New Atheism believes religion should be countered, criticized and exposed

[westwall]

atheism is not a religion it just the opposite of religion.
atheism is based on analytical thinking and empirical quantifiable evidence.
religion is based on faith :
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
you ass hats would be much better off not wasting your time attempting to equate the two
bill maher said it best:Bill Maher, the greatest: about religion - YouTube

Atheism exhibits every behavior of religion...thus it IS a religion....

 

[pacer]

atheism is not a religion it just the opposite of religion.
atheism is based on analytical thinking and empirical quantifiable evidence.
religion is based on faith :
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
you ass hats would be much better off not wasting your time attempting to equate the two
bill maher said it best:Bill Maher, the greatest: about religion - YouTube

Atheism exhibits every behavior of religion...thus it IS a religion....

Christians have rituals, traditions, prayers, congregants, church services, gatherings of congregants, communion, holy days, missionaries, etc. etc. Atheism has none of that...no system of beliefs. Atheism is simply a belief that there is no god.

 

[AVG-JOE]

If by atheism you mean asserting that there is no God, then no, that is not based on quantifiable evidence. It requires as much faith to believe that no god exists as it does to believe that any god exists. Sorry, but until the assertion that you believe can be proven, you too are a man of faith.

you keep believing that, if it makes you feel better but it's based on a false premise.
I'll make simple as the concept of no faith is passed your understanding .
atheism is just the opposite of theism.
atheism is everything theism is not and theism is everything that atheism is not, the only commonality they share is they have nothing in common.

There is one thing they share in common... lifeforms capable of believing one way or the other.

 

[Chuckt]

atheism is not a religion it just the opposite of religion.
atheism is based on analytical thinking and empirical quantifiable evidence.
religion is based on faith :
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
you ass hats would be much better off not wasting your time attempting to equate the two
bill maher said it best:Bill Maher, the greatest: about religion - YouTube

Atheism exhibits every behavior of religion...thus it IS a religion....

Christians have rituals, traditions, prayers, congregants, church services, gatherings of congregants, communion, holy days, missionaries, etc. etc. Atheism has none of that...no system of beliefs. Atheism is simply a belief that there is no god.

Yes they do have that. My relative doesn't believe in God but celebrates Christmas as a holiday and even goes to church as well as other atheists who are supportive at Church. Other atheists celebrate Saturnalia day as a way to criticize Christmas and or Christians.

There is even a atheist monument:

Atheists Unveil Monument Near Ten Commandments In Florida

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

atheism is not a religion it just the opposite of religion.
atheism is based on analytical thinking and empirical quantifiable evidence.
religion is based on faith :
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
you ass hats would be much better off not wasting your time attempting to equate the two
bill maher said it best:Bill Maher, the greatest: about religion - YouTube

If by atheism you mean asserting that there is no God, then no, that is not based on quantifiable evidence. It requires as much faith to believe that no god exists as it does to believe that any god exists. Sorry, but until the assertion that you believe can be proven, you too are a man of faith.

you keep believing that, if it makes you feel better but it's based on a false premise.
I'll make simple as the concept of no faith is passed your understanding .
atheism is just the opposite of theism.
atheism is everything theism is not and theism is everything that atheism is not, the only commonality they share is they have nothing in common.

Not sure why it would make me feel better. I'm agnostic. In actuality, agnosticism makes me much more at home with the concept of no faith than your average atheist. I have no faith that God exists. I also have no faith that there is no God. I simply defer to not knowing either way.

If you believe that there is no God, that requires you to believe that there is no God. Hasn't been proven. Thus, faith. Real simple.

Atheism and theism aren't the polar opposites you make them out to be. The thing they share in common is that neither side can prove its assertion

I will say this, tho. I often prefer religious types to atheists for one simple reason: I've come across way less religious types who make the false claim that their opinion is backed by science. Atheists like to think that their conclusion is perfectly logical even in absence of proof, and that simply because their belief doesn't include a God it somehow doesn't require them to believe without knowing, or in other words doesn't require them to have faith.

Said it before and I'll say it again: Prove that there is no God and I'll stop calling atheism a faith.

