Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[Quantum Windbag]

su·per·nat·u·ral·ism

(s

p

r-n

ch

r-

-l

z

m)
n.
1. The quality of being supernatural.
2. Belief in a supernatural agency that intervenes in the course of natural laws.

Therefore, the religion of Christianity is not a religion at all. It is the belief system of supernaturalism. Some of its adherents being Fundamentalist Supernaturalists.

Be honest now, someone is writing those jokes for you. You are getting funnier every day.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sealy isn't redefining atheism. While it's true that some atheists adopt the kind of anti-religious posture Christians fixate on, all that is required to be an atheist is to not be a theist. The kind of atheists that this thread is targeting are a subset of all atheists, and a small subset at that.

Wrong.

Not being a theist does not make you an atheist. Agnostics are not theists, yet they are not atheists either.

I agree. Atheism can be approached as a religion. And I'm not insisting that a religion has to involve gods. I'm just rejecting the notion that a belief about the existence of gods, in and of itself, constitutes a religion.

Yet that is exactly what some atheist define religion as. They refuse to accept the idea that one can believe in the existence of gods and not be religious. That is sealy's, among others I could name, major hangup. They cannot accept the reality religion is not defined by what you believe, it is defined by how you approach those beliefs.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Unlike a religion, atheism is not organized under a common doctrine (belief system). The only shared opinion among atheists is the nonexistence of a deity. There are a few common beliefs among atheists such as views regarding morality, religion and spirituality, but these beliefs vary greatly and are outside the definition of atheism and thus are not required to be an atheist.

Largely, atheism remains unorganized and as some would say, "organizing atheists is like trying to heard cats".

Ever try to get Baptists to agree about Calvinism?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Cutting and pasting the same, tired, refuted dictionary definitions many times won't magically float the boat anchor that defines your compulsion.

As usual, you have side-stepped addressing those refutations to your cut and paste dictionary themes.

Really, do you understand how desperate you appear by being so consumed with trying to force your religious beliefs on others?

You refuted the dictionary?

Dayam.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi dblack and asaratis:
Thanks for your assessments.
I think we will go in a loop if we keep criticizing each other's reactions.

If Asaratis happens to use religion to mean even having a belief, then let's either not use that word
or just agree Asaratis uses it differently.

I use Christianity very loosely where in some contexts it does mean teh traditional religion and practice
but in others it means the spirit of Charity for humanity sake, unconditional without expectation of reward,
or Restorative Justice, or being of Good Conscience. so this is not going to match when Hollie uses
the word Christianity as a dirty word that means the abusive killing and oppression in the name of religion.

To his credit, Asaratis did revise what he stated about Buddhism being considered a religion.
So this shows Asaratis will be honest if something needs clarification or change to be more consistent
with his beliefs and standards. There is not denial going on for the sake of being right, but actually
trying to make things consistent and right to avoid conflict or contradictions.

i also misunderstood Asaratis msg and will have to go back and correct those points.

Can we set aside the defensiveness and focus on the points?

I believe the real issue that determines if there is denial, projection and abuse going on is
* if people believe in a retributive approach to justice, with one sided judgment punishment and rejection
* if people believe in a restorative approach to justice with mutual forgiveness, correction and restitution

I find if people practice retributive justice, they will even clash with members of their own groups,
becaus they are projecting conflicts from the past onto other people and relations.

But if people believe in peace and justice, restorative justice by conflict resolution and consensus building
that includes all parties equally, they will get along with even people of opposing religious or political views.

the critical factor I think we should be discussing is our approach to justice
and how this affects us regardless of our conflicting views and differences.

the other thing I'd rather discuss is what makes a political religion?
how can we have equal protection of the laws of religious freedom and
no discrimination base don creed, if we allow political parties to legislate their beliefs
but not other collective groups considered religious? how is this fair. isn't that discriminating by creed
or by size of the affiliation if it is recognized as a religion or a party or not?

