The Church of Atheism

[Taz]

we elected DONALD

No wonder I have few difficulties with God! I am able to process President Trump with few problems. But you are right. If President Trump causes people to fall apart or to become hysterical, they might very well have a problem facing God. Easier to pretend God does not exist. Perhaps they should try that same ploy with President Trump--i.e., live their lives as though the President does not exist.

I meant that we are so dumb and unable to deal with simpletons like The Donald, nevermind a superbeing.

 

[ding]

we elected DONALD

No wonder I have few difficulties with God! I am able to process President Trump with few problems. But you are right. If President Trump causes people to fall apart or to become hysterical, they might very well have a problem facing God. Easier to pretend God does not exist. Perhaps they should try that same ploy with President Trump--i.e., live their lives as though the President does not exist.

I meant that we are so dumb and unable to deal with simpletons like The Donald, nevermind a superbeing.

Meriweather makes an excellent point.

 

[Taz]

we elected DONALD

No wonder I have few difficulties with God! I am able to process President Trump with few problems. But you are right. If President Trump causes people to fall apart or to become hysterical, they might very well have a problem facing God. Easier to pretend God does not exist. Perhaps they should try that same ploy with President Trump--i.e., live their lives as though the President does not exist.

I meant that we are so dumb and unable to deal with simpletons like The Donald, nevermind a superbeing.

Meriweather makes an excellent point.

He missed mine. That's the point.

 

[ding]

we elected DONALD

No wonder I have few difficulties with God! I am able to process President Trump with few problems. But you are right. If President Trump causes people to fall apart or to become hysterical, they might very well have a problem facing God. Easier to pretend God does not exist. Perhaps they should try that same ploy with President Trump--i.e., live their lives as though the President does not exist.

I meant that we are so dumb and unable to deal with simpletons like The Donald, nevermind a superbeing.

Meriweather makes an excellent point.

He missed mine. That's the point.

She.

No, she didn’t miss your point.

 

[Taz]

we elected DONALD

No wonder I have few difficulties with God! I am able to process President Trump with few problems. But you are right. If President Trump causes people to fall apart or to become hysterical, they might very well have a problem facing God. Easier to pretend God does not exist. Perhaps they should try that same ploy with President Trump--i.e., live their lives as though the President does not exist.

I meant that we are so dumb and unable to deal with simpletons like The Donald, nevermind a superbeing.

Meriweather makes an excellent point.

He missed mine. That's the point.

She.

No, she didn’t miss your point.

Then I guess so did you.

 

[ding]

No wonder I have few difficulties with God! I am able to process President Trump with few problems. But you are right. If President Trump causes people to fall apart or to become hysterical, they might very well have a problem facing God. Easier to pretend God does not exist. Perhaps they should try that same ploy with President Trump--i.e., live their lives as though the President does not exist.

I meant that we are so dumb and unable to deal with simpletons like The Donald, nevermind a superbeing.

Meriweather makes an excellent point.

He missed mine. That's the point.

She.

No, she didn’t miss your point.

Then I guess so did you.

Nope. I got it too.

 

[Taz]

I meant that we are so dumb and unable to deal with simpletons like The Donald, nevermind a superbeing.

Meriweather makes an excellent point.

He missed mine. That's the point.

She.

No, she didn’t miss your point.

Then I guess so did you.

Nope. I got it too.

So what was my point? (Here comes the dancing, do a jig this time)

 

[ding]

Meriweather makes an excellent point.

He missed mine. That's the point.

She.

No, she didn’t miss your point.

Then I guess so did you.

Nope. I got it too.

So what was my point? (Here comes the dancing, do a jig this time)

Your point was that you believe people are stupid.

 

[Viktor]

But in reality belief in God does not require a divorce from science. It simply requires faith in something that cannot be proven.

Rather, it requires faith in something for which there is no evidence.

Faith is defined as belief which does not require evidence

 

[Viktor]

The Church of Atheism | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson

"Its standard-bearers swarm across oceans and mountains, propagating a vitriolic doctrine of bigotry and intolerance like a biblical plague. It inculcates its devotees with a fanatical certainty in the verity of its dogma and the simultaneous disdain for all alternative dogma. Of the great religions, only Christianity and Islam can rival the enthusiasm of its proselytizing efforts.

