Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Um, no. You have claimed atheism is a religion. Then, as now, you are unable to support that position. Then, as now, you hope not to be held accountable for your specious opinions and instead, seek to impose your dogma on others.Ah. You've employed the "prove it isn't", tactic.One more time. Dogma is the insistence that a belief is true and not subject to question. If your position does not constitute dogma, then nothing does. And again, one more time, if I am wrong then present your evidence. I keep asking you to do that, and you keep saying I'm dogmatic for not just accepting your position without question.
dogma
noun dog·ma \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
: a belief or set of beliefs that is taught by a religious organization
There is no dogma in atheism.
Then you can provide the evidence to support the claim which was made? Because all of this started when I said it was pure faith. Show me how it isn't. And if it isn't, and I am not supposed to question it, then I refer you to the definition above.
That's a tactic often dragged out by religious zealots when they're tasked with supporting their specious claims.
You maintain your dogma of "atheism is a religion". In multiple posts and in multiple threads you have consistently failed to present a defendable argument for your dogma. You have sidestepped and evaded and made every attempt to shift the burden of proof which falls to the positive assertion.
So once again we're left with you making arguments you cannot support and then sidestepping any accounting for your dishonesty.
Doesn't that make you feel, at the very least, dirty?
I get that I am talking to a true believer, so I honestly don't expect to get through to you. The only thing I have claimed is that your position is based upon belief. I have repeatedly asked you for the evidence to support your position and you have repeatedly berated me for having the temerity to do so. Obviously, you have no evidence. You are operating on belief and belief alone. You just don't have the honesty to admit it. That is not my problem. But don't expect a free ride.
Um, no. You have claimed atheism is a religion. Then, as now, you are unable to support that position. Then, as now, you hope not to be held accountable for your specious opinions and instead, seek to impose your dogma on others.Ah. You've employed the "prove it isn't", tactic.One more time. Dogma is the insistence that a belief is true and not subject to question. If your position does not constitute dogma, then nothing does. And again, one more time, if I am wrong then present your evidence. I keep asking you to do that, and you keep saying I'm dogmatic for not just accepting your position without question.
dogma
noun dog·ma \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
: a belief or set of beliefs that is taught by a religious organization
There is no dogma in atheism.
Then you can provide the evidence to support the claim which was made? Because all of this started when I said it was pure faith. Show me how it isn't. And if it isn't, and I am not supposed to question it, then I refer you to the definition above.
That's a tactic often dragged out by religious zealots when they're tasked with supporting their specious claims.
You maintain your dogma of "atheism is a religion". In multiple posts and in multiple threads you have consistently failed to present a defendable argument for your dogma. You have sidestepped and evaded and made every attempt to shift the burden of proof which falls to the positive assertion.
So once again we're left with you making arguments you cannot support and then sidestepping any accounting for your dishonesty.
Doesn't that make you feel, at the very least, dirty?
I get that I am talking to a true believer, so I honestly don't expect to get through to you. The only thing I have claimed is that your position is based upon belief. I have repeatedly asked you for the evidence to support your position and you have repeatedly berated me for having the temerity to do so. Obviously, you have no evidence. You are operating on belief and belief alone. You just don't have the honesty to admit it. That is not my problem. But don't expect a free ride.
What PratchettFan is saying is that if one believes there is no God(s), it is as much a faith-based belief as believing there is one. In other words, agnosticism is the only rational position. There is no faith in not believing one way or the other.
I don't believe in God. I don't believe there is no possibility of one or something like a god or something unimaginable. I just don't know.
Belief should not be substituted for knowledge. If there is one atheist belief, that should be it.
Hollie sealybobo ClosedCaption Carla_Danger
I would agree with this. Although, I am not convinced pure agnosticism is possible - at least in an adult. However, I would certainly agree that agnosticism is the only rational position.
And you have faith in that position?
Sure.
Well I don't appreciate you projecting your religion onto others.
We agree you gotta pick a side. LolWhat PratchettFan is saying is that if one believes there is no God(s), it is as much a faith-based belief as believing there is one. In other words, agnosticism is the only rational position. There is no faith in not believing one way or the other.
