Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[asaratis]

Any attempt to proselytize (the act of attempting to educate or convert people to another religion or opinion) promotes a belief. Atheists simply worship a void.

...and they proselytize fiercely because they are in such a small minority. They are among a cult of arrogant pseudo-intellectuals that worship each other.

Wow. How whacked out is that?

So, to educate someone regarding the, oh, well, let's pick thunder and lightning as an example, as not coming from the gawds is trying to convert someone to A-superstition and fear'ism?

Did you happen to read my earlier comments regarding the more excitable of the christian dogmatists?

Oops, sorry. My carma just ran over your dogma.

Not all that believe in God hold that all happenings are controlled by God. Some believe in a clock-maker...who created all this around us with a big bang and then sat back to watch the evolution and eventual extinguishing of life...on this and other planets. He MADE IT ALL EXIST!

 

[CynthiaZ]

all of atheism tends to be a critique of theistic claims

Could you please clarify this statement.

 

[Hollie]

I think it's important to define our various gawds here. Most references to the gawds are directed to the judeo- christian gawds for no other reason than those are the culturally correct gawds. Your references to the gawds do not represent a generic, one size fits all gawds but a very specific configuration of gawds. I would argue that you can select science, history, art, etc with abandon but you cannot do the same with gawds. I can only accept a claim of regeneration as an inarguable position (unsupported, but not debatable) on behalf of the religionist for their gawds, and that means there is no possibility of interpretation on the part of the theist.

As to whether gawds exist, which gawds are you referring to?

As to which Gods exist or not is not the point of this thread. We are discussing whether atheists can be religious or not and if atheism is a religion to some atheists.

That's been addressed previously. Atheism is no more a religion than you disbelieving in Odin as the one true gawd is a religion.

Except when atheists are being doctrinaire and dogmatic about their atheism. And by the way atheism equals not believing in god or gods, atheism does not equal not religious hence the reason we have non-theistic religions such some forms of Buddhism, Jainism, Raelism and Satanism

Again, you make the mistake of 'presumption of fact' with regard to the existent of a 'god,' that there exists some sort of 'evidence' that 'god' exists, or that there is some 'possibility' that 'god' as perceived by theists 'exists,' when in fact that's not the case.

When acknowledging the truth one is being neither doctrinaire nor dogmatic, as being free from faith exists absent doctrine or dogma.

Just as there is no proof that God exists, there is no proof that God does not exist. You claim presumes an unsubstantiated, unprovable posit...that you claim to be a fact. Your argument is nothing more than the negative of the believer's argument. No concrete proof on either side. Especially on yours. One cannot prove a negative. One can only point to one's perceived ridiculousness of a posit that something exists.

The existence of Russell's Tea Pot (or the Flying Spaghetti Monster) is a ridiculous posit. The 'analogy' fails in that there is no fundamental similarity between any supernatural being and any man-made construct, such as a tea pot or cartoon character.

The arrogance of atheists is displayed in their insistence that there is nothing that they do not understand.

Ah. As usual, the "you can't prove it isn't" weasel is let loose.

You can't disprove the existence of Russell's Tea Pot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the one true gawd.

You may want to gather several cans of Chef Boyardee; one for your altar and one for your car's dashboard.

 

[CynthiaZ]

Well that is fine with me. If your atheism is just merely a personal opinion then by no means should any one mistake it for religious conviction because mere opinion does not equal conviction. But if you certain beyond a shadow of doubt that the absolute truth is that God does not exist and all other opinions regarding this matter are wrong then you are being a bit more than religious. You personally might not be this way but I have certainly seen atheist who are that way. To them atheism is the only right answer to the question whether God exists or not.

I think it's important to define our various gawds here. Most references to the gawds are directed to the judeo- christian gawds for no other reason than those are the culturally correct gawds. Your references to the gawds do not represent a generic, one size fits all gawds but a very specific configuration of gawds. I would argue that you can select science, history, art, etc with abandon but you cannot do the same with gawds. I can only accept a claim of regeneration as an inarguable position (unsupported, but not debatable) on behalf of the religionist for their gawds, and that means there is no possibility of interpretation on the part of the theist.

As to whether gawds exist, which gawds are you referring to?

As to which Gods exist or not is not the point of this thread. We are discussing whether atheists can be religious or not and if atheism is a religion to some atheists.

That's been addressed previously. Atheism is no more a religion than you disbelieving in Odin as the one true gawd is a religion.

