Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[sealybobo]

Don't Christians want to turn America into the Christian version of ISIS?

I don't know, lets see what the famous atheist Bill Maher thinks about that.



Damn, I guess that makes you an idiot.

Why am I not surprised?

I love it that our founding fathers were smart enough to keep religion away from government.

Why are you working so hard to undue their work then?

Oh, and I think I'm a Buddhist after reading this: "Do not accept anything on (mere) hearsay -- (i.e., thinking that thus have we heard it for a long time). Do not accept anything by mere tradition -- (i.e., thinking that it has thus been handed down through many generations). Do not accept anything on account of mere rumors -- (i.e., Miracles occured) Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures. Do not accept anything by mere suppositions. Do not accept anything by mere inference. Do not accept anything by merely considering the reasons. Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions. Do not accept anything merely because it seems acceptable.

Your basic problem is you think you think.

Anyone that converts to a religion based on hearsay, like you just said you do, is an idiot.

I will agree that Islam is about 200 years behind Christianity as far as being civilized. Same goes for the people.

So what? If I had to pick one I'd pick Christianity but it is still just the lesser of 1000 evils.

Actually I'd be a Buddhist because they say: "Do not accept anything on (mere) hearsay -- (i.e., thinking that thus have we heard it for a long time). Do not accept anything by mere tradition -- (i.e., thinking that it has thus been handed down through many generations). Do not accept anything on account of mere rumors -- (i.e., by believing what others say without any investigation). Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures. Do not accept anything by mere suppositions. Do not accept anything by mere inference. Do not accept anything by merely considering the reasons. Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions. Do not accept anything merely because it seems acceptable -- (i.e., thinking that as the speaker seems to be a good person his words should be accepted). Do not accept anything thinking that the ascetic is respected by us (therefore it is right to accept his word).

Because that's exactly what Christians do. They accept lies and impossible stories because they are told if you have faith in them you'll go to la la land forever when you die.

George Carlin was right. Religion is the greatest bullshit story ever told. youtube it and see why if you are a christian, it is you who's the fool or idiot.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Of course not. It is man made. Invented and constructed by man as opposed to occurring naturally. Iron ore is natural. Knives are not.

What is the intrinsic difference between a beaver dam and a dam made by man? What makes one natural, and the other unnatural? Defining natural in such a way that you exclude the works of human beings is, at best, simplistic.

to be fair, if you untangle a beaver's dam you still have recognizable sticks......if you unravel cotton fabric you still have natural fibers.....if you unravel rayon, you have plastic.....

 

[Carla_Danger]

I'm saying religions are used to lie to people.

George Bush God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq World news The Guardian

So is everything else in the world, do you have an actual point or are you just exhibiting your bigotry?

Did Bush really talk to god or is he delusional?

This is also a great example of how believing in god isn't always necessarily a good thing. Look at what god told bush to do. Now look where we're at. Fucking idiots.

He certainly should have spent more time educating himself, instead of talking to his imaginary friend.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I will agree that Islam is about 200 years behind Christianity as far as being civilized. Same goes for the people.

So what? If I had to pick one I'd pick Christianity but it is still just the lesser of 1000 evils.

Actually I'd be a Buddhist because they say: "Do not accept anything on (mere) hearsay -- (i.e., thinking that thus have we heard it for a long time). Do not accept anything by mere tradition -- (i.e., thinking that it has thus been handed down through many generations). Do not accept anything on account of mere rumors -- (i.e., by believing what others say without any investigation). Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures. Do not accept anything by mere suppositions. Do not accept anything by mere inference. Do not accept anything by merely considering the reasons. Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions. Do not accept anything merely because it seems acceptable -- (i.e., thinking that as the speaker seems to be a good person his words should be accepted). Do not accept anything thinking that the ascetic is respected by us (therefore it is right to accept his word).

Because that's exactly what Christians do. They accept lies and impossible stories because they are told if you have faith in them you'll go to la la land forever when you die.

George Carlin was right. Religion is the greatest bullshit story ever told. youtube it and see why if you are a christian, it is you who's the fool or idiot.

