Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[emilynghiem]

If you have a lack of belief, you are agnostic. Atheists believe that deities do not exist.

Technically, yes.
But by that, even people who are mostly sure and believe there is a God
but admit they aren't completely 100% because of course our knowledge is human and not absolute,
would also have to be agnostic, because on some level "we don't know."

So this would not help us distinguish the theistic from the nontheistic
if we all technically admit we fall under agnostic or "not knowing" which is true by our human limitations.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You just defined conservatism as a religion, Emily!

Yes No and Yes

The same three levels can show that SOME people make conservative principles
their religion, while other independents do not, and then there IS a generalization
that the collective movement of Christian/Rightwing/Constitutionalists IS
acting as a cohesive force. And yes people DO see any or all members of
"that group" to be acting in concert with each other.

So yes, some people DO see it that way, and some people DO follow and act on it as their "religion"
the same way people say about "liberalism".

Now, you can also divide into
WHO is FORMALLY pushing this conservative agenda,
and point to the GOP. This has been causing issues because, for example,
the Reparative Therapy resolution being added to the TX party platform
did not represent all the members.

Same with how the Democrat party principles, with that statement
WE BELIEVE that Health Care is a RIGHT, etc. does not fly with me
as a prochoice Democrat Constiutionalist who doesn't believe in nationalizing such a political belief, but keeping it as a free choice. I also know of Prolife Democrats who are not prochoice as I am.

So it's fine what Carla said, about atheists being within the circles of Republicans
and Conservatives, similarly to Gay members within those groups who don't agree with the party line.

Still, this shows there are BOTH things going on:
Some ARE making it their religion
Some ARE acting loosely as a collective group PERCEIVED as a political religion
Some ARE independent and not part of the other two!

So yes, yes, and no.

Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".

She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.

Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".

Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.

No.
Atheists believe that there are no deities.

Lack of belief either way makes one agnostic.

BZZZT Wrong!

Google

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēˌist/
noun

1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

A lack of belief is not a a belief.

Bzzzzzt. Wrong! A redefining of atheism to keep from being labeled a religion is the relatively recent trick perpetuated by Atheists. Dawkins did this with his 7 level scale and your source did it also.

If Atheists simply had a lack of belief in deities, they would not argue so verociously with those that believe.

If you have a lack of belief, you are agnostic. Atheists believe that deities do not exist.

You don't get to define what I "believe".

You don't get to impose your muddled excuse for "thinking" on me either.

I don't believe that the sun will rise tomorrow because I understand the laws that govern the orbit of the planets. I use knowledge, reason and logic so I have no need of your "beliefs".

That same knowledge, reason and logic tells me that it is a waste of my time arguing with someone who makes absurd allegations that atheism was "redefined" recently in order to "keep from being labeled a religion".

Sheer stupidity on that scale cannot be reasoned with so instead you have earned yourself a one way ticket to Cyberia.

[People that you ignore] *click* [Member to ignore] "asaratis" [Save Changes] *click*

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Derideo_Te: Thank you for your clarifying statement.
I wish all people would EXPLAIN as you did what the problem is.
That way at least we know what is going wrong and have a chance to address it.

In this case, it may be this is just an exercise in learning to forgive unconditionally.
If Asaratis does not define your beliefs, then don't let him.
There is no need to ignore or cut him off to make this not so.

If it is truly independent, then he should be able to keep thinking what he does
and not affect you. Let him be wrong.

So this could be one of those exercises in how to really stop this nonsense of
associating people by label.

As Eleanor Roosevelt said, that no one can make you feel inferior without your consent,
nobody can define you or your beliefs either. If we do not agree, then that belief belongs
to the other person not to us. We shouldn't have to react negatively to make it clear. It already is their belief!

How can we agree to separate, so we don't end up like
fingers stuck in Chinese finger traps, the harder we fight to repel each
other the more we remain stuck. How do we free ourselves from this
mindset and truly not let it affect us what other people believe?

Yes No and Yes

The same three levels can show that SOME people make conservative principles
their religion, while other independents do not, and then there IS a generalization
that the collective movement of Christian/Rightwing/Constitutionalists IS
acting as a cohesive force. And yes people DO see any or all members of
"that group" to be acting in concert with each other.

So yes, some people DO see it that way, and some people DO follow and act on it as their "religion"
the same way people say about "liberalism".