The name of this creed is evangelical atheism. Now, atheism is certainly not a religion, and the phrase “evangelical atheism” certainly appears oxymoronic. But we have witnessed in our time the rise of a virulent strain of atheism championed by Bill Maher, the comedian and star of Religulous, the secularist philosopher Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, and their often indignant ilk. For all its schooling and pretense of intellectualism, this godless vanguard unknowingly adopts the very aspects of religion its leaders passionately lambaste and turns atheism into the kind of evangelical ideology it opposes.

The facets of evangelism most repellent to atheists are bigotry, proselytism, and an unquestioning certainty in the tenets of one’s faith. Secular atheism spurns all of these things, but the evangelical atheism of Maher and Dawkins has chosen to embrace them.

During the height of conservative whispers about then-candidate Barack Obama’s secret adherence to Islam, Maher parried the smears with one of his own, saying, “…You can’t be president if you practice a violent, Middle-Eastern religion and worship a genocidal desert god, which is why [Alaska Governor] Sarah Palin can’t be president.”

Maher may be right when he says that a candidate’s literal belief in scripture makes him or her ill-suited for high office due to the importance of having a rational hand on the levers of power. However, Maher then subverts his credibility by condescendingly condemning religious belief as fundamentally irrational, describing belief in God as maintaining that “…You’re in a long-term relationship with an all-powerful space-daddy, who will, after you die, party with your ghost forever.”

But in reality belief in God does not require a divorce from science. It simply requires faith in something that cannot be proven. After all, the logic of religious apologists, though circular, is correct in insisting that God’s existence cannot be disproved, either. Atheism, as opposed to agnosticism, therefore, requires faith as well. By scorning faith in God, Maher is simply scorning beliefs that he does not share but cannot rebut. Surely this sounds familiar.

Posing a challenge to biblical or Koranic literalism has some merits, for such a belief requires a significant rejection of empirical reality. But the ridicule of the beliefs of all religious people, literalist and otherwise, is bigotry, and bigotry reinforced by proselytism.

One would be hard-pressed to find anything more explicitly religious than the use of the language of proselytism itself, exemplified by a page on Dawkins’ website, titled “Converts Corner.” Granted, if one were to ignore the comically narcissistic objective of this blog, whose sole purpose is to allow proselytes to stroke Dawkins’ capacious ego by recounting how his book “converted” them from their religious faith, one could defend such efforts by pointing to their foundation in logic rather than faith. But this contention would only hold true if Maher and Dawkins were proffering agnostic uncertainty in place of evangelical certainty.

By insisting that God does not exist, rather than that we cannot know whether or not He does, and that everyone should believe as they do, Maher and Dawkins venture beyond the realm of skepticism and enter that realm of conviction—religious conviction. Atheism, like the Abrahamic troika with which it competes, requires faith, and when this faith is replaced by certainty, when doubt and healthy skepticism are jettisoned, atheism becomes a religion.

Evangelical atheism is not the answer to evangelical religion, for the problem with the latter stems not from the irrationality of its beliefs, but from the absolute certainty with which those beliefs are held. Responding in kind is not the solution."






This message has been deleted.

That is so desperate and wrong I am actually embarrassed for you.

If you have evidence to rebut it, let's see it.

 

[Viktor]

The Church of Atheism | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson

"Its standard-bearers swarm across oceans and mountains, propagating a vitriolic doctrine of bigotry and intolerance like a biblical plague. It inculcates its devotees with a fanatical certainty in the verity of its dogma and the simultaneous disdain for all alternative dogma. Of the great religions, only Christianity and Islam can rival the enthusiasm of its proselytizing efforts.

The name of this creed is evangelical atheism. Now, atheism is certainly not a religion, and the phrase “evangelical atheism” certainly appears oxymoronic. But we have witnessed in our time the rise of a virulent strain of atheism championed by Bill Maher, the comedian and star of Religulous, the secularist philosopher Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, and their often indignant ilk. For all its schooling and pretense of intellectualism, this godless vanguard unknowingly adopts the very aspects of religion its leaders passionately lambaste and turns atheism into the kind of evangelical ideology it opposes.

The facets of evangelism most repellent to atheists are bigotry, proselytism, and an unquestioning certainty in the tenets of one’s faith. Secular atheism spurns all of these things, but the evangelical atheism of Maher and Dawkins has chosen to embrace them.