I don't believe in God. I don't believe there is no possibility of one or something like a god or something unimaginable. I just don't know.
Belief should not be substituted for knowledge. If there is one atheist belief, that should be it.
Hollie sealybobo ClosedCaption Carla_Danger
I would agree with this. Although, I am not convinced pure agnosticism is possible - at least in an adult. However, I would certainly agree that agnosticism is the only rational position.
What PratchettFan is saying is that if one believes there is no God(s), it is as much a faith-based belief as believing there is one. In other words, agnosticism is the only rational position. There is no faith in not believing one way or the other.
I don't believe in God. I don't believe there is no possibility of one or something like a god or something unimaginable. I just don't know.
Belief should not be substituted for knowledge. If there is one atheist belief, that should be it.
Hollie sealybobo ClosedCaption Carla_Danger
I would agree with this. Although, I am not convinced pure agnosticism is possible - at least in an adult. However, I would certainly agree that agnosticism is the only rational position.
And you have faith in that position?
Sure.
Well I don't appreciate you projecting your religion onto others.
Really? What is my religion?
I would agree with this. Although, I am not convinced pure agnosticism is possible - at least in an adult. However, I would certainly agree that agnosticism is the only rational position.
And you have faith in that position?
Sure.
Well I don't appreciate you projecting your religion onto others.
Really? What is my religion?
The religion of Continuous Petty Blabber.
Um, no. You have claimed atheism is a religion. Then, as now, you are unable to support that position. Then, as now, you hope not to be held accountable for your specious opinions and instead, seek to impose your dogma on others.Ah. You've employed the "prove it isn't", tactic.dogma
noun dog·ma \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
: a belief or set of beliefs that is taught by a religious organization
There is no dogma in atheism.
Then you can provide the evidence to support the claim which was made? Because all of this started when I said it was pure faith. Show me how it isn't. And if it isn't, and I am not supposed to question it, then I refer you to the definition above.
That's a tactic often dragged out by religious zealots when they're tasked with supporting their specious claims.
You maintain your dogma of "atheism is a religion". In multiple posts and in multiple threads you have consistently failed to present a defendable argument for your dogma. You have sidestepped and evaded and made every attempt to shift the burden of proof which falls to the positive assertion.
So once again we're left with you making arguments you cannot support and then sidestepping any accounting for your dishonesty.
Doesn't that make you feel, at the very least, dirty?
I get that I am talking to a true believer, so I honestly don't expect to get through to you. The only thing I have claimed is that your position is based upon belief. I have repeatedly asked you for the evidence to support your position and you have repeatedly berated me for having the temerity to do so. Obviously, you have no evidence. You are operating on belief and belief alone. You just don't have the honesty to admit it. That is not my problem. But don't expect a free ride.
What I have maintained is that some people, and you are certainly included in that, have turned Atheism into a religion. As evidence I present your post. I ask you for evidence and you respond that I am imposing dogma on you. I am not allowed to question, not allowed to ask for support. I am to accept without question.
Of course, Atheism doesn't have dogma, so this dogma can't be dogma. It is wrong of me to even consider it.
What you're hoping to do is sidestep any accounting for your indefensible claims.Um, no. You have claimed atheism is a religion. Then, as now, you are unable to support that position. Then, as now, you hope not to be held accountable for your specious opinions and instead, seek to impose your dogma on others.Ah. You've employed the "prove it isn't", tactic.dogma
noun dog·ma \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
: a belief or set of beliefs that is taught by a religious organization
There is no dogma in atheism.
Then you can provide the evidence to support the claim which was made? Because all of this started when I said it was pure faith. Show me how it isn't. And if it isn't, and I am not supposed to question it, then I refer you to the definition above.
That's a tactic often dragged out by religious zealots when they're tasked with supporting their specious claims.
You maintain your dogma of "atheism is a religion". In multiple posts and in multiple threads you have consistently failed to present a defendable argument for your dogma. You have sidestepped and evaded and made every attempt to shift the burden of proof which falls to the positive assertion.
So once again we're left with you making arguments you cannot support and then sidestepping any accounting for your dishonesty.
