertions, logically, would mean that everything science disproves because there is no empirical evidence to prove it is actually only a belief of 'faith.'

 

[Esmeralda]

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

Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.


re·li·gion
riˈlijən/
noun

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

   synonyms:

   faith, belief, worship, creed; More

   [TBODY] [/TBODY]

You should try being honest for once maybe, and post the ENTIRE defintion


Full Definition of RELIGION
1
a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>

b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

number 4 certainly covers the militant atheists out there.

Have you noticed that every time you disagree with me, you are wrong?

Boy, these people are really nutso. Based on this, believing strongly and with ardor and faith in babies coming from a pumpkin patch is a religion. Interesting.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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

Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.


re·li·gion
riˈlijən/
noun

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

   synonyms:

   faith, belief, worship, creed; More

   [TBODY] [/TBODY]

You should try being honest for once maybe, and post the ENTIRE defintion


Full Definition of RELIGION
1
a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>

b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

number 4 certainly covers the militant atheists out there.

Have you noticed that every time you disagree with me, you are wrong?

Boy, these people are really nutso. Based on this, believing strongly and with ardor and faith in babies coming from a pumpkin patch is a religion. Interesting.

I like that. I'm gonna have to write that one down.

 

[PratchettFan]

Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.

Oh, this is absolute nonsense. There is no empirical evidence of a god. In science, nothing is proven without empirical evidence. Your assertions, logically, would mean that everything science disproves because there is no empirical evidence to prove it is actually only a belief of 'faith.'

No, that would mean a bad application of science. A lack of empirical evidence to prove something does not disprove it. At least not if you want to claim you are using science.

 

[Inevitable]

There are two religions that are atheist, atheist in the strictest sense that they don't believe in a god or gods.

One is scientology, which is really a cult. And the other is LaVey's church of Satan. I am not familiar with other satanic churches but LaVey states and believes that gods were created by man and therefore don't exist. Thus instead of having a religion based on the worshipping of a god the church focuses on teachings regarding the true nature of man. And it holds that gods are fiction.

You need to do a little more research. Atheism is not Satanism, and I don't care what LaVey's Church of Satan says. Ridiculous.

Yet Anton LeVay's Satanic church is atheist. They don't worship a deity, they have no theism.

I am not saying that all satanists are atheist, or that atheism is Satanism. Just that The Church of Satan is atheist in their practice.

I honestly don't see a real difference between the views. Atheism is without theistic deities.

And further I don't see the church of Satan as necessarily negative. It's a religion by the standard that any religion is.

So I really don't see what the problem is. If atheists share the views of LeVay's "church" why then are you offended by it being called an atheist "church" if these deities don't exist why worry?

You said nothing about scientology being an atheist religion I personally would be far more insulted by being compared to scientology.

 

[emilynghiem]

There are two religions that are atheist, atheist in the strictest sense that they don't believe in a god or gods.

One is scientology, which is really a cult. And the other is LaVey's church of Satan. I am not familiar with other satanic churches but LaVey states and believes that gods were created by man and therefore don't exist. Thus instead of having a religion based on the worshipping of a god the church focuses on teachings regarding the true nature of man. And it holds that gods are fiction.

You need to do a little more research. Atheism is not Satanism, and I don't care what LaVey's Church of Satan says. Ridiculous.

Hi Carla_Danger
It's the other way.

Inevitable is saying that the LaVey church of Satan is an Atheist religion.

That is like saying a Tabby cat is a Feline.
He is NOT saying all Felines are Tabby cats.

I think his points are interesting.

With Scientology I thought they did believe in God,
but if they teach there is no God that could count as an Atheist religion.

I totally get what Inevitable is saying. Very good!

Carla_Danger this actually HELPS your argument
if you can show how most Atheists are NOT like this.

some people believe Liberalism or Secular Humanism
is a godless religion, or political systems like Marxist or socialism/communism etc.
are political beliefs or religions.

So if you make a religion out of rejecting or replacing God with something else,
like using Government instead of God, that could be why this comes across as
making a Religion out of whatever you believe or don't believe in.

This explains a lot, how to determine the difference!

Thanks!

 

[emilynghiem]

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

Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.


re·li·gion
riˈlijən/
noun

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

   synonyms:

   faith, belief, worship, creed; More

   [TBODY] [/TBODY]

You should try being honest for once maybe, and post the ENTIRE defintion


Full Definition of RELIGION
1
a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>

b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

number 4 certainly covers the militant atheists out there.

Have you noticed that every time you disagree with me, you are wrong?

Boy, these people are really nutso. Based on this, believing strongly and with ardor and faith in babies coming from a pumpkin patch is a religion. Interesting.

Yes Esmeralda, it CAN become a religion.

Just like depending on Government for rights and health care
has been legislated and mandated as a National Religion
that all taxpayers must buy into or be fined by penalties.

If you believe that "health care is a right" and make that your creed
to put your authority in Govt to mandate this, then you have made that your religion.

Some people make the Second Amendment their religion.
Some the separation of church or state, or state from federal,
or "limited govt" their religious creed. Prochoice and Prolife
are as vigilant in defending their views and faith in what they believe to be
natural rights, as Hindus and Muslims willing to go to war.

Whatever you worship as absolute and inalienable
CAN BECOME your religion.

 

[Esmeralda]

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

Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.


re·li·gion
riˈlijən/
noun

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

   synonyms:

   faith, belief, worship, creed; More

   [TBODY] [/TBODY]

You should try being honest for once maybe, and post the ENTIRE defintion


Full Definition of RELIGION
1
a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>

b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

number 4 certainly covers the militant atheists out there.

Have you noticed that every time you disagree with me, you are wrong?

Boy, these people are really nutso. Based on this, believing strongly and with ardor and faith in babies coming from a pumpkin patch is a religion. Interesting.

Yes Esmeralda, it CAN become a religion.

Just like depending on Government for rights and health care
has been legislated and mandated as a National Religion
that all taxpayers must buy into or be fined by penalties.

If you believe that "health care is a right" and make that your creed
to put your authority in Govt to mandate this, then you have made that your religion.

Some people make the Second Amendment their religion.
Some the separation of church or state, or state from federal,
or "limited govt" their religious creed. Prochoice and Prolife
are as vigilant in defending their views and faith in what they believe to be
natural rights, as Hindus and Muslims willing to go to war.

Whatever you worship as absolute and inalienable
CAN BECOME your religion.