Atheism is/is not a religion

So being anti-stamp collecting is now a hobby too?

 

I won't speak for others and what they've said to you but I have never said an Atheist is incapale of doing bad or evil things, ideology need not apply, one only needs to be human.

The argument is that people act in the name of their religion whereas no one acts in the name of atheism which is kind of a deal breaker if anyone wants to suggest its a religion.

The opposite end of the argument is when someone wants to suggest you can't be moral without God. I have never said I'm going to do this or that because I'm an Atheist. In fact the only time Atheism enters my stream of consciousness is during these conversations.

There is no action that is contingent upon whether or not I'm an Atheist. The same cannot be said of Theists.

 

Buying a book doesn't mean you agree with everything in it. After all, the Bible is the best selling book of all time.

To an extent yes, especially the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens. They've both made a lot of money out of being controversial rather than honest.

I don't care all that much but the implication (explicit intent by some) is that Christianity is the dominant force in the law of the land. The implication (and, historically at least, practice) is that Christians are at an advantage in the court of law.

By individuals yes. By the state, no. It's a technicality but it is quite clearly the law.

That isn't the point. As per the US constitution, the government can't promote any religion.

I still have no religion. Some individuals and groups may well be doing so, but that doesn't make it fundamental to atheism, which is your accusation.

Yes, some atheists are idiots. Some theists are idiots. I've no more responsibility for the atheist idiots as you do for the theist ones. What the atheist idiots claim doesn't automatically become fundamental to atheism any more than what the theist idiots say becomes fundamental to theism.

And they are just as wrong as you are.

 

When have I ever condoned such behavior?

I am always against such generalities- but if you think you can find examples of me condemning people of faith- AS YOU condemn people without faith- go for it.

I seek no 'legal standing' as a religion, and I reject any idea of 'atheism' as a religion.

I have no need to address what every other 'atheist' think anymore than I have a need to explain why other people don't believe in fairies or Big Foot.

I don't believe in what you believe. I don't care what you believe, and I will not try to convince you not to believe what you believe.

Seriously calling every Atheist the same is as stupid as saying a Buddhist is just like a Jew- simply because they claim to be of a faith.

What did someone else say- if you collect butterflies and I do not, I am not part of a group of people organized not to collect butterflies- I just don't collect butterlies.

 

I generally avoid the Religion forum altogether because I think arguments about faith are a waste of time. Faith is not logical and faith doesn't need evidence. However, when I see threads condemning me because I am an Atheist, I sometimes take the time to refute the lies and hypocrisy. I don't do so normally in the threads attacking religions because like I said- I rarely spend time in that forum- and I am not being attacked.

But every time you have raised the issue I have condemned those who make those comparisons. All Christians are not to blame for the actions of every Christian. All Muslims are not to blame for the actions of every Muslim- etc, etc. This is not a hard concept for me to understand.

Of which you have been an eager, active participant in- as I have repeatedly pointed out.

Clearly you are cool with hypocrisy and blatant double standards.

I am not.

[/QUOTE]

 

I'm afraid you misunderstand. Christians/Muslims TODAY APPROVE OF AND GIVE their children texts that fully approve of Moses' Bin-Laden-like slaughter, and Jesus' KKK-like approval of slavery, and their "god's" Hitler-like genocide....YOU APPROVE OF THOSE PEOPLE. But, modern Secular Humanists do NOT, REPEAT NOT, approve of nor promote the teachings of Mao, etc. Dawkins does not advocate Mao's totalitarian collectivism, and Harris does not promote the teachings of Stalin, and Dennett does not teach that genocide is ok (unlike Hitler - and the Christian god that Neutral approves of.)

See the difference between the lower moral levels of religion, and the higher moral levels of modern Secular Humanism?

Dawkins is just as moral, if not more so in some cases, as Moses, "god", Allah, Santa, Mohammad, "Jesus", and Bigfoot.

 

Those politically correct days are over, my friend, because today, for the first time, religious nut-cases are getting very close to NUCLEAR weapons - that they insanely believe will - when they bomb "the Zionist entity" (another religiously-driven state), usher in their 12th Mahdi....who has been hiding in a well for centuries. Yep, they're insane, and yep, they are even defying sanctions to do just what I described. Not challenging people's belief in invisible friends is NOT an option anymore, I'm afraid.

 

I think your point of view is waaaay to close to theirs. I am not a fan of zealotry.

Telling people that what they have faith in is wrong never works. Just doesn't. And thinking that every person of faith is the responsibility of any person of faith is just wrong.

 

Really? We do, do we?

So, can you explain to me how I, a Christian, wound up fighting side by side with Muslims, to kill a bunch of faggorty ass Al Qaeda guys? Can you tell me why the villages pushed into, literally, practically dragged Al Qaeda guys to us when we arrived?