I love it when people tell me why I believe even less than I do when they tell me what I believe.

Until you sit down and talk to people that actually understand their beliefs you are a fool who thinks he knows everything.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

to be fair, if you untangle a beaver's dam you still have recognizable sticks......if you unravel cotton fabric you still have natural fibers.....if you unravel rayon, you have plastic.....

if you unravel the plastic you have genetic material, which is 100% natural.

 

[Pogo]

This just in: Atheism is not a religion. Breaking news.
Buddhists and Jainists and Taoists are all atheists; yet they are all different religions. And that's three religions --- not four.

Speaking as a Buddhist, you have that one wrong. I'm not a Jainist or Taoist so I don't feel I should speak for them. But aren't you just arguing that you can not believe in gods and still be in a religion?

Speaking as a Taoist/Jainist, no I have that one right.
Poorly constructed but yes I am saying you can not-believe in gods (i.e. not subscribe to theism) and still be in a religion.

Just as you can not-believe (not subscribe to) the concept of reincarnation and still be in a religion. Which does not make not-subscribing to reincarnation a "religion".

Same thing.

You have it wrong for Buddhism. It is not Atheistic.

Really....
It's a tangent but do you want to name the Buddhist "god(s)"?
I'm not a Buddhist, I only know what I read and observe from Buddhist friends and roommates. None of which indicates theism...

I am saying pretty much the same thing. What you believe really doesn't matter. What matters is how you believe and how you act. Religion is an action.

I'd have to say exercising a religion is an action, but the religion itself is a philosophy. A philosophy doesn't do anything; it just sits there until it's needed for a thought process.

Neither of which, to return to the topic, qualifies atheism as a "religion". It has no philosophy and cannot be "exercised". Any more than non-belief in the Easter Bunny can be "exercised"

What makes you think gods need names? But the answer is dependent upon who you are dealing with.

If you go to Thailand, where I did my stint in a monastery, you will notice that the cab drivers tend to sit kind of sideways, pushed up against the door. This is because it is believed Buddha is sitting beside them and protecting them. They don't want to crowd him. In addition, it is Buddhist theology that existence is on many levels. Buddha himself is said to have begun as an oxen in Hell. Hell not being a place of punishment but simply another plane of existence to be experienced. The gods are but one of the planes of existence and it is quite possible to be reborn as a god.

Buddhism does not consider gods to be of any particular importance. The philosophy is about self and eschews external assistance. But it does not deny or reject gods. One can follow the philosophy of Buddhism and be and Atheist, but it is not an Atheistic religion.

Religion is not a philosophy any more than politics is a philosophy. Philosophy plays a role, but it is primarily a human endeavor and is all about action.

It doesn't sound like you've described "gods" here. I don't think Buddha is considered a "god" in our Western sense.
But we touched earlier on the failure of our e word to adequately grok those energies. (Shinto?) It's a moot point; the greater point was that theism is not necessarily a component in religion; it's optional at extra cost.

I can't agree religion is "all about action" -- if anything it's the opposite. Where is the "action" in meditation?

 

[Pogo]

I will agree that Islam is about 200 years behind Christianity as far as being civilized. Same goes for the people.

So what? If I had to pick one I'd pick Christianity but it is still just the lesser of 1000 evils.

Actually I'd be a Buddhist because they say: "Do not accept anything on (mere) hearsay -- (i.e., thinking that thus have we heard it for a long time). Do not accept anything by mere tradition -- (i.e., thinking that it has thus been handed down through many generations). Do not accept anything on account of mere rumors -- (i.e., by believing what others say without any investigation). Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures. Do not accept anything by mere suppositions. Do not accept anything by mere inference. Do not accept anything by merely considering the reasons. Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions. Do not accept anything merely because it seems acceptable -- (i.e., thinking that as the speaker seems to be a good person his words should be accepted). Do not accept anything thinking that the ascetic is respected by us (therefore it is right to accept his word).

Because that's exactly what Christians do. They accept lies and impossible stories because they are told if you have faith in them you'll go to la la land forever when you die.