I'd rather get to the really interesting issues that can change the face of
religion and politics. how doyou suggest we get past the stage of not
trusting each other's motives, objecting to how each other states beliefs,
and get to the real issues that determine if we can resolve conflcits or not?

thanks dblack
I really think the political belief issue is critical and may
bring on the next constitutional convention to address political equality in representation and govt

Emily,
I've not left yet. However, all things must come to an end....eventually. It is futile to volley incessantly with posters who seem unable to participate in logical discussion and remember things that have already been established.

The posters that seem to vehemently object to Atheism's already having been defined as a religion use the following tactics:

• dismiss long standing definitions based upon their own biased redefinition
• use strawman arguments
• infer that my motive here is to turn them into Christians
• post ridiculous "analogies" to belittle the claim that Atheism is a religion.
• either do not read links or dismiss the content without refutation
• incorrectly and deliberately rephrase what I say

These are the mainstay tactics of the Atheists here. While they do not disturb me anywhere close to what the delusional Hollie likes to state, it is a bit irritating...about as irritating as were the occasions when my children thought they were not children, but adults. It makes me roll my eyes now and then, but certainly not be driven to anger. It takes a lot to piss me off. No poster here has ever come close.

I appreciate your confidence in me and PratchettFan. Quantum Windbag appears to be boxing their ears now and then also.

I can't be sure what your motives are, but most here are responding to the political movement to have atheism categorized as a religion. It's possible to construct a religion around atheistic views, and some have done this, but your claim that having any belief concerning the existence of deities constitutes a religion is specious. When this claim has been challenged, you dodge it and throw out diversions instead.

I feel like I've given you the benefit of the doubt but, unlike emily, I don't respect your views and I don't think your discussion here is in earnest. You're either here to further the campaign to treat atheism as religion for political reasons, or you're just plain trolling for attention.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When are religious beliefs involving magic and supernaturalism defined as "Logical"?

FYI, all it takes for something to be logical is for someone to construct a logical argument to support it. Aristotle managed to use logic to prove the existence of god long before before Jesus was even born.

That, by the way, does not make atheism illogical. Funny thing about logic, it can prove anything you want it to, if you know how to use it. One day, you should consider taking a class in logic just to see how absurd it is. If yo do perhaps you will stop grasping at straws and give up your forlorn hope that logic will save you from theism.

 

[emilynghiem]

Unlike a religion, atheism is not organized under a common doctrine (belief system). The only shared opinion among atheists is the nonexistence of a deity. There are a few common beliefs among atheists such as views regarding morality, religion and spirituality, but these beliefs vary greatly and are outside the definition of atheism and thus are not required to be an atheist.

Largely, atheism remains unorganized and as some would say, "organizing atheists is like trying to heard cats".

Ever try to get Baptists to agree about Calvinism?

Dear Quantum Windbag:
the way Hollie stated that all Christianity was a cult under a central authority figure
showed me she had no understanding of the political rift between protestant and catholic
that is as diverse as the liberals and conservatives.

We all have one Constitution, yet don't agree if rights come from God or from Govt.
So we have two split groups, similar to the federalists and antifederalist,
the Locke class liberals who wanted freedom from oppressive govt and trusting in natural rights
inherent in the people to govern themselves with limited govt;
and the Rousseau radical liberals who wanted equality by govt as the controlling institution
to ensure the will of the people was followed by all.

To argue that atheism is one big collective belief,
can't the same be said of Constitutionalism.

To say that some people make Constitutionalism their religion
but others do not, is the same with Atheism. Some do
* get religious about it personally
* collectively form movements or groups to push as a whole identity

when are we going to talk about that?

People aren't afraid to argue about Atheism.
What about Constitutionalism and how are we going
to deal with political religions that cannot be separated from govt
because they involve how we use or do not use govt and laws?

Anyone dare to take that on?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

only if you fail to realize that concluding gods don't exist without the requirement of belief, in itself requires belief......