Doesn't that make you feel, at the very least, dirty?
I get that I am talking to a true believer, so I honestly don't expect to get through to you. The only thing I have claimed is that your position is based upon belief. I have repeatedly asked you for the evidence to support your position and you have repeatedly berated me for having the temerity to do so. Obviously, you have no evidence. You are operating on belief and belief alone. You just don't have the honesty to admit it. That is not my problem. But don't expect a free ride.
What I have maintained is that some people, and you are certainly included in that, have turned Atheism into a religion. As evidence I present your post. I ask you for evidence and you respond that I am imposing dogma on you. I am not allowed to question, not allowed to ask for support. I am to accept without question.
Of course, Atheism doesn't have dogma, so this dogma can't be dogma. It is wrong of me to even consider it.
And you have faith in that position?
Sure.
Well I don't appreciate you projecting your religion onto others.
Really? What is my religion?
The religion of Continuous Petty Blabber.
To recap then. You can't support the statement with evidence, but don't like it being called pure faith. You don't like my projecting my religion on you, but have no idea what my religion is. And your position is based upon a rational examination of the facts. Do I have that about right?
What you're hoping to do is sidestep any accounting for your indefensible claims.Um, no. You have claimed atheism is a religion. Then, as now, you are unable to support that position. Then, as now, you hope not to be held accountable for your specious opinions and instead, seek to impose your dogma on others.Ah. You've employed the "prove it isn't", tactic.Then you can provide the evidence to support the claim which was made? Because all of this started when I said it was pure faith. Show me how it isn't. And if it isn't, and I am not supposed to question it, then I refer you to the definition above.
That's a tactic often dragged out by religious zealots when they're tasked with supporting their specious claims.
You maintain your dogma of "atheism is a religion". In multiple posts and in multiple threads you have consistently failed to present a defendable argument for your dogma. You have sidestepped and evaded and made every attempt to shift the burden of proof which falls to the positive assertion.
So once again we're left with you making arguments you cannot support and then sidestepping any accounting for your dishonesty.
Doesn't that make you feel, at the very least, dirty?
I get that I am talking to a true believer, so I honestly don't expect to get through to you. The only thing I have claimed is that your position is based upon belief. I have repeatedly asked you for the evidence to support your position and you have repeatedly berated me for having the temerity to do so. Obviously, you have no evidence. You are operating on belief and belief alone. You just don't have the honesty to admit it. That is not my problem. But don't expect a free ride.
What I have maintained is that some people, and you are certainly included in that, have turned Atheism into a religion. As evidence I present your post. I ask you for evidence and you respond that I am imposing dogma on you. I am not allowed to question, not allowed to ask for support. I am to accept without question.
Of course, Atheism doesn't have dogma, so this dogma can't be dogma. It is wrong of me to even consider it.
Your claim is that "atheism is a religion". How is that so? You consistently sidestep addressing that.
You remind me of me when I first started to see the truth. Good for you. Keep going. Its not enough to just reject religions. The true reality is that there very well may be no god.Do you agree theres a difference between being agnostic about a generic creator and being atheist about all the man made organized religions? You must have an opinion about Jesus Mohammad Noah moses and Joseph smithWhat PratchettFan is saying is that if one believes there is no God(s), it is as much a faith-based belief as believing there is one. In other words, agnosticism is the only rational position. There is no faith in not believing one way or the other.
I don't believe in God. I don't believe there is no possibility of one or something like a god or something unimaginable. I just don't know.
Belief should not be substituted for knowledge. If there is one atheist belief, that should be it.
Hollie sealybobo ClosedCaption Carla_Danger
Yes. My opinion is that all known religions' claims of truth seem highly unlikely.
Again. I would agree.
What you're hoping to do is sidestep any accounting for your indefensible claims.Um, no. You have claimed atheism is a religion. Then, as now, you are unable to support that position. Then, as now, you hope not to be held accountable for your specious opinions and instead, seek to impose your dogma on others.Ah. You've employed the "prove it isn't", tactic.Then you can provide the evidence to support the claim which was made? Because all of this started when I said it was pure faith. Show me how it isn't. And if it isn't, and I am not supposed to question it, then I refer you to the definition above.