So, in shortm, you are ignoring reality to employ McCarthyist tactics (demoinization by overt generalization), thinking this is common sense that will eliminate religion rather than expose the same kind oRevolutionary antics that Stalin, Mao, and even McCarthy took advantage of?

Here is a hint, when you are accusing the majority of the peole of not doing what you are accusing them of doing ... the majority isn't impressed and will simply write you off as another tin foil hat wearing conspiracy nut.

 

Thank you SF, you have restored my faith that there are indeed a few level headed atheists out there that I hold a discussion with without being referred to as Hilter. Perhaps respectful disagreement is indeed possible after all ...

 

People have indeed acted in the name of atheism. Sometimes bloodily, as Stalin did (communism was merely the political structure of the moral code of atheism, as fuedalism was for the Crusades), sometimes to simply flights of the imagination, like Dawkins.

The fact that you suddenly find a painting hanging on the wall offensive becuae you happen to notice some religious symbology to it? That entirely has everything to do with your status as an atheist.

 

Discussing the 'moral code of atheism' is like discussing the moral code of not believing in Big Foot or the moral code of not believing in unicorns.

 

Except that boigfoot hsn't published one. Atheists have, and routinely remind us just how superior it is to Christian moral codes.

Until you ask them to spell it out, even refer them to the ones that atheists have published, and suddenly, the lecture of morality is indeed off hiding with big foot.

Basically SF, what you are saying is atheism has no opinion. So why are there so many atheists in the religion section?

 

is "theists" a religion?
is "atheists" a religion?

neither is a religion, atheists can be religious, but not all are, all the term atheists means is that they do not believe in a god
just like theists is not a religion, it just says they believe in a God(s), it doesn't specify a religion


.

 

An "atheist" moral code exists only in your fevered magic-filled imagination.

 

^^^this guy is dominating this thread^^^

 

Haha - you just proved his point magnificently! Well done sir!

 

Atheism has no doctrine. Atheism- like Christianity- has no opinion. People have opinions. Atheist have opinions and Christians have opinions. Some are jerks- some are not- some are hypocritical- some are not. What they identify themselves as- Christian or Athiest seems to have little relatioship to how they demonstrate how they are jerks or hypocrites.

We all have opinions. I chose to express mine in this section generally only when I am being told that I am wrong.

 

Atheism, organized, the kind we think is religious, most definitely has an opinion.

http://atheists.org/

Within that emeging organizational culture, you are correct, some atheists are jerks and other are ... highly honorable. They are human beings after all.

However, looking at religion, we can use it as alens for what is happening in atheism. The best way to do that is to look at Islam, there are two branch, Suna and Shia, but they are BOTH Islam.

#1 - Shia - there are some doctrinal differences, but the most striking is that of the organization of Shia Islam, with a heirarchial organization. This provides a method of resolving conflict, when the 'authority figure' makes a decision on what the church will follow. Obviously, this can be a tool of for both abuse and justice. However, its no accident that this culture emerged in Persia with its centralized roots, and no accident that Iran has emerged as an oligarchy.

#2 - That contrasts sharply Suna Islam, where there are important religious figures, but any learned authority, from Iman to Mufti, can pronounce binding judgements on his flock. Obviously, this can creat as many arguements as it solves, but its decentralized nature? Well, it is no wonder that Suna Islam evolved in highly decentralized areas of Arabia.

Where I atheism on that spectrum of organization?

Or better yet, how does atheism look compared to early Christianity before we ... created a doctrine with the Synoptic Gospels?

Well, any idiot could say whatever he wanted about Christianity, often fabricating things entirely. The best examples are the gnostic and heretical gospels, some of which are quite abusive. Now as you look around the forum and study atheism and its claims from everything that it is the most evidenced and logical position on earth, but has no burden of proof because it is not actually claiming anything?

I think atheism looks a lot like any other emerging religion trying to figure itself out.

 

Atheism, by its definition, is a philosophical claim about whether or not someone believes there is a God. I mean, that's the (*)(*)(*)(*) definition of the word. Are you still unable to understand that? I have no idea how a philosophical stance can itself make claims since it isn't a person or a collective work of books that makes claims.

 

And you are still ignoring everything else that atheists write. I am sorry if, unlike atheists who quote single sentences from the Bible, I don't ignore everything else written by an atheist.

Are you still unable to understand that?

More importantly, if I debate you, am I going to debate you? Or the mods?

 

Of course - just like being anti-meat is a hobby:

 

Jesus, is this really that hard for you to understand, Neutral? Atheism is the opposite of a belief in a God. End of story. It cannot be a religion anymore than theism can. Is theism a religion, Neutral? If it isn't, than neither is atheism.

 

You know what? i an atheist and i think atheism is a religion. i don't no much about the science but i no darwin is actually a god. honestly i would get on my nees for him. if you no wat i meen.

 

Indeedy. It's a desperate attempt to escape the facts being argued, to take the argument to the ad hominem level instead and put the big bad atheist on the defensive.