How can you conclude something without believing?

Yes, I know that is the point of what you said, I am simplifying for the idiots that think everyone is a fundie.

 

[Hollie]

When are religious beliefs involving magic and supernaturalism defined as "Logical"?

FYI, all it takes for something to be logical is for someone to construct a logical argument to support it. Aristotle managed to use logic to prove the existence of god long before before Jesus was even born.

That, by the way, does not make atheism illogical. Funny thing about logic, it can prove anything you want it to, if you know how to use it. One day, you should consider taking a class in logic just to see how absurd it is. If yo do perhaps you will stop grasping at straws and give up your forlorn hope that logic will save you from theism.

For all your stuttering and mumbling, all it would take for you supernaturalists who have invented configurations and gods and spirit realms to make a supportable case is to provide some testable evidence of your gods. You have three of them and you can't support a single one?

 

[Hollie]

only if you fail to realize that concluding gods don't exist without the requirement of belief, in itself requires belief......

How can you conclude something without believing?

Yes, I know that is the point of what you said, I am simplifying for the idiots that think everyone is a fundie.

You and the other pointless whiner. What a joke.

 

[asaratis]

Dear Asaratis: Please stay, because of the obtuseness and obstruction going on.
You and PratchettFan are the ones who make the most sense to me.

Hollie Carla Sealybobo are being as honest as they can be, as is QW about what they believe is the problem.

Please stick this out to the end.
We can find where the bugs are, where our language and perceptions are clashing,
and rewire the conversation to avoid those trouble spots while we sort out other areas first.

If we quit on the first snag we find, we cannot untangle the rest of the knots.
like a ball of thread, we loosen the strands one by one, we do not pull and tighten them more.

If we pull on a thread that is underneath, that is getting the steps in the wrong order
and tying up the knots worse. can we start with the outermost threads and unravel freely
until we can get to the ones underneath? please do not give up and walk away.
I want to unravel the whole thing and see everything underneath and understand
every step to get there.

the rubik's cube seems to be an infinite mess, but all the colors do line up
when we move the pieces in the right order. I want to see the finished picture,
what this looks like when all our sides align even if we each have a different color.

Emily,
I've not left yet. However, all things must come to an end....eventually. It is futile to volley incessantly with posters who seem unable to participate in logical discussion and remember things that have already been established.

The posters that seem to vehemently object to Atheism's already having been defined as a religion use the following tactics:

• dismiss long standing definitions based upon their own biased redefinition
• use strawman arguments
• infer that my motive here is to turn them into Christians
• post ridiculous "analogies" to belittle the claim that Atheism is a religion.
• either do not read links or dismiss the content without refutation
• incorrectly and deliberately rephrase what I say

These are the mainstay tactics of the Atheists here. While they do not disturb me anywhere close to what the delusional Hollie likes to state, it is a bit irritating...about as irritating as were the occasions when my children thought they were not children, but adults. It makes me roll my eyes now and then, but certainly not be driven to anger. It takes a lot to piss me off. No poster here has ever come close.

I appreciate your confidence in me and PratchettFan. Quantum Windbag appears to be boxing their ears now and then also.

There's not a great of logic behind your admitted fraud as the purpose of this thread.

Not surprisingly, your bulleted items precisely define your failed attempts to bolster your religious dogma as opposed to actually furthering a defendable argument.

I've not tried to bolster religious dogma. I've tried to stay on the topic of whether Atheism is a religion or not. I really, actually, honest to God do not give a tinker's damn whether you adopt any dogma at all. Atheism is a religion and you are just too goddamned hard headed to agree.

You confuse your nonsensical "... because I say so", meme as a valid argument. That may work at your madrassah with a captive audience of like-minded, slack-jawed types but honestly Bunky, your attempts to force your religious beliefs on others is a waste of your time.

I know, right. There was a time when mere rumor or speculation was enough to send a Christian mob on a mission to do gawds work and burn me at the stake for refusing your forced religion.

