The Religion of Atheism

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

Atheists consistently attempt to take the higher ground by pointing fingers of accusation at theists and accusing theists of committing all sorts of human rights violations in the name of "cultish religions," as they are fond of putting it. According to atheists, it is the belief in God that has caused people to commit the various atrocities common to mankind. Remove religion, belief in God, and belief in the Bible--the atheists argue--and the world will be a better place. This latter conclusion is mortally flawed for the following reasons:

1. Atheists have committed human rights violations en masse throughout history. For instance, Joseph Stalin--the atheist--ordered the deaths of between 40 million to 62 million people (20 million of which were everyday Soviet civilians), compared to the 6 million killed by Adolph Hitler the Roman Catholic "Christian."

In other words, the problem is not the Bible or God. The problem is people, including those in false religions which have failed to teach the masses Biblical truths. An appreciation for Biblical truths and Jehovah's righteous standards of what's right and what's wrong is the only detriment against people committing human rights violations. Blaming God for the crimes of false Christians is an attempt at passing the buck.


"See! This only I have found, that the true God made mankind upright, but they themselves have sought out many plans." (Ecclesiastes 7:29)


2. Atheism is itself a religion. While atheist will argue that they don't believe in any god, the issue is not merely non-belief in God or gods but in having ANY sort of belief system. The belief system of atheism is centered around the philosophy of "secular-humanism."


3. Atheism is a religion according to a 2005 Wisconsin federal court ruling as well as the U.S. Supreme Court—the highest court in the land.

Why did you leave out the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church (the iron feet of Christianity) who's laws had millions and millions of people killed, which goes directly against God's laws (Thou shalt NOT KILL).

I wouldn't judge any atheists if I were you. Otherwise, you're disobeying another one of God's commandments, "Thou shalt NOT bear false witness against they neighbor".

Thou shall not kill is a bad translation saint. The law is thou shall not commit murder.

Okay, the Vatican murdered the flesh of millions of native americans in the name of their false god, Jesus. Then they stole (thieves) their gold and silver and anything else they coveted in the america's to bring back to build their golden altars for their false gods in the sky.

Not one Christian is obedient to the Laws of God. That's because they're sinners who are under the old covenant, not sinless saints who know that Christianity is a false religion.
 
I don't think Atheism is a religion. It is a philosophy of life. Just like religions are.

........Philosophy of life......
............/......\................
..Atheism......Religion........
....................................

It is, quite literally, the LACK of a religion. That makes it impossible to be a religion in and of itself.

The real fallacy here is that SOME religious people cannot imagine a lack of faith so they immediately reflect a religious philosophy on that which is not religious.
 
I don't think Atheism is a religion. It is a philosophy of life. Just like religions are.

........Philosophy of life......
............/......\................
..Atheism......Religion........
....................................

It is, quite literally, the LACK of a religion. That makes it impossible to be a religion in and of itself.

The real fallacy here is that SOME religious people cannot imagine a lack of faith so they immediately reflect a religious philosophy on that which is not religious.

I think that often it's not so much a lack of imagination as a deliberate equivocation. Many people (on both sides of the argument) seem to have the perception that atheism is more 'rational', giving it an inherent advantage in logical debate. So defenders of 'faith' want to even the score by putting atheism on equal footing.

But to me that seems to miss the point of faith in the first place. What makes faith distinct as a deliberate act is that it's not based on reason and instead requires an irrational commitment. That's what gives it its power and meaning. To equate it with atheism and a lack of faith is to diminish it; or perhaps to elevate atheism to something it is not.
 
Last edited:
Thou shall not kill is a bad translation saint. The law is thou shall not commit murder.


oh, and do you have the original Tablet to prove "your" preference ?

Funny enough, murder would be a terrible translation. Trying to change it to murder is a worthless attempt to justify killing that they want to support but can’t square the act with the bible.

Murder is a terrible word to use there because the term is completely controlled by manmade law. What constitutes a murder changes country to country and state to state. What might be murder in CA could not be murder in FL. The term refers to legalities.
 