 

[martybegan]

you keep believing that, if it makes you feel better but it's based on a false premise.
I'll make simple as the concept of no faith is passed your understanding .
atheism is just the opposite of theism.
atheism is everything theism is not and theism is everything that atheism is not, the only commonality they share is they have nothing in common.

Atheism is still a belief structure, like zero is still a number.

lol! zero is a placeholder not a number....
atheism is not a belief structure in the way you wish it was...as i SAID BEFORE the systems are not parts of the same whole.

Yeah, about zero not being a number...

The number 0 is the smallest non-negative integer. The natural number following 0 is 1 and no natural number precedes 0. The number 0 may or may not be considered a natural number, but it is a whole number and hence a rational number and a real number (as well as an algebraic number and a complex number).

The number 0 is neither positive nor negative and appears in the middle of a number line. It is neither a prime number nor a composite number. It cannot be prime because it has an infinite number of factors and cannot be composite because it cannot be expressed by multiplying prime numbers (0 must always be one of the factors).[39] Zero is, however, even (see parity of zero).

0 (number) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I find it comical that new atheists want people to come over to thier belief structure, yet consider it NOT a belief structure. Bit of doublethink going on there.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Atheism is still a belief structure, like zero is still a number.

lol! zero is a placeholder not a number....
atheism is not a belief structure in the way you wish it was...as i SAID BEFORE the systems are not parts of the same whole.

Yeah, about zero not being a number...

The number 0 is the smallest non-negative integer. The natural number following 0 is 1 and no natural number precedes 0. The number 0 may or may not be considered a natural number, but it is a whole number and hence a rational number and a real number (as well as an algebraic number and a complex number).

The number 0 is neither positive nor negative and appears in the middle of a number line. It is neither a prime number nor a composite number. It cannot be prime because it has an infinite number of factors and cannot be composite because it cannot be expressed by multiplying prime numbers (0 must always be one of the factors).[39] Zero is, however, even (see parity of zero).

0 (number) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I find it comical that new atheists want people to come over to thier belief structure, yet consider it NOT a belief structure. Bit of doublethink going on there.

Yeah, an entire movement of people that can't identify when they're making an assertion. Fuckin baffling that so many of the same atheists identify themselves as intellectuals. That meme says it all. . . "Atheism: A religion people join to appear smarter."

 

[G.T.]

Agnosticism is the only true answer for Humanity, at this current time in its knowledge. I can rest easy knowing that the greatest Philosophical feat to accomplish of all, I've accomplished.

That's crossing rivers and mountains and books, and people - in search of an answer only to find that the answer is "I don't know."

It may be a hard pill to swallow on the egotistical; however, it's very gratifying.




But before you go siding with me one way or another - my position on a higher power (I don't know) - is where my agnosticism ends. Religion, in my opinion, is very falsifiable. It is full of contradiction, it is full of impossible leaps of physics, and its creation was seemingly nefarious.

To those who follow Religion - let's assume I'm right for a moment and that Religion is completely bunk. If it is bunk, it is the greatest brainwashing humanity has ever accomplished, EVER. And, you are a part of that.

It is for that reason, and my confidence that it is indeed horseshit, that I feel that it is pertinent to voice out against it where the opportunity arises.

 

[orogenicman]

Very curious that you would omit the words, "by rational argument".

"..."religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."

It would make for a very good debate.

I provided the link that provides the whole article and didn't quote the whole article in the topic but it exists under the article quotation that I did include.

I'm talking about the article and not starting the old debate.

I heard the writing teacher in the university say that you can't write "it is common sense" because what is common sense to you might not be common sense to someone else. Arguing for a cause is not rational unless you can prove a negative.

3+(-4)=-1

I just proved a negative.

 

[orogenicman]

atheism is not a religion it just the opposite of religion.
atheism is based on analytical thinking and empirical quantifiable evidence.
religion is based on faith :
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
you ass hats would be much better off not wasting your time attempting to equate the two
bill maher said it best:Bill Maher, the greatest: about religion - YouTube

If by atheism you mean asserting that there is no God, then no, that is not based on quantifiable evidence. It requires as much faith to believe that no god exists as it does to believe that any god exists. Sorry, but until the assertion that you believe can be proven, you too are a man of faith.