Most of the world has grown up. Try it.

Again, you are being obtuse. I don't try to force my religious beliefs on anyone. To state that Atheism is a religion is NOT a religious belief. The fact that Atheism is a religion does not mean that its doctrine must be similar to that of other religions. So far as I care, its doctrine can and will remain as it is today...to incessantly ridicule, scorn and attack other religions. I don't expect anything about Atheism and Atheists to change. I simply argue against the posit the Atheism is not a religion.

It is a religion. That has been proved here in this thread. It is a godless religion, but a religion nonetheless. If you claim that you have no belief in deities, then you are agnostic and not Atheist. If you claim that deities do not exist, you are an Atheist. All this Richard Dawkins bullshit about a sliding scale is just that...bullshit. The word atheist was defined centuries ago. It is only the modern day Atheists that want to change it...for what reason I do not know....save maybe that you don't even want to be associated with the word religion except to be known as religion's arch enemy. I see your dilemma...don't you just hate yourself?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For all your stuttering and mumbling, all it would take for you supernaturalists who have invented configurations and gods and spirit realms to make a supportable case is to provide some testable evidence of your gods. You have three of them and you can't support a single one?

Excuse me? What the **** makes you think you can read my mind? How would you know how many gods I have?

By the way, there is a difference between empirical evidence, which is the term you want to use here, and logic. I am sorry I didn't make that clear in my post, but I keep hoping that you will actually learn to think before you let your fingers type your posts.

That said, there is empirical evidence for the existence of god. I won't bother to list it all since I really don't have a few thousand years to spare, but it does exist. You just refuse to see it because you prefer to live in a world defined by your bias and bigotry.

 

[asaratis]

Dear Asaratis: Please stay, because of the obtuseness and obstruction going on.
You and PratchettFan are the ones who make the most sense to me.

Hollie Carla Sealybobo are being as honest as they can be, as is QW about what they believe is the problem.

Please stick this out to the end.
We can find where the bugs are, where our language and perceptions are clashing,
and rewire the conversation to avoid those trouble spots while we sort out other areas first.

If we quit on the first snag we find, we cannot untangle the rest of the knots.
like a ball of thread, we loosen the strands one by one, we do not pull and tighten them more.

If we pull on a thread that is underneath, that is getting the steps in the wrong order
and tying up the knots worse. can we start with the outermost threads and unravel freely
until we can get to the ones underneath? please do not give up and walk away.
I want to unravel the whole thing and see everything underneath and understand
every step to get there.

the rubik's cube seems to be an infinite mess, but all the colors do line up
when we move the pieces in the right order. I want to see the finished picture,
what this looks like when all our sides align even if we each have a different color.

Emily,
I've not left yet. However, all things must come to an end....eventually. It is futile to volley incessantly with posters who seem unable to participate in logical discussion and remember things that have already been established.

The posters that seem to vehemently object to Atheism's already having been defined as a religion use the following tactics:

• dismiss long standing definitions based upon their own biased redefinition
• use strawman arguments
• infer that my motive here is to turn them into Christians
• post ridiculous "analogies" to belittle the claim that Atheism is a religion.
• either do not read links or dismiss the content without refutation
• incorrectly and deliberately rephrase what I say

These are the mainstay tactics of the Atheists here. While they do not disturb me anywhere close to what the delusional Hollie likes to state, it is a bit irritating...about as irritating as were the occasions when my children thought they were not children, but adults. It makes me roll my eyes now and then, but certainly not be driven to anger. It takes a lot to piss me off. No poster here has ever come close.

I appreciate your confidence in me and PratchettFan. Quantum Windbag appears to be boxing their ears now and then also.

I can't be sure what your motives are, but most here are responding to the political movement to have atheism categorized as a religion. It's possible to construct a religion around atheistic views, and some have done this, but your claim that having any belief concerning the existence of deities constitutes a religion is specious. When this claim has been challenged, you dodge it and throw out diversions instead.