Now, you can also divide into
WHO is FORMALLY pushing this conservative agenda,
and point to the GOP. This has been causing issues because, for example,
the Reparative Therapy resolution being added to the TX party platform
did not represent all the members.

Same with how the Democrat party principles, with that statement
WE BELIEVE that Health Care is a RIGHT, etc. does not fly with me
as a prochoice Democrat Constiutionalist who doesn't believe in nationalizing such a political belief, but keeping it as a free choice. I also know of Prolife Democrats who are not prochoice as I am.

So it's fine what Carla said, about atheists being within the circles of Republicans
and Conservatives, similarly to Gay members within those groups who don't agree with the party line.

Still, this shows there are BOTH things going on:
Some ARE making it their religion
Some ARE acting loosely as a collective group PERCEIVED as a political religion
Some ARE independent and not part of the other two!

So yes, yes, and no.

Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".

She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.

Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".

Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.

No.
Atheists believe that there are no deities.

Lack of belief either way makes one agnostic.

BZZZT Wrong!

Google

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēˌist/
noun

1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

A lack of belief is not a a belief.

Bzzzzzt. Wrong! A redefining of atheism to keep from being labeled a religion is the relatively recent trick perpetuated by Atheists. Dawkins did this with his 7 level scale and your source did it also.

If Atheists simply had a lack of belief in deities, they would not argue so verociously with those that believe.

If you have a lack of belief, you are agnostic. Atheists believe that deities do not exist.

You don't get to define what I "believe".

You don't get to impose your muddled excuse for "thinking" on me either.

I don't believe that the sun will rise tomorrow because I understand the laws that govern the orbit of the planets. I use knowledge, reason and logic so I have no need of your "beliefs".

That same knowledge, reason and logic tells me that it is a waste of my time arguing with someone who makes absurd allegations that atheism was "redefined" recently in order to "keep from being labeled a religion".

Sheer stupidity on that scale cannot be reasoned with so instead you have earned yourself a one way ticket to Cyberia.

[People that you ignore] *click* [Member to ignore] "asaratis" [Save Changes] *click*

View attachment 32134

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".

She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.

Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".

Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.

The fact that you continue to argue what your beliefs actually are definitively establishes the fact that you actually have a belief.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Those other 2 cases don't exist according to the definition of the term atheist.

If they have beliefs in the existence of a deity then they don't fit the definition of being an atheist

Modern definition?

Let us examine the "modern" definition that everyone who argues that they don't believe something.

disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.​

I think the keyword in that definition is disbelief.

inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real
​

Disbelief is a refusal to believe, not a lack of belief. Like it or not, disbelief is not the same as non belief. The evidence of that is obvious, but I think some people cannot see it, so I will point out that the word or in the "modern" definition actually means something. Hopefully, I don't have to explain the meaning.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

BZZZT Wrong!

Google

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēˌist/
noun

1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

A lack of belief is not a a belief.

Yet disbelief is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You don't get to define what I "believe".

You are the one defining your beliefs by arguing that god cannot exist. If you really had non belief you wouldn't feel the need to argue about that simple concept.

 

[emilynghiem]

You don't get to define what I "believe".

You are the one defining your beliefs by arguing that god cannot exist. If you really had non belief you wouldn't feel the need to argue about that simple concept.

Dear QW: From my discussions with Derideo_Te, we are generally able to agree by focusing more on NONTHEISTIC approaches (not haggling over atheism)
including ALIGNING the meanings and values of what people MEAN by God, Jesus, religion etc.
Such alignment on principles can be done even if we disagree on theism/atheism etc.

You don't have to BELIEVE in these things to agree on certain meanings behind them or associated
which ARE important and universal, even between theists and nontheists! That is what it takes
to count as universal, by definition, right? if a truth is absolute it must be so for all people and not relative to some!

I guess I could compare it to how Global Warming has people up in arms.

We can argue back and forth, night and day, if Global Warming is proven or disproven, true or false.

or we can AGREE the issue is environmental preservation and protection from pollution and destruction.

We DON'T have to agree if Global Warming is or isn't, proven or disproven,
to AGREE not to destroy the planet with careless chemical or corporate abuses.