I don't really care whether atheists consider themselves religious or not, although they care...quite a bit IME. It undermines their superiority complex if they admit that they might be anywhere near equal footing with believers.

The way I look at it we all have some belief about a Deity, unless we simply have never considered the possibility. A belief that there is no deity is still a belief about deity. You're still taking a position relative to the question. That's why I think atheists' claim that they "have no god belief" is simply factually incorrect. The only way to have no belief is to have never considered the question.

No, atheists don't typically participate in an organized community (although some do), but that seems to be the wrong peg to hang this hat on to me anyway. To me the defining characteristic of deist vs atheist is each one's belief regarding deity, and in prioritizing that defining characteristic I think each is equal to the other.
 
I don't think Atheism is a religion. It is a philosophy of life. Just like religions are.

........Philosophy of life......
............/......\................
..Atheism......Religion........
....................................
ALTER2EGO -to- ERIK VIKING:
According to the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous other courts around the country, Atheism is Religion. In fact, at Post 8, I quoted a newspaper article in which the Wisconsin Federal Appeals Court clearly stated that Atheism is Religion. Here is the weblink to that post.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5775890-post8.html
 
I don't think Atheism is a religion. It is a philosophy of life. Just like religions are.

........Philosophy of life......
............/......\................
..Atheism......Religion........
....................................
ALTER2EGO -to- ERIK VIKING:
According to the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous other courts around the country, Atheism is Religion. In fact, at Post 8, I quoted a newspaper article in which the Wisconsin Federal Appeals Court clearly stated that Atheism is Religion. Here is the weblink to that post.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5775890-post8.html

You and most if not all christians are idiots. The US Supreme Court ruled in 2009 that it is affirmed that "there shall be no religious test" regarding atheists rights. That is hardly the same thing as affirming that atheism is a religion. Did I mention that you are an idiot?
 
You and most if not all christians are idiots. The US Supreme Court ruled in 2009 that it is affirmed that "there shall be no religious test" regarding atheists rights. That is hardly the same thing as affirming that atheism is a religion. Did I mention that you are an idiot?
ALTER2EGO -to- HUGGY:
In its 1961 ruling in the case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Atheism is Religion under the First Amendment as well as the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution--from that day forward--as follows:


U.S. Supreme Court
TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
367 U.S. 488
TORCASO v. WATKINS, CLERK.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.
No. 373.
Argued April 24, 1961.
Decided June 19, 1961.


Appellant was appointed by the Governor of Maryland to the office of Notary Public; but he was denied a commission because he would not declare his belief in God, as required by the Maryland Constitution. Claiming that this requirement violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, he sued in a state court to compel issuance of his commission; but relief was denied. The State Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the state constitutional provision is self-executing without need for implementing legislation and requires declaration of a belief in God as a qualification for office. Held: This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States. Pp. 489-496.
223 Md. 49, 162 A. 2d 438, reversed.


[ Footnote 11 ]Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.
FindLaw | Cases and Codes


As soon as you can show me where that 1961 ruling was overturned in 2009, I will acknowledged that you are not confused after all. Meanwhile, go ahead and deny. See where that will get you. And if you think calling me an idiot will change reality, keep it up and you will land on my "Ignore" list.
 
You and most if not all christians are idiots. The US Supreme Court ruled in 2009 that it is affirmed that "there shall be no religious test" regarding atheists rights. That is hardly the same thing as affirming that atheism is a religion. Did I mention that you are an idiot?
ALTER2EGO -to- HUGGY:
In its 1961 ruling in the case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Atheism is Religion under the First Amendment as well as the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution--from that day forward--as follows:


U.S. Supreme Court
TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
367 U.S. 488
TORCASO v. WATKINS, CLERK.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.
No. 373.
Argued April 24, 1961.
Decided June 19, 1961.