That's a tactic often dragged out by religious zealots when they're tasked with supporting their specious claims.
You maintain your dogma of "atheism is a religion". In multiple posts and in multiple threads you have consistently failed to present a defendable argument for your dogma. You have sidestepped and evaded and made every attempt to shift the burden of proof which falls to the positive assertion.
So once again we're left with you making arguments you cannot support and then sidestepping any accounting for your dishonesty.
Doesn't that make you feel, at the very least, dirty?
I get that I am talking to a true believer, so I honestly don't expect to get through to you. The only thing I have claimed is that your position is based upon belief. I have repeatedly asked you for the evidence to support your position and you have repeatedly berated me for having the temerity to do so. Obviously, you have no evidence. You are operating on belief and belief alone. You just don't have the honesty to admit it. That is not my problem. But don't expect a free ride.
What I have maintained is that some people, and you are certainly included in that, have turned Atheism into a religion. As evidence I present your post. I ask you for evidence and you respond that I am imposing dogma on you. I am not allowed to question, not allowed to ask for support. I am to accept without question.
Of course, Atheism doesn't have dogma, so this dogma can't be dogma. It is wrong of me to even consider it.
Your claim is that "atheism is a religion". How is that so? You consistently sidestep addressing that.
Our evidence is you have no evidence you dummyWhat you're hoping to do is sidestep any accounting for your indefensible claims.Um, no. You have claimed atheism is a religion. Then, as now, you are unable to support that position. Then, as now, you hope not to be held accountable for your specious opinions and instead, seek to impose your dogma on others.Ah. You've employed the "prove it isn't", tactic.
That's a tactic often dragged out by religious zealots when they're tasked with supporting their specious claims.
You maintain your dogma of "atheism is a religion". In multiple posts and in multiple threads you have consistently failed to present a defendable argument for your dogma. You have sidestepped and evaded and made every attempt to shift the burden of proof which falls to the positive assertion.
So once again we're left with you making arguments you cannot support and then sidestepping any accounting for your dishonesty.
Doesn't that make you feel, at the very least, dirty?
I get that I am talking to a true believer, so I honestly don't expect to get through to you. The only thing I have claimed is that your position is based upon belief. I have repeatedly asked you for the evidence to support your position and you have repeatedly berated me for having the temerity to do so. Obviously, you have no evidence. You are operating on belief and belief alone. You just don't have the honesty to admit it. That is not my problem. But don't expect a free ride.
What I have maintained is that some people, and you are certainly included in that, have turned Atheism into a religion. As evidence I present your post. I ask you for evidence and you respond that I am imposing dogma on you. I am not allowed to question, not allowed to ask for support. I am to accept without question.
Of course, Atheism doesn't have dogma, so this dogma can't be dogma. It is wrong of me to even consider it.
Your claim is that "atheism is a religion". How is that so? You consistently sidestep addressing that.
I have sidestepped? A statement of fact was made. Is it or is it not belief? If it is not, present the evidence.
You remind me of me when I first started to see the truth. Good for you. Keep going. Its not enough to just reject religions. The true reality is that there very well may be no god.Do you agree theres a difference between being agnostic about a generic creator and being atheist about all the man made organized religions? You must have an opinion about Jesus Mohammad Noah moses and Joseph smithWhat PratchettFan is saying is that if one believes there is no God(s), it is as much a faith-based belief as believing there is one. In other words, agnosticism is the only rational position. There is no faith in not believing one way or the other.
I don't believe in God. I don't believe there is no possibility of one or something like a god or something unimaginable. I just don't know.
Belief should not be substituted for knowledge. If there is one atheist belief, that should be it.
Hollie sealybobo ClosedCaption Carla_Danger
Yes. My opinion is that all known religions' claims of truth seem highly unlikely.
Again. I would agree.
But its better this way. Instead of the wishful thinking that you will live forever work towards helping the species live as long as possible.