Same with approaches to God. If we focus on what is the real critical factors,
we can agree on all the same content and principles, and not have to worry
if we talk about these in terms of God, or if we believe it or not, or if we can prove/disprove or not.

We would be too busy focused on what we CAN agree on that is key, regardless of the other beliefs we may conflict with.

So to me, what is important is that Derideo_Te is NONTHEIST
and does not relate to talking about God as personified or making this a condition!

All other things I can work out with Derideo who is forgiving and seeks to
correct problems that are preventing agreement on true and accurate points.

Derideo believes in seeking a just path to establishing truth, by conscience,
and is completely compatible with Christian faith in seeking the Kingdom of God,
the truth that shall set us free. Insulting Derideo's NONTHEIST approach distracts
from our common goals to clarify what is true, consistent and effective
and to correct what is unfair, false or ineffective in resolving conflicts.

I don't have to question whether Derideo believes or not, because the truth
and proof of what matters does not depend on that anyway.

In fact, it is the opposite. By working together to reach an agreed understanding,
independent of whether I am theistic and Derideo is nontheistic, then we end
up proving what is meant by God's truth anyway. So we achieve the goal by not making a mess trying to get there.
Let us work through the proof process, that consensus can be reached between theist and nontheists
approaches, and that will lead to whatever we need to "prove or disprove" whatever it is
that we question, debate, or outright disagree on about God. It will take care of itself if we focus on what we do
follow in common.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Wrong, Since when did a non belief equal a belief. I don't belive in unicorns. That is not a belief. Seriously, think about what you write.

You don't believe in something I already proved exists? How about this then?



I bet you are going to try to argue that is not what you mean when you say unicorn. Unfortunately, all the word means is one horned, so this is actually a unicorn.

Are you going to build Tuatara a Unicorn Church?

 

[Carla_Danger]

Yes No and Yes

The same three levels can show that SOME people make conservative principles
their religion, while other independents do not, and then there IS a generalization
that the collective movement of Christian/Rightwing/Constitutionalists IS
acting as a cohesive force. And yes people DO see any or all members of
"that group" to be acting in concert with each other.

So yes, some people DO see it that way, and some people DO follow and act on it as their "religion"
the same way people say about "liberalism".

Now, you can also divide into
WHO is FORMALLY pushing this conservative agenda,
and point to the GOP. This has been causing issues because, for example,
the Reparative Therapy resolution being added to the TX party platform
did not represent all the members.

Same with how the Democrat party principles, with that statement
WE BELIEVE that Health Care is a RIGHT, etc. does not fly with me
as a prochoice Democrat Constiutionalist who doesn't believe in nationalizing such a political belief, but keeping it as a free choice. I also know of Prolife Democrats who are not prochoice as I am.

So it's fine what Carla said, about atheists being within the circles of Republicans
and Conservatives, similarly to Gay members within those groups who don't agree with the party line.

Still, this shows there are BOTH things going on:
Some ARE making it their religion
Some ARE acting loosely as a collective group PERCEIVED as a political religion
Some ARE independent and not part of the other two!

So yes, yes, and no.

Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".

She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.

Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".

Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.

No.
Atheists believe that there are no deities.

Lack of belief either way makes one agnostic.

BZZZT Wrong!

Google

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēˌist/
noun

1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

A lack of belief is not a a belief.

Bzzzzzt. Wrong! A redefining of atheism to keep from being labeled a religion is the relatively recent trick perpetuated by Atheists. Dawkins did this with his 7 level scale and your source did it also.

If Atheists simply had a lack of belief in deities, they would not argue so verociously with those that believe.

If you have a lack of belief, you are agnostic. Atheists believe that deities do not exist.

You don't get to define what I "believe".

You don't get to impose your muddled excuse for "thinking" on me either.

I don't believe that the sun will rise tomorrow because I understand the laws that govern the orbit of the planets. I use knowledge, reason and logic so I have no need of your "beliefs".

That same knowledge, reason and logic tells me that it is a waste of my time arguing with someone who makes absurd allegations that atheism was "redefined" recently in order to "keep from being labeled a religion".

Sheer stupidity on that scale cannot be reasoned with so instead you have earned yourself a one way ticket to Cyberia.

[People that you ignore] *click* [Member to ignore] "asaratis" [Save Changes] *click*

View attachment 32134

Can you tell me how to put people on ignore?