I feel like I've given you the benefit of the doubt but, unlike emily, I don't respect your views and I don't think your discussion here is in earnest. You're either here to further the campaign to treat atheism as religion for political reasons, or you're just plain trolling for attention.

Atheism has already been characterized as a religion. It has been shown in this thread to be a religion. It has been the Atheists and supporters thereof that have created diversions. I have no political motives. I leave those to the courts....which have, by the way, already determined that...

...Atheism is a religion, folks!

 

[Hollie]

Dear Asaratis: Please stay, because of the obtuseness and obstruction going on.
You and PratchettFan are the ones who make the most sense to me.

Hollie Carla Sealybobo are being as honest as they can be, as is QW about what they believe is the problem.

Please stick this out to the end.
We can find where the bugs are, where our language and perceptions are clashing,
and rewire the conversation to avoid those trouble spots while we sort out other areas first.

If we quit on the first snag we find, we cannot untangle the rest of the knots.
like a ball of thread, we loosen the strands one by one, we do not pull and tighten them more.

If we pull on a thread that is underneath, that is getting the steps in the wrong order
and tying up the knots worse. can we start with the outermost threads and unravel freely
until we can get to the ones underneath? please do not give up and walk away.
I want to unravel the whole thing and see everything underneath and understand
every step to get there.

the rubik's cube seems to be an infinite mess, but all the colors do line up
when we move the pieces in the right order. I want to see the finished picture,
what this looks like when all our sides align even if we each have a different color.

Emily,
I've not left yet. However, all things must come to an end....eventually. It is futile to volley incessantly with posters who seem unable to participate in logical discussion and remember things that have already been established.

The posters that seem to vehemently object to Atheism's already having been defined as a religion use the following tactics:

• dismiss long standing definitions based upon their own biased redefinition
• use strawman arguments
• infer that my motive here is to turn them into Christians
• post ridiculous "analogies" to belittle the claim that Atheism is a religion.
• either do not read links or dismiss the content without refutation
• incorrectly and deliberately rephrase what I say

These are the mainstay tactics of the Atheists here. While they do not disturb me anywhere close to what the delusional Hollie likes to state, it is a bit irritating...about as irritating as were the occasions when my children thought they were not children, but adults. It makes me roll my eyes now and then, but certainly not be driven to anger. It takes a lot to piss me off. No poster here has ever come close.

I appreciate your confidence in me and PratchettFan. Quantum Windbag appears to be boxing their ears now and then also.

There's not a great of logic behind your admitted fraud as the purpose of this thread.

Not surprisingly, your bulleted items precisely define your failed attempts to bolster your religious dogma as opposed to actually furthering a defendable argument.

I've not tried to bolster religious dogma. I've tried to stay on the topic of whether Atheism is a religion or not. I really, actually, honest to God do not give a tinker's damn whether you adopt any dogma at all. Atheism is a religion and you are just too goddamned hard headed to agree.

You confuse your nonsensical "... because I say so", meme as a valid argument. That may work at your madrassah with a captive audience of like-minded, slack-jawed types but honestly Bunky, your attempts to force your religious beliefs on others is a waste of your time.

I know, right. There was a time when mere rumor or speculation was enough to send a Christian mob on a mission to do gawds work and burn me at the stake for refusing your forced religion.

Most of the world has grown up. Try it.

Again, you are being obtuse. I don't try to force my religious beliefs on anyone. To state that Atheism is a religion is NOT a religious belief. The fact that Atheism is a religion does not mean that its doctrine must be similar to that of other religions. So far as I care, its doctrine can and will remain as it is today...to incessantly ridicule, scorn and attack other religions. I don't expect anything about Atheism and Atheists to change. I simply argue against the posit the Atheism is not a religion.