George Carlin was right. Religion is the greatest bullshit story ever told. youtube it and see why if you are a christian, it is you who's the fool or idiot.

I love it when people tell me why I believe even less than I do when they tell me what I believe.

Until you sit down and talk to people that actually understand their beliefs you are a fool who thinks he knows everything.

Ironic post of the day.

 

[PratchettFan]

Speaking as a Buddhist, you have that one wrong. I'm not a Jainist or Taoist so I don't feel I should speak for them. But aren't you just arguing that you can not believe in gods and still be in a religion?

Speaking as a Taoist/Jainist, no I have that one right.
Poorly constructed but yes I am saying you can not-believe in gods (i.e. not subscribe to theism) and still be in a religion.

Just as you can not-believe (not subscribe to) the concept of reincarnation and still be in a religion. Which does not make not-subscribing to reincarnation a "religion".

Same thing.

You have it wrong for Buddhism. It is not Atheistic.

Really....
It's a tangent but do you want to name the Buddhist "god(s)"?
I'm not a Buddhist, I only know what I read and observe from Buddhist friends and roommates. None of which indicates theism...

I am saying pretty much the same thing. What you believe really doesn't matter. What matters is how you believe and how you act. Religion is an action.

I'd have to say exercising a religion is an action, but the religion itself is a philosophy. A philosophy doesn't do anything; it just sits there until it's needed for a thought process.

Neither of which, to return to the topic, qualifies atheism as a "religion". It has no philosophy and cannot be "exercised". Any more than non-belief in the Easter Bunny can be "exercised"

What makes you think gods need names? But the answer is dependent upon who you are dealing with.

If you go to Thailand, where I did my stint in a monastery, you will notice that the cab drivers tend to sit kind of sideways, pushed up against the door. This is because it is believed Buddha is sitting beside them and protecting them. They don't want to crowd him. In addition, it is Buddhist theology that existence is on many levels. Buddha himself is said to have begun as an oxen in Hell. Hell not being a place of punishment but simply another plane of existence to be experienced. The gods are but one of the planes of existence and it is quite possible to be reborn as a god.

Buddhism does not consider gods to be of any particular importance. The philosophy is about self and eschews external assistance. But it does not deny or reject gods. One can follow the philosophy of Buddhism and be and Atheist, but it is not an Atheistic religion.

Religion is not a philosophy any more than politics is a philosophy. Philosophy plays a role, but it is primarily a human endeavor and is all about action.

It doesn't sound like you've described "gods" here. I don't think Buddha is considered a "god" in our Western sense.
But we touched earlier on the failure of our e word to adequately grok those energies. (Shinto?) It's a moot point; the greater point was that theism is not necessarily a component in religion; it's optional at extra cost.

I can't agree religion is "all about action" -- if anything it's the opposite. Where is the "action" in meditation?

Western religion is not the only religion. I see no reason why I should consider it the standard by which others are measured. I have already agreed that theism is not necessary for religion. Neither is meditation. In fact, if done properly meditation has nothing at all to do with religion.

Religion is a group interaction. I have already said this. It requires a group identity. "We are Atheists" is a group identity. That is an action. It is based upon belief, and that is an action. It adheres to dogma, and that is an action.

 

[PratchettFan]

Speaking as a Buddhist, you have that one wrong. I'm not a Jainist or Taoist so I don't feel I should speak for them. But aren't you just arguing that you can not believe in gods and still be in a religion?

Speaking as a Taoist/Jainist, no I have that one right.
Poorly constructed but yes I am saying you can not-believe in gods (i.e. not subscribe to theism) and still be in a religion.

Just as you can not-believe (not subscribe to) the concept of reincarnation and still be in a religion. Which does not make not-subscribing to reincarnation a "religion".

Same thing.

You have it wrong for Buddhism. It is not Atheistic.

Really....
It's a tangent but do you want to name the Buddhist "god(s)"?
I'm not a Buddhist, I only know what I read and observe from Buddhist friends and roommates. None of which indicates theism...

I am saying pretty much the same thing. What you believe really doesn't matter. What matters is how you believe and how you act. Religion is an action.