Thank you kindly!

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Carla_Danger, Tuatara
and QuantumWindbag:

How about this, would it help to distinguish:
A. people who don't believe that belief in God is true for ANYONE
B. people who don't believe that such belief applies to THEM

So people can be B without being A.

Isn't that the real issue?

It is one thing if I say "No thanks, I don't believe I will eat anything, but you may or others may if they want.
I don't believe I need to myself."

And another to say "No, I don't believe I should eat, nor should anyone else for that matter!"
The people who preach that a certain way "should be for all others because it is the absolute truth"
isn't THAT what makes it a religion in the sense that matters (not the other definitions that aren't so critical)

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?

Wrong, Since when did a non belief equal a belief. I don't belive in unicorns. That is not a belief. Seriously, think about what you write.

 

[Carla_Danger]

No, actually it is you, because it is what it is. There is no dogma in atheism. No, atheist cannot turn atheism into a religion, because it's not one.

Yet they have, despite your unwillingness to admit it.

Maybe the best treatment on Earth of the question as to whether or not atheism is a religion came from music god Frank Zappa, founder of the Church of American Secular Humanism (CASH). Secular humanism is defined as reason rejecting dogma and supernaturalism, which is a fancy way of saying it’s atheists who believe in people and not God. I am down with reason, and although I think I have psychic powers that allow my friends' dead parents to take over my emotions, I respect those who don’t believe in the supernatural. It is a lot easier to believe in fewer things than to accept a host of others on faith alone, and humanists are intellectual minimalists. They are the Design Within Reach to Christianity's Shabby Chic, and no one was more ready to clean house than Frank Zappa.
Maybe the best treatment on Earth of the question as to whether or not atheism is a religion came from music god Frank Zappa, founder of the Church of American Secular Humanism (CASH). Secular humanism is defined as reason rejecting dogma and supernaturalism, which is a fancy way of saying it’s atheists who believe in people and not God. I am down with reason, and although I think I have psychic powers that allow my friends' dead parents to take over my emotions, I respect those who don’t believe in the supernatural. It is a lot easier to believe in fewer things than to accept a host of others on faith alone, and humanists are intellectual minimalists. They are the Design Within Reach to Christianity's Shabby Chic, and no one was more ready to clean house than Frank Zappa.

Atheism Is a Religion - Reason.com

Before the usual idiots come in and say this is just a tax dodge I want to point out that Scientology is the biggest tax dodge ever created, and no one I have seen denies that it is also a religion.

Wndbag, I just clicked on your link, and that's a NeoClown opinion piece. Not only that, but the author is a complete idiot. He said he was attacked on Twitter for posting his drivel, and I can't imagine why...

Here's my favorite part of the article...

"Secular humanism is defined as reason rejecting dogma and supernaturalism, which is a fancy way of saying it’s atheists who believe in people and not God. I am down with reason, and although I think I have psychic powers that allow my friends' dead parents to take over my emotions, I respect those who don’t believe in the supernatural."

"I'm down with that?..and you take this as a serious researched information? They guy sounds like he's 12. And then he says Secular humanism is a fancy way to say atheist believe in people, not God.

I've got news for you DingDong, believing in people is not a religion. Do you believe in people? Do you see or have physical contact with people? I believe that people exist....I SEE THEM EVERY DAY!!! I do not believe they have super powers though.

What an ignorant article!!!

 

[Carla_Danger]

You just defined conservatism as a religion, Emily!

Yes No and Yes

The same three levels can show that SOME people make conservative principles
their religion, while other independents do not, and then there IS a generalization
that the collective movement of Christian/Rightwing/Constitutionalists IS
acting as a cohesive force. And yes people DO see any or all members of
"that group" to be acting in concert with each other.

So yes, some people DO see it that way, and some people DO follow and act on it as their "religion"
the same way people say about "liberalism".

Now, you can also divide into
WHO is FORMALLY pushing this conservative agenda,
and point to the GOP. This has been causing issues because, for example,
the Reparative Therapy resolution being added to the TX party platform
did not represent all the members.

Same with how the Democrat party principles, with that statement
WE BELIEVE that Health Care is a RIGHT, etc. does not fly with me
as a prochoice Democrat Constiutionalist who doesn't believe in nationalizing such a political belief, but keeping it as a free choice. I also know of Prolife Democrats who are not prochoice as I am.