Atheism is a lack of belief in the supernatural, that lack of belief resting on the fact that there is no quantifiable evidence to the contrary. The burden of proof is not on atheists to demonstrate that a god does or does not exist. We didn't make the claim that god does exist. The burden of proof falls to those who claim that god does exist, not on those who don't make the claim.

 

[turzovka]

^^Bill Maher: "Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position..."

​

It only serves you well and Bill Maher well to deal in semantics ---- as though that is the crux of the matter.

You win the definition war. Big deal. You lose the probability war every day.

 

[orogenicman]

^^Bill Maher: "Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position..."

​

It only serves you well and Bill Maher well to deal in semantics ---- as though that is the crux of the matter.

You win the definition war. Big deal. You lose the probability war every day.

What probability war would that be? What is the probability that some supernatural power created the universe and then hid the evidence? As opposed to the probability, based on the lack of evidence, that such a power even exists?

 

[turzovka]

^^Bill Maher: "Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position..."

​

It only serves you well and Bill Maher well to deal in semantics ---- as though that is the crux of the matter.

You win the definition war. Big deal. You lose the probability war every day.

What probability war would that be? What is the probability that some supernatural power created the universe and then hid the evidence? As opposed to the probability, based on the lack of evidence, that such a power even exists?

Extremely high, to answer your question. Even though I totally reject your premise about hidden evidence. FYI, creationism would have no fossil evidence would it? There would be no transitional fossils, would there?

Speaking of the probability war, question for atheists: What is the probability this mysterious process called "natural selection" which allegedly does not think or will or have any goals, and yet is able to make decisions such as "best genes for survival" and "concocting molecular changes" for feathers and wings and spines ---- what is the probability this mindless magical "thing" could create a pancreas when there was none before? Or an eyeball?... no, let's go for two? Etc.

 

[G.T.]

It only serves you well and Bill Maher well to deal in semantics ---- as though that is the crux of the matter.

You win the definition war. Big deal. You lose the probability war every day.

What probability war would that be? What is the probability that some supernatural power created the universe and then hid the evidence? As opposed to the probability, based on the lack of evidence, that such a power even exists?

Extremely high, to answer your question. Even though I totally reject your premise about hidden evidence. FYI, creationism would have no fossil evidence would it? There would be no transitional fossils, would there?

Speaking of the probability war, question for atheists: What is the probability this mysterious process called "natural selection" which allegedly does not think or will or have any goals, and yet is able to make decisions such as "best genes for survival" and "concocting molecular changes" for feathers and wings and spines ---- what is the probability this mindless magical "thing" could create a pancreas when there was none before? Or an eyeball?... no, let's go for two? Etc.

Best genes for survival isn't "chosen," it's that the bad genes literally don't survive because they cannot.

Also - the probability argument is automatically a non-starter when you really begin to grasp the size and age of the Universe, learn how evolution works, and then put the two together. We are not improbable, at all. You forgot when you're suggesting that everything became magically perfect - how many species FAILED, how many non eyeballs there were before the eyeball that did not suffice to fulfill survival. You can't talk improbability (numbers) by only factoring in the end product and then leaving out the vast amount of failures, i.e. over 90% of species that ever existed, to get to said end product. Some magic!

But in order to wrap your head around that - you'd first need to begin learning from an honest place and not seeking to reaffirm your predispositions.

 

[daws101]

^^Bill Maher: "Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position...?"

​

did a spit take the 1st time I heard that!

I do NOT want to know what that is.

 

[turzovka]

Best genes for survival isn't "chosen," it's that the bad genes literally don't survive because they cannot.

What does survival have to do with exponential change? Such as inventing hearing? This “survival of the fittest gene” is a red herring at best because it does not even begin to explain macro-evolution.

Also - the probability argument is automatically a non-starter when you really begin to grasp the size and age of the Universe, learn how evolution works, and then put the two together.

Yes, here we are with the evolutionists’ other favorite “god,” --- i.e. time. To them, anything can happen if given enough billions of years, never mind the insanity of it all. I often said evolution can be defined as such --- “if you stare at a canary long enough it will turn into a wolverine.”

