Atheism is a religion

Just living my life without these odd obsessions that seem to be important to current and ex-fundamentalists.

 

Yeah.... I sort of have to agree with you ... at least in part.

 

What is so infantile about basic logic? All things being equal, "God" and "Flying Spaghetti Monster" are the same. They may or may not be separate entities, but they likewise alike in every way.

 

This is just psychologizing.

Atheism is a branch of theology. Atheism is no more an obsession with religion than being a statistician implies an obsession with math.

 

The ultimate admission that Atheism is a religious sect. A BRANCH OF THEOLOGY. Outstanding kmisho..

So, from you then there should be no more ridicule directed to Theists regarding their supposed irrationality or unreasonableness or that they are involved in fantasies.. Of course you do realize that you are subject to catch some flack from some of the other Atheists and non-Theists behind your admission above.

 

Incorporeal has unearthed the vast left wing atheist conspiracy to destroy religion and apple pie.

In doing so he discovered that atheists secretly believe that atheism is just like religion. lol

I think you are missing the point again.

 

No! That is the point. Not 'just like religion' but is and has an active membership in the field of 'theology'.

So, with Atheism being a branch of theology, then there must also be a marginal belief in the existence of God else a fear that God does in fact exist, else the devotion of time in the study of God would in fact be a waste of time, energy, and expense in such an endeavor.

 

I will quote myself in saying "I think you are missing the point again".

I find it interesting you take one statement and manufacture a conspiracy out of it. Marginal belief in god? A fear of god? No, not in the least. Unless of course, you consider the marginal belief of a bear shark under my bed to be equally valid. Which I doubt.

As it has been stated again and again and again, one of the factors in the opposition to religion is one, the lack of evidence, two, the lack of evidence to suggest one faith is more valid or right than the others, and three, the acts people commit in the name of religion. Whether it be genocide Old T estimate style, or denying equal rights to gays and lesbians. When you start believing in a god that doesn't condone rape, murder and genocide, and whose words are not used to deny people civil rights, then I imagine you won't be "picked on" anymore.

This has been explained to you undoublty dozens of times. Its clear as day. However you still feel a need to manufacture conspiracies, why?

 

If you were to tell me such a thing, do I have a valid reason to dispute your word? Are you bearing a history of fabricating false statements?

And I will again repeat my former quotation "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." You might want to google that statement.

No conspiracies on my part. You are the one who introduced the subject of 'atheist conspiracy'.... you must be the one to deal with that matter. Explanations in the form of rationalizations (excuses) is IMHO not worth the powder to send them to the moon in a single and spontaneous release of energy.

 

Then there really is a man shark under my bed. If there is not any evidence, then there is no reason to believe it to be true.

The statement is based on what you and other theists say. You take one piece of information and come up with this elaborate reason as to why someone said it, instead of looking at the obvious.

 

Why would I need evidence when I have your declaration that such is true? Again, are you an untrustworthy person?

The 'obvious' is what the person has stated. Not some wild excuse that I or another might dream up about the statement. The statement says what it says. In this particular case it said "atheism is a branch of theology."

 

I think your entire arguement is just laziness. In fact, I know so.

If you are too lazy to look under you bed, or lack trust in your eyes and are too lazy to run a stick under your bed to disprove that there is a shark there .... well, anyone so tragically lazy that they believe there is a salt water shark under their dry bed deserves the consequences of such delusion.

As for God? You have clearly and repeatedly demonstrated that you have put as much effort into discerning God as you have about .... sharks under you bed, and yet, somehow, your uneducated opinion about God, as demonstrated by your fully evidenced and explained conclusion about sharks under your bed proves, is supposed to sway anything?

Its about being very mean spirited in the expression of an opinion and nothing else.

Most people realize that this is nothing more than simple bigotry, a form of internet bullying really, that reflects poorly only on the abuser.

Sreriously Wolverine, take a look around. There was a time when your antics may have worked in the forum. Most of the atheists down here now are not appreciative of uneducated ramblings and insults that only serve to denegrate all atheists who would be tarred by the brush strokes of arguementation you make.

You do your side no favors, and, really, you help ours to no end. So keep banging away.

 

Correct. you have identified the problem. Now stop doing it.

 

why does he has to stop identifiyng your problems?

 

Excellent question Inquisitor.... I am interested in seeing that response myself.

 

You may want to re-read the post.

 

No need to re-read the post. Inquisitor asked an appropriate question, IMHO.

 

Oh look, ANOTHER acerbic one liner of encapsulated hypocrisy and double standard.

In other words, please stop disagreeing with us, because we atheists are excessively think skinned and we derive all our self worth by putting other people down in order to feel superior. When you point out that this is poor form, we risk having to challenge our notions of self worth and cannot have any of that - so we'll just insult you all the more.

Nice faith atheists.

These antics just continue to demonstrate why atheists are considered so poorly the world over.

 

I am ignorant to the means of which a honest person can honestly justify such heinous acts and beliefs found in the worlds most prolific religions. I believe I will do my best to stay that way. I will instead pursue a philosophy that is tolerant of those who are tolerant of others, those who do not wish to deny his fellowman civil rights because of fear of a god's merciless retaliation.

 

No, being an ignorant person means you pontificant and offer opinions about something you have clearly not studied and remain in ignorance of it.