So it's fine what Carla said, about atheists being within the circles of Republicans
and Conservatives, similarly to Gay members within those groups who don't agree with the party line.

Still, this shows there are BOTH things going on:
Some ARE making it their religion
Some ARE acting loosely as a collective group PERCEIVED as a political religion
Some ARE independent and not part of the other two!

So yes, yes, and no.

Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".

She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.

Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".

Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.

No.
Atheists believe that there are no deities.

Lack of belief either way makes one agnostic.

BZZZT Wrong!

Google

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēˌist/
noun

1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

A lack of belief is not a a belief.

Bzzzzzt. Wrong! A redefining of atheism to keep from being labeled a religion is the relatively recent trick perpetuated by Atheists. Dawkins did this with his 7 level scale and your source did it also.

If Atheists simply had a lack of belief in deities, they would not argue so verociously with those that believe.

If you have a lack of belief, you are agnostic. Atheists believe that deities do not exist.

You are the only person who's redefining anything.

 

[asaratis]

Yes No and Yes

The same three levels can show that SOME people make conservative principles
their religion, while other independents do not, and then there IS a generalization
that the collective movement of Christian/Rightwing/Constitutionalists IS
acting as a cohesive force. And yes people DO see any or all members of
"that group" to be acting in concert with each other.

So yes, some people DO see it that way, and some people DO follow and act on it as their "religion"
the same way people say about "liberalism".

Now, you can also divide into
WHO is FORMALLY pushing this conservative agenda,
and point to the GOP. This has been causing issues because, for example,
the Reparative Therapy resolution being added to the TX party platform
did not represent all the members.

Same with how the Democrat party principles, with that statement
WE BELIEVE that Health Care is a RIGHT, etc. does not fly with me
as a prochoice Democrat Constiutionalist who doesn't believe in nationalizing such a political belief, but keeping it as a free choice. I also know of Prolife Democrats who are not prochoice as I am.

So it's fine what Carla said, about atheists being within the circles of Republicans
and Conservatives, similarly to Gay members within those groups who don't agree with the party line.

Still, this shows there are BOTH things going on:
Some ARE making it their religion
Some ARE acting loosely as a collective group PERCEIVED as a political religion
Some ARE independent and not part of the other two!

So yes, yes, and no.

Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".

She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.

Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".

Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.

No.
Atheists believe that there are no deities.

Lack of belief either way makes one agnostic.

BZZZT Wrong!

Google

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēˌist/
noun

1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

A lack of belief is not a a belief.

Bzzzzzt. Wrong! A redefining of atheism to keep from being labeled a religion is the relatively recent trick perpetuated by Atheists. Dawkins did this with his 7 level scale and your source did it also.

If Atheists simply had a lack of belief in deities, they would not argue so verociously with those that believe.

If you have a lack of belief, you are agnostic. Atheists believe that deities do not exist.

You don't get to define what I "believe".

You don't get to impose your muddled excuse for "thinking" on me either.

I don't believe that the sun will rise tomorrow because I understand the laws that govern the orbit of the planets. I use knowledge, reason and logic so I have no need of your "beliefs".

That same knowledge, reason and logic tells me that it is a waste of my time arguing with someone who makes absurd allegations that atheism was "redefined" recently in order to "keep from being labeled a religion".

Sheer stupidity on that scale cannot be reasoned with so instead you have earned yourself a one way ticket to Cyberia.

[People that you ignore] *click* [Member to ignore] "asaratis" [Save Changes] *click*

View attachment 32134

You don't get to redefine terms that have been defined for decades. All you Atheists want to do is weasel out of being called religious. Over the past recent years, Atheists have attempted to redefine their cult-like religion by listening to their Chief Minister of Atheist Dogma, Richard Dawkins and other weasels that do not wish to be called "religious".

Your posted "definition" comes from AtheistsUnited.com. Who would have guessed?