Except when atheists are being doctrinaire and dogmatic about their atheism. And by the way atheism equals not believing in god or gods, atheism does not equal not religious hence the reason we have non-theistic religions such some forms of Buddhism, Jainism, Raelism and Satanism

Again, you make the mistake of 'presumption of fact' with regard to the existent of a 'god,' that there exists some sort of 'evidence' that 'god' exists, or that there is some 'possibility' that 'god' as perceived by theists 'exists,' when in fact that's not the case.

When acknowledging the truth one is being neither doctrinaire nor dogmatic, as being free from faith exists absent doctrine or dogma.

You seem to be in some other thread than this one. This thread is about as to whether atheist can be religious or not. And with some of you in absolutely denying that such could ever be the case even though we have strong evidence that non-theistic religions do exist and have existed for thousands of years and that a religion or cult can be built around atheism such as LaVey's Church of Satan or Dawkin's New Atheism

 

[Hollie]

all of atheism tends to be a critique of theistic claims

Could you please clarify this statement.

Sure. In my daily life, I don't go around announcing "hey, I'm a non-believer, gawd dammit". None of the non-believers I know have any need to make such an announcement. My non-belief is a personal and private matter that just doesn't come up much.

The only time I have any comment on religious matters at all is when religionists arrogantly insist that their particular religion or their partisan gawds are true and extant and need to be a part of the public school syllabus or symbols of their religious beliefs need to be prominently displayed so as to suggest that the State or Federal government promotes a particular religion.

Within ten blocks or so from where I live, there are 4 churches of various subdivisions of christianity and one synagogue. Neither myself nor the "International Association of Atheists Whose Job It Is To Comment on Religion" have ever canvassed a neighborhood looking for converts or had any comment whatever on anyone's religious belief.

 

[asaratis]

I think it's important to define our various gawds here. Most references to the gawds are directed to the judeo- christian gawds for no other reason than those are the culturally correct gawds. Your references to the gawds do not represent a generic, one size fits all gawds but a very specific configuration of gawds. I would argue that you can select science, history, art, etc with abandon but you cannot do the same with gawds. I can only accept a claim of regeneration as an inarguable position (unsupported, but not debatable) on behalf of the religionist for their gawds, and that means there is no possibility of interpretation on the part of the theist.

As to whether gawds exist, which gawds are you referring to?

As to which Gods exist or not is not the point of this thread. We are discussing whether atheists can be religious or not and if atheism is a religion to some atheists.

That's been addressed previously. Atheism is no more a religion than you disbelieving in Odin as the one true gawd is a religion.

Except when atheists are being doctrinaire and dogmatic about their atheism. And by the way atheism equals not believing in god or gods, atheism does not equal not religious hence the reason we have non-theistic religions such some forms of Buddhism, Jainism, Raelism and Satanism

Again, you make the mistake of 'presumption of fact' with regard to the existent of a 'god,' that there exists some sort of 'evidence' that 'god' exists, or that there is some 'possibility' that 'god' as perceived by theists 'exists,' when in fact that's not the case.

When acknowledging the truth one is being neither doctrinaire nor dogmatic, as being free from faith exists absent doctrine or dogma.

You seem to be in some other thread than this one. This thread is about as to whether atheist can be religious or not. And with some of you in absolutely denying that such could ever be the case even though we have strong evidence that non-theistic religions do exist and have existed for thousands of years and that a religion or cult can be built around atheism such as LaVey's Church of Satan or Dawkin's New Atheism

Yes. We've already seen web pages for Atheist Churches...and ads to say that you too can become an Atheist Minister!

If that's not a religion, I'll kiss your ass!

 

[Hollie]

Any attempt to proselytize (the act of attempting to educate or convert people to another religion or opinion) promotes a belief. Atheists simply worship a void.

...and they proselytize fiercely because they are in such a small minority. They are among a cult of arrogant pseudo-intellectuals that worship each other.

Wow. How whacked out is that?

So, to educate someone regarding the, oh, well, let's pick thunder and lightning as an example, as not coming from the gawds is trying to convert someone to A-superstition and fear'ism?

Did you happen to read my earlier comments regarding the more excitable of the christian dogmatists?

Oops, sorry. My carma just ran over your dogma.

Not all that believe in God hold that all happenings are controlled by God. Some believe in a clock-maker...who created all this around us with a big bang and then sat back to watch the evolution and eventual extinguishing of life...on this and other planets. He MADE IT ALL EXIST!

"......... because I say so!"

There. Fixed that for you. You forgot to append the above to your pronouncement. The one that's totally unsupported, completely absent evidence and the pronouncement contradicted by other religionists.