It is a religion. That has been proved here in this thread. It is a godless religion, but a religion nonetheless. If you claim that you have no belief in deities, then you are agnostic and not Atheist. If you claim that deities do not exist, you are an Atheist. All this Richard Dawkins bullshit about a sliding scale is just that...bullshit. The word atheist was defined centuries ago. It is only the modern day Atheists that want to change it...for what reason I do not know....save maybe that you don't even want to be associated with the word religion except to be known as religions arch enemy. I see your dilemma...don't you just hate yourself?

We're left with your whining about atheism being a religion yet you offer nothing to support that claim.

What a shame, for you, that you angry fundies are not able to force your superstitious beliefs on others.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Asaratis: by your use of religion to mean you don't have to be religious about it, only hold that belief.
Could you say these are religions then:
1. people who believe atheism is a religion
2. people who believe it isn't, or don't believe it is, and just think they are stating it, not a belief
3. people like me who see that some people see it different ways, some are just stating it and some believe in it

if these are all beliefs, can these be religions?
if these are just statements, can these be not religions?

And my real question:
can't both be going on at the same time?
can some people see your and my statements as a religion while we don't,
and likewise we will see their beliefs as a religion, but they don't!

Dear Asaratis: Please stay, because of the obtuseness and obstruction going on.
You and PratchettFan are the ones who make the most sense to me.

Hollie Carla Sealybobo are being as honest as they can be, as is QW about what they believe is the problem.

Please stick this out to the end.
We can find where the bugs are, where our language and perceptions are clashing,
and rewire the conversation to avoid those trouble spots while we sort out other areas first.

If we quit on the first snag we find, we cannot untangle the rest of the knots.
like a ball of thread, we loosen the strands one by one, we do not pull and tighten them more.

If we pull on a thread that is underneath, that is getting the steps in the wrong order
and tying up the knots worse. can we start with the outermost threads and unravel freely
until we can get to the ones underneath? please do not give up and walk away.
I want to unravel the whole thing and see everything underneath and understand
every step to get there.

the rubik's cube seems to be an infinite mess, but all the colors do line up
when we move the pieces in the right order. I want to see the finished picture,
what this looks like when all our sides align even if we each have a different color.

Emily,
I've not left yet. However, all things must come to an end....eventually. It is futile to volley incessantly with posters who seem unable to participate in logical discussion and remember things that have already been established.

The posters that seem to vehemently object to Atheism's already having been defined as a religion use the following tactics:

• dismiss long standing definitions based upon their own biased redefinition
• use strawman arguments
• infer that my motive here is to turn them into Christians
• post ridiculous "analogies" to belittle the claim that Atheism is a religion.
• either do not read links or dismiss the content without refutation
• incorrectly and deliberately rephrase what I say

These are the mainstay tactics of the Atheists here. While they do not disturb me anywhere close to what the delusional Hollie likes to state, it is a bit irritating...about as irritating as were the occasions when my children thought they were not children, but adults. It makes me roll my eyes now and then, but certainly not be driven to anger. It takes a lot to piss me off. No poster here has ever come close.

I appreciate your confidence in me and PratchettFan. Quantum Windbag appears to be boxing their ears now and then also.

There's not a great of logic behind your admitted fraud as the purpose of this thread.

Not surprisingly, your bulleted items precisely define your failed attempts to bolster your religious dogma as opposed to actually furthering a defendable argument.

I've not tried to bolster religious dogma. I've tried to stay on the topic of whether Atheism is a religion or not. I really, actually, honest to God do not give a tinker's damn whether you adopt any dogma at all. Atheism is a religion and you are just too goddamned hard headed to agree.

You confuse your nonsensical "... because I say so", meme as a valid argument. That may work at your madrassah with a captive audience of like-minded, slack-jawed types but honestly Bunky, your attempts to force your religious beliefs on others is a waste of your time.

I know, right. There was a time when mere rumor or speculation was enough to send a Christian mob on a mission to do gawds work and burn me at the stake for refusing your forced religion.