Try this:
Atheism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings. Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial. It is rooted in an array of philosophical systems. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Democritus and Epicurus argued for it in the context of materialism. In the 18th century David Hume and Immanuel Kant, though not atheists, argued against traditional proofs for God's existence, making belief a matter of faith alone. Atheists such as Ludwig Feuerbach held that God was a projection of human ideals and that recognizing this fiction made self-realization possible. Marxism exemplified modern materialism. Beginning with Friedrich Nietzsche, existentialist atheism proclaimed the death of God and the human freedom to determine value and meaning. Logical positivism holds that propositions concerning the existence or nonexistence of God are nonsensical or meaningless.

atheist

[ey-thee-ist]

• Synonyms
• Examples
• Word Origin

noun
1.
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

...and here's another:
Atheism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Atheist" redirects here. For other uses, see Atheist (disambiguation).

Part of a series on
Atheism
Types and concepts[show]
History and criticism[show]
Arguments for atheism[show]
People[show]
Related concepts[show]
Atheism portal WikiProject
v t e

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5]
*************************************

Any belief related to deities is a religion. Atheism espouses that there are none. THAT is a religious belief. If Atheists simply had a lack of belief, they would not be posting in this thread, would not be attacking Christians and other theists incessantly, would not be demanding that religious symbols be removed from society....

All this jabbering about someone having defined conservatism as a religion is strawman bullshit. Religion relates to deities. A belief in a deity (or deities) is a religious belief. A belief that deities do not exist is a religious belief.. Atheism is a religion.

If we could all redefine ourselves, I would be a Saint.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you going to build Tuatara a Unicorn Church?

Why would I do that? I am just pointing out that people who compare religion to unicorns are idiots.

 

[asaratis]

...<snip>...


Can you tell me how to put people on ignore?

Thank you kindly!

Just don't bother reading their posts!

Actually, just go to your Personal Details and look on the left side...scroll down to People You Ignore...enter my user name!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wndbag, I just clicked on your link, and that's a NeoClown opinion piece. Not only that, but the author is a complete idiot. He said he was attacked on Twitter for posting his drivel, and I can't imagine why...

For the same reason you keep attacking me for pointing out that atheism can be a religion, because idiots hate the truth.

Here's my favorite part of the article...

"Secular humanism is defined as reason rejecting dogma and supernaturalism, which is a fancy way of saying it’s atheists who believe in people and not God. I am down with reason, and although I think I have psychic powers that allow my friends' dead parents to take over my emotions, I respect those who don’t believe in the supernatural."

"I'm down with that?..and you take this as a serious researched information? They guy sounds like he's 12. And then he says Secular humanism is a fancy way to say atheist believe in people, not God.

I've got news for you DingDong, believing in people is not a religion. Do you believe in people? Do you see or have physical contact with people? I believe that people exist....I SEE THEM EVERY DAY!!! I do not believe they have super powers though.

What an ignorant article!!!

I am sure you thought you made a point there.

 

[asaratis]

You are the only person who's redefining anything.

Right!

I cite Merriam Webster and Wikipedia and you think I redefined something! Try again, please.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Dear Derideo_Te: Thank you for your clarifying statement.
I wish all people would EXPLAIN as you did what the problem is.
That way at least we know what is going wrong and have a chance to address it.

In this case, it may be this is just an exercise in learning to forgive unconditionally.
If Asaratis does not define your beliefs, then don't let him.
There is no need to ignore or cut him off to make this not so.

If it is truly independent, then he should be able to keep thinking what he does
and not affect you. Let him be wrong.

So this could be one of those exercises in how to really stop this nonsense of
associating people by label.

As Eleanor Roosevelt said, that no one can make you feel inferior without your consent,
nobody can define you or your beliefs either. If we do not agree, then that belief belongs
to the other person not to us. We shouldn't have to react negatively to make it clear. It already is their belief!

How can we agree to separate, so we don't end up like
fingers stuck in Chinese finger traps, the harder we fight to repel each
other the more we remain stuck. How do we free ourselves from this
mindset and truly not let it affect us what other people believe?

Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".

She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.

Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".

Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.

No.
Atheists believe that there are no deities.

Lack of belief either way makes one agnostic.

BZZZT Wrong!

Google

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēˌist/
noun

1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

A lack of belief is not a a belief.

Bzzzzzt. Wrong! A redefining of atheism to keep from being labeled a religion is the relatively recent trick perpetuated by Atheists. Dawkins did this with his 7 level scale and your source did it also.

If Atheists simply had a lack of belief in deities, they would not argue so verociously with those that believe.

If you have a lack of belief, you are agnostic. Atheists believe that deities do not exist.