We are not improbable, at all. You forgot when you're suggesting that everything became magically perfect - how many species FAILED, how many non eyeballs there were before the eyeball that did not suffice to fulfill survival. You can't talk improbability (numbers) by only factoring in the end product and then leaving out the vast amount of failures, i.e. over 90% of species that ever existed, to get to said end product. Some magic!

And once again we classroom students are forced to swallow that one species spawned another. Via drawings. As far as all your failures you are alluding to, why is it there are virtually no photographs of transitional fossils in text books, save for your prized archaeopteryx? There should be millions of transitional fossils and failed experiments amongst the tens of millions of fossils that have been identified and cataloged. There are not.

In addition, there should always been some animals in major transition (growing something new, etc) given the trillions or quadrillions of changes that had to have occurred in order to arrive at billions of new species (and I am not talking about bacteria).

But in order to wrap your head around that - you'd first need to begin learning from an honest place and not seeking to reaffirm your predispositions.

Ditto.

 

[daws101]

atheism is not a religion it just the opposite of religion.
atheism is based on analytical thinking and empirical quantifiable evidence.
religion is based on faith :
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
you ass hats would be much better off not wasting your time attempting to equate the two
bill maher said it best:Bill Maher, the greatest: about religion - YouTube

Atheism exhibits every behavior of religion...thus it IS a religion....

logical fallacy

 

[G.T.]

Best genes for survival isn't "chosen," it's that the bad genes literally don't survive because they cannot.

What does survival have to do with exponential change? Such as inventing hearing? This “survival of the fittest gene” is a red herring at best because it does not even begin to explain macro-evolution.

Also - the probability argument is automatically a non-starter when you really begin to grasp the size and age of the Universe, learn how evolution works, and then put the two together.

Yes, here we are with the evolutionists’ other favorite “god,” --- i.e. time. To them, anything can happen if given enough billions of years, never mind the insanity of it all. I often said evolution can be defined as such --- “if you stare at a canary long enough it will turn into a wolverine.”

We are not improbable, at all. You forgot when you're suggesting that everything became magically perfect - how many species FAILED, how many non eyeballs there were before the eyeball that did not suffice to fulfill survival. You can't talk improbability (numbers) by only factoring in the end product and then leaving out the vast amount of failures, i.e. over 90% of species that ever existed, to get to said end product. Some magic!

And once again we classroom students are forced to swallow that one species spawned another. Via drawings. As far as all your failures you are alluding to, why is it there are virtually no photographs of transitional fossils in text books, save for your prized archaeopteryx? There should be millions of transitional fossils and failed experiments amongst the tens of millions of fossils that have been identified and cataloged. There are not.

In addition, there should always been some animals in major transition (growing something new, etc) given the trillions or quadrillions of changes that had to have occurred in order to arrive at billions of new species (and I am not talking about bacteria).

But in order to wrap your head around that - you'd first need to begin learning from an honest place and not seeking to reaffirm your predispositions.

Ditto.

Your whole post is giggle/cringe worthy. Really - and the only way to know that is to read you an entire book and...........I aint doin' that. lol, good day. good day.

 

[daws101]

If by atheism you mean asserting that there is no God, then no, that is not based on quantifiable evidence. It requires as much faith to believe that no god exists as it does to believe that any god exists. Sorry, but until the assertion that you believe can be proven, you too are a man of faith.

you keep believing that, if it makes you feel better but it's based on a false premise.
I'll make simple as the concept of no faith is passed your understanding .
atheism is just the opposite of theism.
atheism is everything theism is not and theism is everything that atheism is not, the only commonality they share is they have nothing in common.

There is one thing they share in common... lifeforms capable of believing one way or the other.

good point!

 

[pacer]

Atheism does not meet the criteria/behaviour of a religion.

. organized behaviors
. clergy
. a definition of what constitutes adherence or membership
. holy places
. scriptures
. rituals
. sermons
. commemoration
. veneration of a deity, gods or goddesses
. sacrifices
. festivals
. feasts
. trance
. initiations
. funerary services
. matrimonial services
. meditation
. prayer
. music
. art
. dance
. public service