I'd have to say exercising a religion is an action, but the religion itself is a philosophy. A philosophy doesn't do anything; it just sits there until it's needed for a thought process.

Neither of which, to return to the topic, qualifies atheism as a "religion". It has no philosophy and cannot be "exercised". Any more than non-belief in the Easter Bunny can be "exercised"

What makes you think gods need names? But the answer is dependent upon who you are dealing with.

If you go to Thailand, where I did my stint in a monastery, you will notice that the cab drivers tend to sit kind of sideways, pushed up against the door. This is because it is believed Buddha is sitting beside them and protecting them. They don't want to crowd him. In addition, it is Buddhist theology that existence is on many levels. Buddha himself is said to have begun as an oxen in Hell. Hell not being a place of punishment but simply another plane of existence to be experienced. The gods are but one of the planes of existence and it is quite possible to be reborn as a god.

Buddhism does not consider gods to be of any particular importance. The philosophy is about self and eschews external assistance. But it does not deny or reject gods. One can follow the philosophy of Buddhism and be and Atheist, but it is not an Atheistic religion.

Religion is not a philosophy any more than politics is a philosophy. Philosophy plays a role, but it is primarily a human endeavor and is all about action.

It doesn't sound like you've described "gods" here. I don't think Buddha is considered a "god" in our Western sense.
But we touched earlier on the failure of our e word to adequately grok those energies. (Shinto?) It's a moot point; the greater point was that theism is not necessarily a component in religion; it's optional at extra cost.

I can't agree religion is "all about action" -- if anything it's the opposite. Where is the "action" in meditation?

BTW. If it doesn't sound like I am describing gods it can only mean that you already have an image in your mind of what gods are. But there is no evidence regarding gods available. So that image can only be belief. It really is hard to escape our nature.

 

[asaratis]

Your personal experience in dam building came after you knew what dams were and how they worked. You did not discover dams on your own. I built one in a sandbox once myself. That doesn't mean that I discovered dams.

Who knows where the Chinese learned the effects of damming a stream of water? It certainly is not an instinctive human trait....else we'd each have a dam somewhere.

The only non-beaver dams that I know of that occurred in nature were the glacial ice dams that occasionally broke and caused the erosion of the scablands in Washington state.

Dayam, I was really smart when I was 3 years old.

Seriously dude, if you want to butter someone up I suggest you target someone that will fall for it.

What the fuck makes you think I'm trying to butter anyone up? You are a demented fuckstick!

 

[asaratis]

Of course they are. They may be incorrect, but they are certainly based on the reality I've been exposed to.

Can you explain what reality exists anywhere where humans do not have instincts?

Didn't think so, which means you have not been exposed to reality if you think your opinions are based on it.

Strawman argument. I did not say that humans do not have instincts. Read the thread again, Bozo.

Your replies seem to be based on knee jerk reactions made before you analyze exactly what I say. Accidental art created by an elephant can easily be confused with modern art created by a real human artist.

They seem that way to you because that is how you think. In the real world, my replies are based on absolute astonishment that anyone could type the words you do without laughing out loud at how ridiculous they are.

Cute, but not worthy of a cigar.

For example, you "reality based opinion" that men learned to build dams after watching beavers. The major problem with that statement is that there are dams throughout the know world, even in places where people never saw a beaver. You never bothered to explain how people who lived in areas beavers do not exist managed to build those dams. Come to think of it, it doesn't even explain how man developed irrigation systems. Do you think they learned by watching aliens build one?

You rant does not negate the FACT the mankind discovered the benefits of dams while beavers built dams instinctively. The Chinese built dams before Christ was born. Their discovery of the benefits came by observation of the simply truth that water will level itself no matter how contained. It is quite logical to suppose that some people became aware of how dams worked by seeing the results of beaver dams.

Before you come back with some jerk off reply, know that this has already happened in the not too distant past.

People treated you like a jerk? Really?

I can't imagine why. Could it be that you assume you know everything because you form uniformed opinions based on delusions, and then try to pass them off as authoritative?

You totally missed the reference to "jerk off". YOU are the jerk!