It is not honest, it is the exact opposite.

If you think being mean and uneducated, deiberately insulting of people based solely on their faith is a protection of civili rights you are beyond logical.

All you have is the lack of education that fosters bigotry and a false sense of accomplishment, in a society that has and protects civil rights, you are allowed to have them. No body has to avoid confronting it for what it is.

There is nothing honest about deiberate ignorance.

There is nothing honest about thinking there is a shark under your bed.

 

"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."
Leviticus 20:13

"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him."
Leviticus 20:9

"If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people."
Leviticus 20:18

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property."
Leviticus 25:44-45



There is just so much to embrace as a good, hones,t loving faith. What better way to celebrate such love and understanding than killing homosexuals, rebellious teenagers and owning slaves?

Or a man in the sky judging your thoughts and actions.

 

Oh the same part of the old testament that EVERY atheist goes to, wow, this will be new.

So what does Jesus do to the adulterous woman in John 8? Hmmm .... he does kill her for some reason.

You do understand that Leviticus is a tribal code from thousands of years before Christ. It form the center of thr Torah, not the Bible, and both Jews and Christians acknowledge that it is a recorded vestitude of a a rules based approach to God devoid of context and wisdom.

Only atheists insist on thinking that this is what God commands us to do and only atheists are daft enough to think that this is what is taught in our churches - or the principles that Christians live by.

It is, exactly as charged, an unedcuated atheist parsing the Bible for things to find fault with, faililng to study the period, the process, and the reasons for it.

What was Israel when Leviticus happened? Nothing. It was a loose collection of 12 tribes, attempting to found a Nation. What does Leviticus actually say?

"No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD."

Hmmm ... don't practice incest.

"Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt."

Oh, one should commit adultry you say?

"Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD."

Don;t allow your children to be murdered. Wow, that God is terrible.

"Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion."

Beastiality is bad. What, well, now you HAVE to be atheist huh?

"Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."

And, in a tribal code, where property in handed down through sons, where marriages cement relationships within the tribe and between tribes, homosexuality is a something that threatens the very fabric of the tribe.

This is what most atheists, in their uneducated drivel, fail to acknoweldge. Duty.

As a first born son, or a son, in a tribal society, you have a duty to the tribe before yourself. Its no different than being married to a woman and discovering that you have strong feelings for another woman. You maintain the vows you took to your wife or you are simply not honorable. In a tribe, even if you have strong feelings for another man, you cannot act on them without endangering the tribe.

Fair? It is.

I realize that many self indulgent atheists who think that they are the only thing important in the world find that hard to understand, but actual educated people do not.

Of course, I notice you skipped right over the parts about having sex with animals, and that either means that you have indeed not read the very thing you criticize, or .... you have a desire to sleep with animals and did not wish to introduce the subject to the debate forum.

Seriously Wolverine, being uneducated about these things is bad enough, bashing people from that position of ignorance is repellent.

Of course, had you read Leviticus, you would know what to do about it: "Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people."

Have fun with the goats.

REally, do you think pulling a few quotes from an atheist web site fools anyone into believing that you have actually read the Bible? You fool only yourself and those who are only too happy to watch you delude yourself.

 

I haven't really given this too much thought so I'm not going to say whether I agree or disagree. But this is what I meant when I said that that an atheist/agnostic should give an account of morality. And you're taking subjectivity as your position.

Yes. I would tend to agree with you on this. If the entire world thinks I don't have the right to watch TV, then I really don't. However, there could be an ideal to rights (based on whatever) that isn't being considered.

I think we all kind of use instinctive feelings. And morals are learned, as feral children have clearly shown. When they are raised in the wild without human direction, they act like wild animals. People can have strong feelings based on however they were raised. And I've been meaning to read Sam Harris' book I just haven't gotten around to it yet.

 

Maybe W should read his Roman History and discover the vengance of the Mob. What he advocates is called rationalization, and it is the first step toward abuse. People are emotional creatures, and, Rome was corrupted by pandering to the masses rather than doing what was right.

There are places in the world that do attempt such draconian measures. How is the Saudi Campaign to deny modernity going for them? The entire world, for teh most part, find Opium to be abhorrent - its still there. Do you think you can just deny things?

Feral children are often children who have been raised by wild animals. And if morals are learned, that makes mince meat of Dawkins 'genetic' casation of morality.

It also offers up a view into 'what' taught humans our morality. Why are we not now like the wild animals we evolved from? Why are civilizations separated by geogrpahy, etc. so often in agreement on the basics of morality? Stealing, lying, murder, etc. are all deemed bad? And yet, in many animal cultures, it is acceptable for teh strongest member of the pack to steal from weaker rivals, etc.

Something caused us to be different.

 

Careful now. That pendulum swings both ways fella.

I believe it was a "man shark" which everyone knows walks on land. And he forgot to say it was an "invisible man shark." Now, prove that the invisible man shark does not exist. I'm all ears.

Let's apply some simple logic to the problem:

If A then B
If not A then not B

"God" = "Invisible Man Shark."

Perhaps. I wonder how the rest of us would treat the faithful were they not themselves so "mean spirited?"

Have you read some of the comments posted by so-called "Christians" in the "Gay Rights" section of this forum? Well? HAVE YOU? Can I assume you chastise them with equal aplomb?

That is only true if you concede that Fred Phelps represents you.