Your argument is with all the other religions that make the same pronouncement as yours.


"Guns or knives, Butch?"

-Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

 

[Hollie]

As to which Gods exist or not is not the point of this thread. We are discussing whether atheists can be religious or not and if atheism is a religion to some atheists.

That's been addressed previously. Atheism is no more a religion than you disbelieving in Odin as the one true gawd is a religion.

Except when atheists are being doctrinaire and dogmatic about their atheism. And by the way atheism equals not believing in god or gods, atheism does not equal not religious hence the reason we have non-theistic religions such some forms of Buddhism, Jainism, Raelism and Satanism

Again, you make the mistake of 'presumption of fact' with regard to the existent of a 'god,' that there exists some sort of 'evidence' that 'god' exists, or that there is some 'possibility' that 'god' as perceived by theists 'exists,' when in fact that's not the case.

When acknowledging the truth one is being neither doctrinaire nor dogmatic, as being free from faith exists absent doctrine or dogma.

You seem to be in some other thread than this one. This thread is about as to whether atheist can be religious or not. And with some of you in absolutely denying that such could ever be the case even though we have strong evidence that non-theistic religions do exist and have existed for thousands of years and that a religion or cult can be built around atheism such as LaVey's Church of Satan or Dawkin's New Atheism

Yes. We've already seen web pages for Atheist Churches...and ads to say that you too can become an Atheist Minister!

If that's not a religion, I'll kiss your ass!

You're welcome to attend services.

Bring your own snakes.

 

[asaratis]

Any attempt to proselytize (the act of attempting to educate or convert people to another religion or opinion) promotes a belief. Atheists simply worship a void.

...and they proselytize fiercely because they are in such a small minority. They are among a cult of arrogant pseudo-intellectuals that worship each other.

Wow. How whacked out is that?

So, to educate someone regarding the, oh, well, let's pick thunder and lightning as an example, as not coming from the gawds is trying to convert someone to A-superstition and fear'ism?

Did you happen to read my earlier comments regarding the more excitable of the christian dogmatists?

Oops, sorry. My carma just ran over your dogma.

Not all that believe in God hold that all happenings are controlled by God. Some believe in a clock-maker...who created all this around us with a big bang and then sat back to watch the evolution and eventual extinguishing of life...on this and other planets. He MADE IT ALL EXIST!

"......... because I say so!"

There. Fixed that for you. You forgot to append the above to your pronouncement. The one that's totally unsupported, completely absent evidence and the pronouncement contradicted by other religionists.

Your argument is with all the other religions that make the same pronouncement as yours.


"Guns or knives, Butch?"

-Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

Try again. What I state is a belief about a supernatural being, it's truth has nothing to do with the fact that I said it. You belief regarding the same supernatural being falls under exactly the same metric. If God does not exist, it is not because you said so.

 

[Hollie]

Any attempt to proselytize (the act of attempting to educate or convert people to another religion or opinion) promotes a belief. Atheists simply worship a void.

...and they proselytize fiercely because they are in such a small minority. They are among a cult of arrogant pseudo-intellectuals that worship each other.

Wow. How whacked out is that?

So, to educate someone regarding the, oh, well, let's pick thunder and lightning as an example, as not coming from the gawds is trying to convert someone to A-superstition and fear'ism?

Did you happen to read my earlier comments regarding the more excitable of the christian dogmatists?

Oops, sorry. My carma just ran over your dogma.

Not all that believe in God hold that all happenings are controlled by God. Some believe in a clock-maker...who created all this around us with a big bang and then sat back to watch the evolution and eventual extinguishing of life...on this and other planets. He MADE IT ALL EXIST!

"......... because I say so!"

There. Fixed that for you. You forgot to append the above to your pronouncement. The one that's totally unsupported, completely absent evidence and the pronouncement contradicted by other religionists.

Your argument is with all the other religions that make the same pronouncement as yours.


"Guns or knives, Butch?"

-Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

Try again. What I state is a belief about a supernatural being, it's truth has nothing to do with the fact that I said it. You belief regarding the same supernatural being falls under exactly the same metric. If God does not exist, it is not because you said so.

Please do try again. The burden of proof falls to you making the positive statement regarding your gawds just as it does with those making the positive assertion of their gawds.

As noted earlier, your argument for gawds is really directed at all the claims for gawds competing with your gawds.

 

[asaratis]

Any attempt to proselytize (the act of attempting to educate or convert people to another religion or opinion) promotes a belief. Atheists simply worship a void.