Most of the world has grown up. Try it.

Again, you are being obtuse. I don't try to force my religious beliefs on anyone. To state that Atheism is a religion is NOT a religious belief. The fact that Atheism is a religion does not mean that its doctrine must be similar to that of other religions. So far as I care, its doctrine can and will remain as it is today...to incessantly ridicule, scorn and attack other religions. I don't expect anything about Atheism and Atheists to change. I simply argue against the posit the Atheism is not a religion.

It is a religion. That has been proved here in this thread. It is a godless religion, but a religion nonetheless. If you claim that you have no belief in deities, then you are agnostic and not Atheist. If you claim that deities do not exist, you are an Atheist. All this Richard Dawkins bullshit about a sliding scale is just that...bullshit. The word atheist was defined centuries ago. It is only the modern day Atheists that want to change it...for what reason I do not know....save maybe that you don't even want to be associated with the word religion except to be known as religions arch enemy. I see your dilemma...don't you just hate yourself?

 

[Hollie]

Dear Asaratis: Please stay, because of the obtuseness and obstruction going on.
You and PratchettFan are the ones who make the most sense to me.

Hollie Carla Sealybobo are being as honest as they can be, as is QW about what they believe is the problem.

Please stick this out to the end.
We can find where the bugs are, where our language and perceptions are clashing,
and rewire the conversation to avoid those trouble spots while we sort out other areas first.

If we quit on the first snag we find, we cannot untangle the rest of the knots.
like a ball of thread, we loosen the strands one by one, we do not pull and tighten them more.

If we pull on a thread that is underneath, that is getting the steps in the wrong order
and tying up the knots worse. can we start with the outermost threads and unravel freely
until we can get to the ones underneath? please do not give up and walk away.
I want to unravel the whole thing and see everything underneath and understand
every step to get there.

the rubik's cube seems to be an infinite mess, but all the colors do line up
when we move the pieces in the right order. I want to see the finished picture,
what this looks like when all our sides align even if we each have a different color.

Emily,
I've not left yet. However, all things must come to an end....eventually. It is futile to volley incessantly with posters who seem unable to participate in logical discussion and remember things that have already been established.

The posters that seem to vehemently object to Atheism's already having been defined as a religion use the following tactics:

• dismiss long standing definitions based upon their own biased redefinition
• use strawman arguments
• infer that my motive here is to turn them into Christians
• post ridiculous "analogies" to belittle the claim that Atheism is a religion.
• either do not read links or dismiss the content without refutation
• incorrectly and deliberately rephrase what I say

These are the mainstay tactics of the Atheists here. While they do not disturb me anywhere close to what the delusional Hollie likes to state, it is a bit irritating...about as irritating as were the occasions when my children thought they were not children, but adults. It makes me roll my eyes now and then, but certainly not be driven to anger. It takes a lot to piss me off. No poster here has ever come close.

I appreciate your confidence in me and PratchettFan. Quantum Windbag appears to be boxing their ears now and then also.

I can't be sure what your motives are, but most here are responding to the political movement to have atheism categorized as a religion. It's possible to construct a religion around atheistic views, and some have done this, but your claim that having any belief concerning the existence of deities constitutes a religion is specious. When this claim has been challenged, you dodge it and throw out diversions instead.

I feel like I've given you the benefit of the doubt but, unlike emily, I don't respect your views and I don't think your discussion here is in earnest. You're either here to further the campaign to treat atheism as religion for political reasons, or you're just plain trolling for attention.

Atheism has already been characterized as a religion. It has been shown in this thread to be a religion. It has been the Atheists and supporters thereof that have created diversions. I have no political motives. I leave those to the courts....which have, by the way, already determined that...

...Atheism is a religion, folks!

If you bind your bibles together with duct tape, they're a more formidable weapon than mere gargantuan text as a way to force your superstitious beliefs on others.