That means going green and being pro science. Think you can handle it? Lol
Our evidence is you have no evidence you dummyWhat you're hoping to do is sidestep any accounting for your indefensible claims.Um, no. You have claimed atheism is a religion. Then, as now, you are unable to support that position. Then, as now, you hope not to be held accountable for your specious opinions and instead, seek to impose your dogma on others.I get that I am talking to a true believer, so I honestly don't expect to get through to you. The only thing I have claimed is that your position is based upon belief. I have repeatedly asked you for the evidence to support your position and you have repeatedly berated me for having the temerity to do so. Obviously, you have no evidence. You are operating on belief and belief alone. You just don't have the honesty to admit it. That is not my problem. But don't expect a free ride.
What I have maintained is that some people, and you are certainly included in that, have turned Atheism into a religion. As evidence I present your post. I ask you for evidence and you respond that I am imposing dogma on you. I am not allowed to question, not allowed to ask for support. I am to accept without question.
Of course, Atheism doesn't have dogma, so this dogma can't be dogma. It is wrong of me to even consider it.
Your claim is that "atheism is a religion". How is that so? You consistently sidestep addressing that.
I have sidestepped? A statement of fact was made. Is it or is it not belief? If it is not, present the evidence.
You remind me of me when I first started to see the truth. Good for you. Keep going. Its not enough to just reject religions. The true reality is that there very well may be no god.Do you agree theres a difference between being agnostic about a generic creator and being atheist about all the man made organized religions? You must have an opinion about Jesus Mohammad Noah moses and Joseph smithWhat PratchettFan is saying is that if one believes there is no God(s), it is as much a faith-based belief as believing there is one. In other words, agnosticism is the only rational position. There is no faith in not believing one way or the other.
I don't believe in God. I don't believe there is no possibility of one or something like a god or something unimaginable. I just don't know.
Belief should not be substituted for knowledge. If there is one atheist belief, that should be it.
Hollie sealybobo ClosedCaption Carla_Danger
Yes. My opinion is that all known religions' claims of truth seem highly unlikely.
Again. I would agree.
But its better this way. Instead of the wishful thinking that you will live forever work towards helping the species live as long as possible.
That means going green and being pro science. Think you can handle it? Lol
Sound more like an agnostic atheist to me.What PratchettFan is saying is that if one believes there is no God(s), it is as much a faith-based belief as believing there is one. In other words, agnosticism is the only rational position. There is no faith in not believing one way or the other.
I don't believe in God. I don't believe there is no possibility of one or something like a god or something unimaginable. I just don't know.
Belief should not be substituted for knowledge. If there is one atheist belief, that should be it.
Hollie sealybobo ClosedCaption Carla_Danger
A theist says they know god exists. He visited them. Fact.
There's actually no such thing as an atheist because you can not KNOW god doesnt exist. Atheism is the opposite of theism. Theists say they know god exists. Right? See how they dont know and neither do atheists? So the best position is agnostic atheist. You sound like one. Agnostics are pussies. Man up.
I'd rather not get into the definition of atheism, agnosticism, agnostic atheism, strong or weak atheism debate. Let's just say I'm a non-believer.
What do I need to "man up" to, and how would I? Why would I?
For all we know Joseph Smith was right and Mormonism is the one true faith. Or even L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology. I hope not, and with everything I think I know - I would think that either of those examples are not true. But I don't know.
And belief should not be substituted for knowledge. That's the domain of the theist.
If I make a statement that I believe is true without solid evidence, then yes you can make the claim I have made a faith based statement.
However, A faith based statement does not inherent a religion.
For instance, to say "I believe in God" is not a statement that inherits Christianity.
However, theism is not a religion, nor does it have a religious structure by itself..
Also, Not all theist practice a religion--but they believe in God.
Is atheism faith based or is there plenty of evidence humans made up god? I say there's enough evidence a grand jury would take it to trial.If I make a statement that I believe is true without solid evidence, then yes you can make the claim I have made a faith based statement.
However, A faith based statement does not inherent a religion.
For instance, to say "I believe in God" is not a statement that inherits Christianity.
However, theism is not a religion, nor does it have a religious structure by itself..
Also, Not all theist practice a religion--but they believe in God.