...and they proselytize fiercely because they are in such a small minority. They are among a cult of arrogant pseudo-intellectuals that worship each other.

Wow. How whacked out is that?

So, to educate someone regarding the, oh, well, let's pick thunder and lightning as an example, as not coming from the gawds is trying to convert someone to A-superstition and fear'ism?

Did you happen to read my earlier comments regarding the more excitable of the christian dogmatists?

Oops, sorry. My carma just ran over your dogma.

Not all that believe in God hold that all happenings are controlled by God. Some believe in a clock-maker...who created all this around us with a big bang and then sat back to watch the evolution and eventual extinguishing of life...on this and other planets. He MADE IT ALL EXIST!

"......... because I say so!"

There. Fixed that for you. You forgot to append the above to your pronouncement. The one that's totally unsupported, completely absent evidence and the pronouncement contradicted by other religionists.

Your argument is with all the other religions that make the same pronouncement as yours.


"Guns or knives, Butch?"

-Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

Try again. What I state is a belief about a supernatural being, it's truth has nothing to do with the fact that I said it. You belief regarding the same supernatural being falls under exactly the same metric. If God does not exist, it is not because you said so.

Please do try again. The burden of proof falls to you making the positive statement regarding your gawds just as it does with those making the positive assertion of their gawds.

As noted earlier, your argument for gawds is really directed at all the claims for gawds competing with your gawds.

...and when you state unequivocally that God does not exist, the burden is on you.

 

[CynthiaZ]

all of atheism tends to be a critique of theistic claims

Could you please clarify this statement.

Sure. In my daily life, I don't go around announcing "hey, I'm a non-believer, gawd dammit". None of the non-believers I know have any need to make such an announcement. My non-belief is a personal and private matter that just doesn't come up much.

The only time I have any comment on religious matters at all is when religionists arrogantly insist that their particular religion or their partisan gawds are true and extant and need to be a part of the public school syllabus or symbols of their religious beliefs need to be prominently displayed so as to suggest that the State or Federal government promotes a particular religion.

Within ten blocks or so from where I live, there are 4 churches of various subdivisions of christianity and one synagogue. Neither myself nor the "International Association of Atheists Whose Job It Is To Comment on Religion" have ever canvassed a neighborhood looking for converts or had any comment whatever on anyone's religious belief.

So from what stance do you or any other atheists critique religion if not from an ideological stance that is grounded in your atheism?

 

[Hollie]

Wow. How whacked out is that?

So, to educate someone regarding the, oh, well, let's pick thunder and lightning as an example, as not coming from the gawds is trying to convert someone to A-superstition and fear'ism?

Did you happen to read my earlier comments regarding the more excitable of the christian dogmatists?

Oops, sorry. My carma just ran over your dogma.

Not all that believe in God hold that all happenings are controlled by God. Some believe in a clock-maker...who created all this around us with a big bang and then sat back to watch the evolution and eventual extinguishing of life...on this and other planets. He MADE IT ALL EXIST!

"......... because I say so!"

There. Fixed that for you. You forgot to append the above to your pronouncement. The one that's totally unsupported, completely absent evidence and the pronouncement contradicted by other religionists.

Your argument is with all the other religions that make the same pronouncement as yours.


"Guns or knives, Butch?"

-Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

Try again. What I state is a belief about a supernatural being, it's truth has nothing to do with the fact that I said it. You belief regarding the same supernatural being falls under exactly the same metric. If God does not exist, it is not because you said so.

Please do try again. The burden of proof falls to you making the positive statement regarding your gawds just as it does with those making the positive assertion of their gawds.

As noted earlier, your argument for gawds is really directed at all the claims for gawds competing with your gawds.

...and when you state unequivocally that God does not exist, the burden is on you.

When have I stated that?

As it is you making the positive assertion of your gawds, why are you continuing to fail to meet your obligation?

 

[Hollie]

all of atheism tends to be a critique of theistic claims

Could you please clarify this statement.

Sure. In my daily life, I don't go around announcing "hey, I'm a non-believer, gawd dammit". None of the non-believers I know have any need to make such an announcement. My non-belief is a personal and private matter that just doesn't come up much.

The only time I have any comment on religious matters at all is when religionists arrogantly insist that their particular religion or their partisan gawds are true and extant and need to be a part of the public school syllabus or symbols of their religious beliefs need to be prominently displayed so as to suggest that the State or Federal government promotes a particular religion.