Appellant was appointed by the Governor of Maryland to the office of Notary Public; but he was denied a commission because he would not declare his belief in God, as required by the Maryland Constitution. Claiming that this requirement violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, he sued in a state court to compel issuance of his commission; but relief was denied. The State Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the state constitutional provision is self-executing without need for implementing legislation and requires declaration of a belief in God as a qualification for office. Held: This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States. Pp. 489-496.
223 Md. 49, 162 A. 2d 438, reversed.


[ Footnote 11 ]Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.
FindLaw | Cases and Codes


As soon as you can show me where that 1961 ruling was overturned in 2009, I will acknowledged that you are not confused after all. Meanwhile, go ahead and deny. See where that will get you. And if you think calling me an idiot will change reality, keep it up and you will land on my "Ignore" list.
I do not see "Atheism" listed in the footnote. Do you?

Fundamentalists try to declare everything a "religion" so they can say that Christianity is being discriminated against. They declared Science a religion to try to get Creationism taught in Science class. They are very liberal with the title "religion" until it comes to giving them the same SPECIAL tax privileges their religion gets. Then suddenly they are not religion enough.
 
You and most if not all christians are idiots. The US Supreme Court ruled in 2009 that it is affirmed that "there shall be no religious test" regarding atheists rights. That is hardly the same thing as affirming that atheism is a religion. Did I mention that you are an idiot?
ALTER2EGO -to- HUGGY:
In its 1961 ruling in the case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Atheism is Religion under the First Amendment as well as the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution--from that day forward--as follows:


U.S. Supreme Court
TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
367 U.S. 488
TORCASO v. WATKINS, CLERK.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.
No. 373.
Argued April 24, 1961.
Decided June 19, 1961.


Appellant was appointed by the Governor of Maryland to the office of Notary Public; but he was denied a commission because he would not declare his belief in God, as required by the Maryland Constitution. Claiming that this requirement violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, he sued in a state court to compel issuance of his commission; but relief was denied. The State Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the state constitutional provision is self-executing without need for implementing legislation and requires declaration of a belief in God as a qualification for office. Held: This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States. Pp. 489-496.
223 Md. 49, 162 A. 2d 438, reversed.


[ Footnote 11 ]Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.
FindLaw | Cases and Codes


As soon as you can show me where that 1961 ruling was overturned in 2009, I will acknowledged that you are not confused after all. Meanwhile, go ahead and deny. See where that will get you. And if you think calling me an idiot will change reality, keep it up and you will land on my "Ignore" list.

You being an idiot will not change reality. Your "ignore list" has little to do with me. I can still see your posts and make comments for everyone to else to see. I'm not so stupid as to believe I can persuade an idiot of anything.
 
An appreciation for Biblical truths and Jehovah's righteous standards of what's right and what's wrong is the only detriment against people committing human rights violations.

Wrong:

"Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. 'Have you allowed all the women to live?' he asked them. 'They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.'"
-- Numbers 31:14-18

"This is what the LORD of Heaven's Armies has declared: I have decided to settle accounts with the nation of Amalek for opposing Israel when they came from Egypt. Now go and completely destroy the entire Amalekite nation--men, women, children, babies, cattle, sheep, goats, camels, and donkeys."
-- 1 Samuel 15:2-3

2. Atheism is itself a religion. While atheist will argue that they don't believe in any god, the issue is not merely non-belief in God or gods but in having ANY sort of belief system. The belief system of atheism is centered around the philosophy of "secular-humanism."

This is untrue. There are secular humanists who are not atheists, and there are atheists like Ayn Rand, and Vlad Lenin who are not humanists.
 
ALTER2EGO -to- HUGGY:
In its 1961 ruling in the case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Atheism is Religion under the First Amendment as well as the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution--from that day forward--as follows:


U.S. Supreme Court
TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
367 U.S. 488
TORCASO v. WATKINS, CLERK.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.
No. 373.
Argued April 24, 1961.
Decided June 19, 1961.