You don't get to define what I "believe".

You don't get to impose your muddled excuse for "thinking" on me either.

I don't believe that the sun will rise tomorrow because I understand the laws that govern the orbit of the planets. I use knowledge, reason and logic so I have no need of your "beliefs".

That same knowledge, reason and logic tells me that it is a waste of my time arguing with someone who makes absurd allegations that atheism was "redefined" recently in order to "keep from being labeled a religion".

Sheer stupidity on that scale cannot be reasoned with so instead you have earned yourself a one way ticket to Cyberia.

[People that you ignore] *click* [Member to ignore] "asaratis" [Save Changes] *click*

View attachment 32134

My dear Emily,

My time is my own and I am under no obligation to suffer fools gladly around here. Those who prove themselves to be a complete and utter waste of my time don't deserve the privilege of wasting my time so that is why I consign them to Cyberia. The feature is there for a reason and I make good use of it because the value I place on my time far exceeds the vacuity of the posters who now reside in Cyberia.

They can still post their mindless drivel as much as they wish but it won't interfere with my time in this forum in the future. I am the one and only master of my time and when I decide that they are not worth it that is the result. I don't make this decision lightly because I consider a number of factors before I issue the one way ticket. Essentially when I see no redeeming value at all in the posts of someone I push them out of my time slot.

There is no shortage of posters either so it isn't as though I won't have anyone else to exchange ideas with. The abundance of fools though can make it tedious wading through their blather. Going by Carla's recent response to QW in this thread I am glad that he was the very first poster that I ignored when I first arrived here about 18 months ago. I must have saved many hours of my time by now not reading his claptrap.

So yes, the ignore system works perfectly. I get to control who I read and respond to and that improves the USMB experience. The Cyberians might as well be speaking another language or residing on a different planet as far as I am concerned because what they have to say is just meaningless noise since it contains nothing of any value whatsoever.

Peace
DT

 

[asaratis]

Dear Derideo_Te: Thank you for your clarifying statement.
I wish all people would EXPLAIN as you did what the problem is.
That way at least we know what is going wrong and have a chance to address it.

In this case, it may be this is just an exercise in learning to forgive unconditionally.
If Asaratis does not define your beliefs, then don't let him.
There is no need to ignore or cut him off to make this not so.

If it is truly independent, then he should be able to keep thinking what he does
and not affect you. Let him be wrong.

So this could be one of those exercises in how to really stop this nonsense of
associating people by label.
...<snip>...

My dear Emily,

My time is my own and I am under no obligation to suffer fools gladly around here. Those who prove themselves to be a complete and utter waste of my time don't deserve the privilege of wasting my time so that is why I consign them to Cyberia. The feature is there for a reason and I make good use of it because the value I place on my time far exceeds the vacuity of the posters who now reside in Cyberia.

They can still post their mindless drivel as much as they wish but it won't interfere with my time in this forum in the future. I am the one and only master of my time and when I decide that they are not worth it that is the result. I don't make this decision lightly because I consider a number of factors before I issue the one way ticket. Essentially when I see no redeeming value at all in the posts of someone I push them out of my time slot.

There is no shortage of posters either so it isn't as though I won't have anyone else to exchange ideas with. The abundance of fools though can make it tedious wading through their blather. Going by Carla's recent response to QW in this thread I am glad that he was the very first poster that I ignored when I first arrived here about 18 months ago. I must have saved many hours of my time by now not reading his claptrap.

So yes, the ignore system works perfectly. I get to control who I read and respond to and that improves the USMB experience. The Cyberians might as well be speaking another language or residing on a different planet as far as I am concerned because what they have to say is just meaningless noise since it contains nothing of any value whatsoever.

Peace
DT

Dear @emilynghiem ,

DT above expresses nothing more than self aggrandizement coupled with intentional veiling of his apparent inability to cope with those "beneath him" that logically challenge his errant postings and surreal re-definitions of terms that have been accepted for decades. This is very much akin to the liberals changing their own label from liberal to progressive in an attempt to escape the negative connotations now attached to liberal. Ignoring the opposition is also another tactic used exhaustively by liberals. It bears no resemblance to that which it precludes; productive dialog that often leads to self improvement and understanding.

Just as does hatred, ignoring people has little effect on the target.

Regards,

asaratis