Where to Buy Original Art Painted by Animals
This ^^^^^ is not my opinion...it's factual!
...and be sure to read about the elephants.

Just because you can find charlatans that pass random markings made by animals off as art does not mean it is really art.

Don't worry though, I am sure you fooled someone.

Apparently you did not read the link. This is to be expected of fools such as you and Pogo. You'd rather let your ass shine in public than admit you do not understand.

 

[asaratis]

Of course not. It is man made. Invented and constructed by man as opposed to occurring naturally. Iron ore is natural. Knives are not.

What is the intrinsic difference between a beaver dam and a dam made by man? What makes one natural, and the other unnatural? Defining natural in such a way that you exclude the works of human beings is, at best, simplistic.

to be fair, if you untangle a beaver's dam you still have recognizable sticks......if you unravel cotton fabric you still have natural fibers.....if you unravel rayon, you have plastic.....

Woven cotton does not exist in nature. Neither does plastic. Both are man made.

 

[Pogo]

Speaking as a Taoist/Jainist, no I have that one right.
Poorly constructed but yes I am saying you can not-believe in gods (i.e. not subscribe to theism) and still be in a religion.

Just as you can not-believe (not subscribe to) the concept of reincarnation and still be in a religion. Which does not make not-subscribing to reincarnation a "religion".

Same thing.

You have it wrong for Buddhism. It is not Atheistic.

Really....
It's a tangent but do you want to name the Buddhist "god(s)"?
I'm not a Buddhist, I only know what I read and observe from Buddhist friends and roommates. None of which indicates theism...

I am saying pretty much the same thing. What you believe really doesn't matter. What matters is how you believe and how you act. Religion is an action.

I'd have to say exercising a religion is an action, but the religion itself is a philosophy. A philosophy doesn't do anything; it just sits there until it's needed for a thought process.

Neither of which, to return to the topic, qualifies atheism as a "religion". It has no philosophy and cannot be "exercised". Any more than non-belief in the Easter Bunny can be "exercised"

What makes you think gods need names? But the answer is dependent upon who you are dealing with.

If you go to Thailand, where I did my stint in a monastery, you will notice that the cab drivers tend to sit kind of sideways, pushed up against the door. This is because it is believed Buddha is sitting beside them and protecting them. They don't want to crowd him. In addition, it is Buddhist theology that existence is on many levels. Buddha himself is said to have begun as an oxen in Hell. Hell not being a place of punishment but simply another plane of existence to be experienced. The gods are but one of the planes of existence and it is quite possible to be reborn as a god.

Buddhism does not consider gods to be of any particular importance. The philosophy is about self and eschews external assistance. But it does not deny or reject gods. One can follow the philosophy of Buddhism and be and Atheist, but it is not an Atheistic religion.

Religion is not a philosophy any more than politics is a philosophy. Philosophy plays a role, but it is primarily a human endeavor and is all about action.

It doesn't sound like you've described "gods" here. I don't think Buddha is considered a "god" in our Western sense.
But we touched earlier on the failure of our e word to adequately grok those energies. (Shinto?) It's a moot point; the greater point was that theism is not necessarily a component in religion; it's optional at extra cost.

I can't agree religion is "all about action" -- if anything it's the opposite. Where is the "action" in meditation?

BTW. If it doesn't sound like I am describing gods it can only mean that you already have an image in your mind of what gods are. But there is no evidence regarding gods available. So that image can only be belief. It really is hard to escape our nature.

Did you completely miss my earlier posts on the nature of what constitutes "gods" and the inadequacies of the term?
I said above, "in a Western sense".

Again, doesn't matter about specifics of Buddhism because again the greater point is that religion doesn't need theism to be religion.

 

[Pogo]

Of course they are. They may be incorrect, but they are certainly based on the reality I've been exposed to.

Can you explain what reality exists anywhere where humans do not have instincts?

Didn't think so, which means you have not been exposed to reality if you think your opinions are based on it.

Strawman argument. I did not say that humans do not have instincts. Read the thread again, Bozo.