Within ten blocks or so from where I live, there are 4 churches of various subdivisions of christianity and one synagogue. Neither myself nor the "International Association of Atheists Whose Job It Is To Comment on Religion" have ever canvassed a neighborhood looking for converts or had any comment whatever on anyone's religious belief.

So from what stance do you or any other atheists critique religion if not from an ideological stance that is grounded in your atheism?

It's really just a rational conclusion that your gawds and the gawds of others do not exist.

I would propose that you are A-theistic belief with regard to gawds other than the ones you worship. That would make you atheistic with regard to the Hindu gawds as I am atheistic with regard to your gawds.

 

[CynthiaZ]

Not all that believe in God hold that all happenings are controlled by God. Some believe in a clock-maker...who created all this around us with a big bang and then sat back to watch the evolution and eventual extinguishing of life...on this and other planets. He MADE IT ALL EXIST!

"......... because I say so!"

There. Fixed that for you. You forgot to append the above to your pronouncement. The one that's totally unsupported, completely absent evidence and the pronouncement contradicted by other religionists.

Your argument is with all the other religions that make the same pronouncement as yours.


"Guns or knives, Butch?"

-Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

Try again. What I state is a belief about a supernatural being, it's truth has nothing to do with the fact that I said it. You belief regarding the same supernatural being falls under exactly the same metric. If God does not exist, it is not because you said so.

Please do try again. The burden of proof falls to you making the positive statement regarding your gawds just as it does with those making the positive assertion of their gawds.

As noted earlier, your argument for gawds is really directed at all the claims for gawds competing with your gawds.

...and when you state unequivocally that God does not exist, the burden is on you.

When have I stated that?

As it is you making the positive assertion of your gawds, why are you continuing to fail to meet your obligation?

And you are making an extraordinary claim by claiming your belief that God does not exist is an absolute truth. Any time someone claim that what they believe is an absolute truth then they have made an extraordinary claim and they better have the extraordinary evidence to back it up.

 

[CynthiaZ]

a rational conclusion that your gawds and the gawds of others do not exist.

That is an ideology

 

[Hollie]

a rational conclusion that your gawds and the gawds of others do not exist.

That is an ideology

Conclusions are not ideologies. I make decisions and reach conclusions every day about the choices I make. There is no ideological imperative involved.

 

[asaratis]

a rational conclusion that your gawds and the gawds of others do not exist.

That is an ideology

Conclusions are not ideologies. I make decisions and reach conclusions every day about the choices I make. There is no ideological imperative involved.

No, you say that God does not exist because you see no evidence of it. That is not a logical conclusion.

 

[Hollie]

"......... because I say so!"

There. Fixed that for you. You forgot to append the above to your pronouncement. The one that's totally unsupported, completely absent evidence and the pronouncement contradicted by other religionists.

Your argument is with all the other religions that make the same pronouncement as yours.


"Guns or knives, Butch?"

-Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

Try again. What I state is a belief about a supernatural being, it's truth has nothing to do with the fact that I said it. You belief regarding the same supernatural being falls under exactly the same metric. If God does not exist, it is not because you said so.

Please do try again. The burden of proof falls to you making the positive statement regarding your gawds just as it does with those making the positive assertion of their gawds.

As noted earlier, your argument for gawds is really directed at all the claims for gawds competing with your gawds.

...and when you state unequivocally that God does not exist, the burden is on you.

When have I stated that?

As it is you making the positive assertion of your gawds, why are you continuing to fail to meet your obligation?

And you are making an extraordinary claim by claiming your belief that God does not exist is an absolute truth. Any time someone claim that what they believe is an absolute truth then they have made an extraordinary claim and they better have the extraordinary evidence to back it up.

You're making the same ridiculous argument as the other excitable religionist. It's a perfectly rational conclusion that your gawds do not exist. Your gawds possess exactly the same standard of proof as every other human invention of gawd, ie:. none.

I have no interest in the juvenile "prove it isn't" argument. Your inability to offer even the most basic elements of a positive argument for your gawds is the issue you're not able to resolve.

 

[Hollie]

a rational conclusion that your gawds and the gawds of others do not exist.

That is an ideology

Conclusions are not ideologies. I make decisions and reach conclusions every day about the choices I make. There is no ideological imperative involved.

No, you say that God does not exist because you see no evidence of it. That is not a logical conclusion.

That is not my argument.

Do you realize that you're in a near state of panic because you're unable to make a positive case for your gawds?

The obvious resolution for your dilemma would be for you to offer such a positive assertion and then support your claim. But of course you can't.