During the height of conservative whispers about then-candidate Barack Obama’s secret adherence to Islam, Maher parried the smears with one of his own, saying, “…You can’t be president if you practice a violent, Middle-Eastern religion and worship a genocidal desert god, which is why [Alaska Governor] Sarah Palin can’t be president.”

Maher may be right when he says that a candidate’s literal belief in scripture makes him or her ill-suited for high office due to the importance of having a rational hand on the levers of power. However, Maher then subverts his credibility by condescendingly condemning religious belief as fundamentally irrational, describing belief in God as maintaining that “…You’re in a long-term relationship with an all-powerful space-daddy, who will, after you die, party with your ghost forever.”

But in reality belief in God does not require a divorce from science. It simply requires faith in something that cannot be proven. After all, the logic of religious apologists, though circular, is correct in insisting that God’s existence cannot be disproved, either. Atheism, as opposed to agnosticism, therefore, requires faith as well. By scorning faith in God, Maher is simply scorning beliefs that he does not share but cannot rebut. Surely this sounds familiar.

Posing a challenge to biblical or Koranic literalism has some merits, for such a belief requires a significant rejection of empirical reality. But the ridicule of the beliefs of all religious people, literalist and otherwise, is bigotry, and bigotry reinforced by proselytism.

One would be hard-pressed to find anything more explicitly religious than the use of the language of proselytism itself, exemplified by a page on Dawkins’ website, titled “Converts Corner.” Granted, if one were to ignore the comically narcissistic objective of this blog, whose sole purpose is to allow proselytes to stroke Dawkins’ capacious ego by recounting how his book “converted” them from their religious faith, one could defend such efforts by pointing to their foundation in logic rather than faith. But this contention would only hold true if Maher and Dawkins were proffering agnostic uncertainty in place of evangelical certainty.

By insisting that God does not exist, rather than that we cannot know whether or not He does, and that everyone should believe as they do, Maher and Dawkins venture beyond the realm of skepticism and enter that realm of conviction—religious conviction. Atheism, like the Abrahamic troika with which it competes, requires faith, and when this faith is replaced by certainty, when doubt and healthy skepticism are jettisoned, atheism becomes a religion.

Evangelical atheism is not the answer to evangelical religion, for the problem with the latter stems not from the irrationality of its beliefs, but from the absolute certainty with which those beliefs are held. Responding in kind is not the solution."






This message has been deleted.

This opinion fails as a straw man fallacy.

Being free from religion is not ‘religion.’

Being free from religion requires no ‘faith.’

Those free from religion belong to no ‘church.’

And those free from religion do not seek to ‘proselytize,’ nor do they wish to compel conformity to religious doctrine and dogma – there is no ‘bigotry’ among those free from religion because they respect the right of all theists to practice their beliefs.

Indeed, those free from religion are among the most active defenders of the First Amendment, the right to religious expression, and the right to religious liberty – the First Amendment that likewise acknowledges and protects the right of citizens to be free from religion.

In fact, the OP manifests as bigotry against those free from religion, it’s an unwarranted attack on those free from religion, and it attempts to propagate lies about those free from religion.

The author is saying atheists act as if they pursue a religion..
The attack was not against all atheists, but only on the militants who
constantly attack religion and lie about religious people. If you read
Richard Dawkins book, you will see the problem.

 

[Crepitus]

The Church of Atheism | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson

"Its standard-bearers swarm across oceans and mountains, propagating a vitriolic doctrine of bigotry and intolerance like a biblical plague. It inculcates its devotees with a fanatical certainty in the verity of its dogma and the simultaneous disdain for all alternative dogma. Of the great religions, only Christianity and Islam can rival the enthusiasm of its proselytizing efforts.

The name of this creed is evangelical atheism. Now, atheism is certainly not a religion, and the phrase “evangelical atheism” certainly appears oxymoronic. But we have witnessed in our time the rise of a virulent strain of atheism championed by Bill Maher, the comedian and star of Religulous, the secularist philosopher Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, and their often indignant ilk. For all its schooling and pretense of intellectualism, this godless vanguard unknowingly adopts the very aspects of religion its leaders passionately lambaste and turns atheism into the kind of evangelical ideology it opposes.

The facets of evangelism most repellent to atheists are bigotry, proselytism, and an unquestioning certainty in the tenets of one’s faith. Secular atheism spurns all of these things, but the evangelical atheism of Maher and Dawkins has chosen to embrace them.