Your replies seem to be based on knee jerk reactions made before you analyze exactly what I say. Accidental art created by an elephant can easily be confused with modern art created by a real human artist.

They seem that way to you because that is how you think. In the real world, my replies are based on absolute astonishment that anyone could type the words you do without laughing out loud at how ridiculous they are.

Cute, but not worthy of a cigar.

For example, you "reality based opinion" that men learned to build dams after watching beavers. The major problem with that statement is that there are dams throughout the know world, even in places where people never saw a beaver. You never bothered to explain how people who lived in areas beavers do not exist managed to build those dams. Come to think of it, it doesn't even explain how man developed irrigation systems. Do you think they learned by watching aliens build one?

You rant does not negate the FACT the mankind discovered the benefits of dams while beavers built dams instinctively. The Chinese built dams before Christ was born. Their discovery of the benefits came by observation of the simply truth that water will level itself no matter how contained. It is quite logical to suppose that some people became aware of how dams worked by seeing the results of beaver dams.

Before you come back with some jerk off reply, know that this has already happened in the not too distant past.

People treated you like a jerk? Really?

I can't imagine why. Could it be that you assume you know everything because you form uniformed opinions based on delusions, and then try to pass them off as authoritative?

You totally missed the reference to "jerk off". YOU are the jerk!

Where to Buy Original Art Painted by Animals
This ^^^^^ is not my opinion...it's factual!
...and be sure to read about the elephants.

Just because you can find charlatans that pass random markings made by animals off as art does not mean it is really art.

Don't worry though, I am sure you fooled someone.

Apparently you did not read the link. This is to be expected of fools such as you and Pogo. You'd rather let your ass shine in public than admit you do not understand.

Why taketh you my name in vain? I wasn't part of that exchange at all. I don't even read QuackumDickbag's posts.

 

[PostmodernProph]

to be fair, if you untangle a beaver's dam you still have recognizable sticks......if you unravel cotton fabric you still have natural fibers.....if you unravel rayon, you have plastic.....

if you unravel the plastic you have genetic material, which is 100% natural.

not really......you would have to convert the plastic back into its molecular components.......not necessary for the beaver's sticks......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Of course not. It is man made. Invented and constructed by man as opposed to occurring naturally. Iron ore is natural. Knives are not.

What is the intrinsic difference between a beaver dam and a dam made by man? What makes one natural, and the other unnatural? Defining natural in such a way that you exclude the works of human beings is, at best, simplistic.

to be fair, if you untangle a beaver's dam you still have recognizable sticks......if you unravel cotton fabric you still have natural fibers.....if you unravel rayon, you have plastic.....

Woven cotton does not exist in nature. Neither does plastic. Both are man made.

cotten fibers are not manmade, plastic fibers are......woven plastic fibers and woven cotton fibers and woven beaver's dams are all constructed

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ironic post of the day.

Because Pogo thinks that me pointing out that his words are contradictory to his claims means I am telling him what he believes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What the fuck makes you think I'm trying to butter anyone up? You are a demented fuckstick!

Why else would you try to paint me as a 3 year old child as being able to understand engineering principles?

Wait, I forgot, you can always fall back on outright ignorance and stupidity.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Strawman argument. I did not say that humans do not have instincts. Read the thread again, Bozo.

Seriously? Did your account get hacked?

Humans differ from birds and bees in that we possess very few if any natural instinctive behaviors. (The natural drives to eat, drink and procreate are all that I know of.) We learn from our parents and others. We learn from experience. We progressed over thousands of years from being cave dwellers (living in nature's free shelter) to building enclosed, air conditioned, lighted homes with running water by way of invention and innovation. All these homes we build do not occur naturally. We have taught ourselves to build them.

You should take some time to educate yourself o the various things that people that actually know what they are talking about consider to be instincts of humans. Or would learning that humans have multiple instincts related to eating itself upset your delusion that you know what you are talking about?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Woven cotton does not exist in nature. Neither does plastic. Both are man made.

Good point, if we ignore the fact that rocks actually contain plastic.

Plastic Garbage Is Turning Into a New Kind of Rock in Hawaii - weather.com