Appellant was appointed by the Governor of Maryland to the office of Notary Public; but he was denied a commission because he would not declare his belief in God, as required by the Maryland Constitution. Claiming that this requirement violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, he sued in a state court to compel issuance of his commission; but relief was denied. The State Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the state constitutional provision is self-executing without need for implementing legislation and requires declaration of a belief in God as a qualification for office. Held: This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States. Pp. 489-496.
223 Md. 49, 162 A. 2d 438, reversed.


[ Footnote 11 ]Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.
FindLaw | Cases and Codes


As soon as you can show me where that 1961 ruling was overturned in 2009, I will acknowledged that you are not confused after all. Meanwhile, go ahead and deny. See where that will get you. And if you think calling me an idiot will change reality, keep it up and you will land on my "Ignore" list.
I do not see "Atheism" listed in the footnote. Do you?

Fundamentalists try to declare everything a "religion" so they can say that Christianity is being discriminated against. They declared Science a religion to try to get Creationism taught in Science class. They are very liberal with the title "religion" until it comes to giving them the same SPECIAL tax privileges their religion gets. Then suddenly they are not religion enough.
ALTER2EGO -to- EDTHECYNIC:
There is none so blind than they who choose not to see.

The footnote clearly provides a list of atheist religions and precedes the list with the expression: "among religions ... which do not teach ... a belief in the existence of God." I went so far as to bold in red SECULAR HUMANISM, which is one of the listed atheist religions.

In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court also mentions "invades his freedom of belief and religion" in the body of the text. And in case you still want to argue, the Plaintiff is an atheist suing for his atheist religion rights under the First and the Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. He won the lawsuit. The Court in paragraph 1 said the Plaintiff had a right to RELIGIOUS PROTECTION.
 
Last edited:
An appreciation for Biblical truths and Jehovah's righteous standards of what's right and what's wrong is the only detriment against people committing human rights violations.

Wrong:

"Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. 'Have you allowed all the women to live?' he asked them. 'They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.'"
-- Numbers 31:14-18

"This is what the LORD of Heaven's Armies has declared: I have decided to settle accounts with the nation of Amalek for opposing Israel when they came from Egypt. Now go and completely destroy the entire Amalekite nation--men, women, children, babies, cattle, sheep, goats, camels, and donkeys."
-- 1 Samuel 15:2-3

ALTER2EGO -to- AGIT8R:

If you think posting in red will make your argument more credible, think again. The incidents you listed above are in reality direct instructions from the Creator against nations and people that were depraved and wicked.

You deliberately ignored the context as well as the fact that as Creator, Jehovah has authority to execute judgment. It's called righteous execution by direct authority of Almighty God.


As Creator of all life, Jehovah has the right to decide who is fit to live. Therefore, the incidents you referenced above cannot be compared to the human rights violations committed by false religions throughout the centuries, since the false religionists did not operate under authority of Jehovah.
 
An appreciation for Biblical truths and Jehovah's righteous standards of what's right and what's wrong is the only detriment against people committing human rights violations.

Wrong:

"Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. 'Have you allowed all the women to live?' he asked them. 'They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.'"
-- Numbers 31:14-18

"This is what the LORD of Heaven's Armies has declared: I have decided to settle accounts with the nation of Amalek for opposing Israel when they came from Egypt. Now go and completely destroy the entire Amalekite nation--men, women, children, babies, cattle, sheep, goats, camels, and donkeys."
-- 1 Samuel 15:2-3

ALTER2EGO -to- AGIT8R:

If you think posting in red will make your argument more credible, think again. The incidents you listed above are in reality direct instructions from the Creator against nations and people that were depraved and wicked.

You deliberately ignored the context as well as the fact that as Creator, Jehovah has authority to execute judgment. It's called righteous execution by direct authority of Almighty God.


As Creator of all life, Jehovah has the right to decide who is fit to live. Therefore, the incidents you referenced above cannot be compared to the human rights violations committed by false religions throughout the centuries, since the false religionists did not operate under authority of Jehovah.

Your reference to "direct instructions" is laughable. It's bad enough that people like you believe in this nonsense but quoting god is a bit of an over reach don't you think?