During the height of conservative whispers about then-candidate Barack Obama’s secret adherence to Islam, Maher parried the smears with one of his own, saying, “…You can’t be president if you practice a violent, Middle-Eastern religion and worship a genocidal desert god, which is why [Alaska Governor] Sarah Palin can’t be president.”

Maher may be right when he says that a candidate’s literal belief in scripture makes him or her ill-suited for high office due to the importance of having a rational hand on the levers of power. However, Maher then subverts his credibility by condescendingly condemning religious belief as fundamentally irrational, describing belief in God as maintaining that “…You’re in a long-term relationship with an all-powerful space-daddy, who will, after you die, party with your ghost forever.”

But in reality belief in God does not require a divorce from science. It simply requires faith in something that cannot be proven. After all, the logic of religious apologists, though circular, is correct in insisting that God’s existence cannot be disproved, either. Atheism, as opposed to agnosticism, therefore, requires faith as well. By scorning faith in God, Maher is simply scorning beliefs that he does not share but cannot rebut. Surely this sounds familiar.

Posing a challenge to biblical or Koranic literalism has some merits, for such a belief requires a significant rejection of empirical reality. But the ridicule of the beliefs of all religious people, literalist and otherwise, is bigotry, and bigotry reinforced by proselytism.

One would be hard-pressed to find anything more explicitly religious than the use of the language of proselytism itself, exemplified by a page on Dawkins’ website, titled “Converts Corner.” Granted, if one were to ignore the comically narcissistic objective of this blog, whose sole purpose is to allow proselytes to stroke Dawkins’ capacious ego by recounting how his book “converted” them from their religious faith, one could defend such efforts by pointing to their foundation in logic rather than faith. But this contention would only hold true if Maher and Dawkins were proffering agnostic uncertainty in place of evangelical certainty.

By insisting that God does not exist, rather than that we cannot know whether or not He does, and that everyone should believe as they do, Maher and Dawkins venture beyond the realm of skepticism and enter that realm of conviction—religious conviction. Atheism, like the Abrahamic troika with which it competes, requires faith, and when this faith is replaced by certainty, when doubt and healthy skepticism are jettisoned, atheism becomes a religion.

Evangelical atheism is not the answer to evangelical religion, for the problem with the latter stems not from the irrationality of its beliefs, but from the absolute certainty with which those beliefs are held. Responding in kind is not the solution."






This message has been deleted.

That is so desperate and wrong I am actually embarrassed for you.

If you have evidence to rebut it, let's see it.

How can I refute your imagination?

 

[Taz]

He missed mine. That's the point.

She.

No, she didn’t miss your point.

Then I guess so did you.

Nope. I got it too.

So what was my point? (Here comes the dancing, do a jig this time)

Your point was that you believe people are stupid.

Wrong. Please try again.

 

[ding]

She.

No, she didn’t miss your point.

Then I guess so did you.

Nope. I got it too.

So what was my point? (Here comes the dancing, do a jig this time)

Your point was that you believe people are stupid.

Wrong. Please try again.

I don't have to guess at what you meant, you told us what you meant, dummy.

I meant that we are so dumb and unable to deal with simpletons like The Donald, nevermind a superbeing.

 

[Taz]

Then I guess so did you.

Nope. I got it too.

So what was my point? (Here comes the dancing, do a jig this time)

Your point was that you believe people are stupid.

Wrong. Please try again.

I don't have to guess at what you meant, you told us what you meant, dummy.

I meant that we are so dumb and unable to deal with simpletons like The Donald, nevermind a superbeing.

This was the point, "We can't even handle real aliens properly, let alone a made up superbeing. Shit man, we elected DONALD FUCKING TRUMP!!!" After BS said that we can handle a relationship with a higher being. That was the dumbed down version for BS... and you, I guess.

 

[ding]

Nope. I got it too.

So what was my point? (Here comes the dancing, do a jig this time)

Your point was that you believe people are stupid.

Wrong. Please try again.

I don't have to guess at what you meant, you told us what you meant, dummy.

I meant that we are so dumb and unable to deal with simpletons like The Donald, nevermind a superbeing.

This was the point, "We can't even handle real aliens properly, let alone a made up superbeing. Shit man, we elected DONALD FUCKING TRUMP!!!" After BS said that we can handle a relationship with a higher being. That was the dumbed down version for BS... and you, I guess.

^ dunning effect