 

[dblack]

Sealy isn't redefining atheism. While it's true that some atheists adopt the kind of anti-religious posture Christians fixate on, all that is required to be an atheist is to not be a theist. The kind of atheists that this thread is targeting are a subset of all atheists, and a small subset at that.

Wrong.

Not being a theist does not make you an atheist. Agnostics are not theists, yet they are not atheists either

Well, then you're using a very narrow definition of atheist that really only encompasses one type of atheistic belief. Atheist is synonymous with non-theist. That's what the 'a' prefix means.

And you're using a popular misrepresentation of agnosticism. But in point of fact, it's possible for an agnostic to be either a theist, or an atheist.

If we were just disagreeing on definitions, it would be a pretty boring conversation, but I think both sides recognize there's more to it than that. The subtext here is the fact that our government treats religious beliefs and non-theist beliefs (science and philosophy) differently in matters of education and government sponsorship. So, those with a vested interest have strong incentive to manipulate the definitions used by government in determining which beliefs are considered 'religious' and which aren't.

 

[emilynghiem]

What a shame, for you, that you angry fundies are not able to force your superstitious beliefs on others.

Hi Hollie I think you come across as angrier at Christians/Christianity
than both Asaratis and I combined.

I think QW may be as angry at atheists as you are toward theists.

Can you see the difference between QW reactions
and Asaratis and mine trying to address the points not attack the persons?

I think I am about as open as DT is and don't get as personal.
We tend to respect each other and try our best to focus on correcting the points we conflict or differ over.

Sealybobo and Asaratis may get a little bit reactionary personally to other people
and get a little off the content and start responding to people personally. But both
are plenty able to argue about the content, and steer away from any personal sidetracking
even after it starts, they are both more concerned about the issues.

QW and you both seem to jump past the content and start
making negative assessment about the person personally.

Do you see this also. Can you compare the levels we are at?

Would you agree that QW and you get the most personal and
start making generalizations about the GROUP or LABEL people are associated with Personally.
So if anyone is expressing anger at a group, it is how you and QW react.

Next I saw a bit of reaction in return from Sealybobo and also Asaratis
but generally only if they are addressed that way first, then they give it right back.
if not attacked, then they both stay on topic and focus on the content and corrections.

DT and I are actively trying to correct things.
DT may jump on rightwing more, and I jump on both;
but I tend to address more leftwing as a fellow liberal
since I have a better chance to communicate a point
than someone too far right they don't trust.

Hollie if you can see that QW comes across as more angry or reactionary
than Asaratis or PratchettFan, can you see the same in yourself?

Do all these people really look the same to you?
how can you argue with Asartis not to lump all Atheists
together as one collective ID under a religion
if you lump all people together and don't distinguish
who is angry and who is being open and fair and not projecting anger?

 

[Hollie]

su·per·nat·u·ral·ism

(s

p

r-n

ch

r-

-l

z

m)
n.
1. The quality of being supernatural.
2. Belief in a supernatural agency that intervenes in the course of natural laws.

Therefore, the religion of Christianity is not a religion at all. It is the belief system of supernaturalism. Some of its adherents being Fundamentalist Supernaturalists.

Be honest now, someone is writing those jokes for you. You are getting funnier every day.

Be honest. You're just incapable of stringing words into coherent sentences so you post these dull messages just to get attention.

 

[dblack]

I agree. Atheism can be approached as a religion. And I'm not insisting that a religion has to involve gods. I'm just rejecting the notion that a belief about the existence of gods, in and of itself, constitutes a religion.

Yet that is exactly what some atheist define religion as. They refuse to accept the idea that one can believe in the existence of gods and not be religious. That is sealy's, among others I could name, major hangup. They cannot accept the reality religion is not defined by what you believe, it is defined by how you approach those beliefs.

That's a good point. In fact, I'd classify myself as someone who believes in the existence of gods (though I might not accept every power attributed to a given god), yet I'm not religious. I don't follow any god.