If there was an all knowing god logically his communications would be as perfect as you think he is. If he was capable of creating all this stuff in the universe a trillion trillion squared and then squared again in complexity a rational person would expect any "directive" to be plain and straight forward so there would be no abiguity in following his orders or not. Leaving an "interpetaion" of "his words" to idiots like you seems to be dropping the ball.
 
ALTER2EGO -to- HUGGY:
In its 1961 ruling in the case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Atheism is Religion under the First Amendment as well as the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution--from that day forward--as follows:



FindLaw | Cases and Codes


As soon as you can show me where that 1961 ruling was overturned in 2009, I will acknowledged that you are not confused after all. Meanwhile, go ahead and deny. See where that will get you. And if you think calling me an idiot will change reality, keep it up and you will land on my "Ignore" list.
I do not see "Atheism" listed in the footnote. Do you?

Fundamentalists try to declare everything a "religion" so they can say that Christianity is being discriminated against. They declared Science a religion to try to get Creationism taught in Science class. They are very liberal with the title "religion" until it comes to giving them the same SPECIAL tax privileges their religion gets. Then suddenly they are not religion enough.
ALTER2EGO -to- EDTHECYNIC:
There is none so blind than they who choose not to see.

The footnote clearly provides a list of atheist religions and precedes the list with the expression: "among religions ... which do not teach ... a belief in the existence of God." I went so far as to bold in red SECULAR HUMANISM, which is one of the listed atheist religions.

In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court also mentions "invades his freedom of belief and religion" in the body of the text. And in case you still want to argue, the Plaintiff is an atheist suing for his atheist religion rights under the First and the Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. He won the lawsuit. The Court in paragraph 1 said the Plaintiff had a right to RELIGIOUS PROTECTION.

The courts ruling is irrelevant. Atheism is defined as a lack of faith in a god. LACK. Period dot. There is simply no way around the fact that atheism is NOT equivalent to a religion whether or not the law wants to recognize it as one. As you cannot identify a single belief that is ‘atheist’ there is no way to fit it in as a religion.
 
An appreciation for Biblical truths and Jehovah's righteous standards of what's right and what's wrong is the only detriment against people committing human rights violations.

Wrong:

"Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. 'Have you allowed all the women to live?' he asked them. 'They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.'"
-- Numbers 31:14-18

"This is what the LORD of Heaven's Armies has declared: I have decided to settle accounts with the nation of Amalek for opposing Israel when they came from Egypt. Now go and completely destroy the entire Amalekite nation--men, women, children, babies, cattle, sheep, goats, camels, and donkeys."
-- 1 Samuel 15:2-3

ALTER2EGO -to- AGIT8R:

If you think posting in red will make your argument more credible, think again. The incidents you listed above are in reality direct instructions from the Creator against nations and people that were depraved and wicked.

You deliberately ignored the context as well as the fact that as Creator, Jehovah has authority to execute judgment. It's called righteous execution by direct authority of Almighty God.


As Creator of all life, Jehovah has the right to decide who is fit to live. Therefore, the incidents you referenced above cannot be compared to the human rights violations committed by false religions throughout the centuries, since the false religionists did not operate under authority of Jehovah.

I'm just pointing out that the god of Hebrew mythology has worse standards than most human beings, and therefore ought never to be thought of as a standard to follow. Comparative human rights abuses notwithstanding.
 
Atheism is a religion as much as abstinence is a sexual position.

Atheist are zealots as much as anyone claiming absolutes

Most atheists probably wouldn't claim absolutes in the way you are thinking. We don't think God is an impossibility, we just don't currently believe that God exists due to lack of evidence. It is always dangerous of course to generalize, but I'll do it here for the sake of correcting a common misunderstanding concerning general mainstream atheism.

There are plenty of things that people might not believe in like aliens, ghosts, mythological creatures, etc. Just because you don't believe that they exist doesn't mean that you would be closed off to believing in their existence (or shouldn't be at least) should adequate evidence of said existence becomes available.

It's the same methodology that we all utilize to one extent or another only applied to religion.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top