Atheism is/is not a religion

Oh, you didn't vacciuously toss out he Establishment clause saying that public display of religion was ALL bad? Even though the ACTUAL Estbalishment clause disagrees ... as do the courts?

You were misquoted were you? Wait, I see the problem now, its the ever victim mentality.



Aboive is a picture of atheist pioneers circa 2011. The guy with a whip is actually a Christian whipping the atheist or deliberately misquoting the atheists and being challenged on it.

Well, if you want to live your life seeing yourself like that - your choice.

The rest of us see atheism for what it is.



At least attempt to act like the latter one please. Its a debate forum.

 

This is why Sean and I are friends and though we disagree have perfectly respectful conversations about his faith. We are not enemies. We simply disagree and are able to discuss those disagreements like adults.
Neither of us are perfect and stray from our calm demeanor on occaision, but neither of us have an online personality that is overtly dismissive. He has been recognized for this by believers, but I am thrown in with the name callers and described as an atheist simply because I disagree with some believers on their biblical views.
Sean took the initiative to befriend me. I gladly accepted.
Does that make Sean into Satan now?

 

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Ever. How does gay marriage affect traditional family values? Do traditional families break down because instead of just living together and not being married, they become legally recognized? Seriously, how does the legal recognition of gay marriage break down traditional family values? Unless you're saying that being gay in general breaks down traditional family values (some gay disease is spreading?), then your point makes no sense.

 

Somehow, despite the majority of the population being Christian, this happening indicates that Christianity is imposing itself upon atheists? Logic kiddo. Logic.

Yes, it does. It tells me an my children that sexuality is inevitable, that there is no choice involved, and that we should not just tolerate differing sexual opinions, we should actively encourage them, while demonizing anyone or anything that dares to ask, "Is this really wise?"

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/son-of-two-moms-defends-regnerus-study-on-same-sex-parenting/

Because when the science comes out, and even people from within the homosexual community, who challenge these common propoganda, well, we will demonize them into silence and make policy based on emotions rather than science.

Yeah, I think that is a pretty bad thing acrosss the board. And when governance is no longer wise, no longer willing to look at facts for fear of being banded a bigot by a vocal minority seeking a hand out? We have crossed a rubicon that only encourages similiar behavior. I think that is a very, very bad idea.

Really, the administration did not attempt to force the Catholic Church to change its policy on birth control? And then wisely back off? THat did not happen? And you are not advocating JUST SUCH A CHANGE?

Logic kiddo.

No, they were based on ETHICAL consideration that crossed all denominations including many atheists. THis may come as a shock kiddo, but reverence for human life is not specifically a religious thing. I am glad that such referrence is deemed so imposing that you must brand it as negatively religious however.

Yep, and you are being countering with examples of atheism doing the exact same thing. Only when you do it, it saving the world from theocracy. When we do it, its looming theocracy and the destruction of the nation - in short its a double standard.

That is why secularism and democracry are so necessary. Voices are brought in from as many points of view as possible, consensus generated, and a policy made. When we attempt to deliberately shut out dissenting opinion, or use the Glenn Beck approach to debate where we use emotional demonization as a tool? We undermine the very functioning of our system.

Hence, why gay marriage? Because if you don't automatically and slavishly agree with out opinion we will brand you a bigot. Call me whatever you want, but I was against that tactic when McCarthy did it, and I am against that tactic when the homosexual community does it.

Your inability to clearly express yourself is something you shoudl work on. Is there a reason that ONLY atheists seem to be misquoted on this forum?

See SD's response.

Changed goal posts are amusing.

Becaue clearly you did not read it. But feel free to actually make a case about how the occassional display of religious art, some of which has been in place for centuries, suddenly becaomes and evil threat to our society ... when an atheist suddenly notices it? Feel free.

See SD's response.

And then notice that for decades at least now, it hasn't.

Is there a reason we should treat Chris Hitchens and Dakwins like science? When all it is, is sceintific usurpation and non-factual processes that fail scientific peer review processes to slam religion?

 

Please. You and I both know that these statements spout out of you against anyone who has chosen to engage you for more than one or two posts.

I thought I'd post an example of your broad brush statements, to see if you can acknowledge any hypocrisy in complaining about the broad brush statements of others.

Great! How does that help us here, since I have yet to encounter one of these creatures in any forum?

Fantastic! Can you find me one which condemns the FSM? No? Then your post is useless.

Incredible how you revert to this notion of individualism when it suits you, and return right back to collective thinking when it suits you! When I mean generally, I say generally. Just because you do not like does not invalidate it. Your attempt is simply a deflection, and it is moot regardless, because Atheism doesn't have to be a religion for every atheist in order to be justly considered a religion, and resolve the question of the OP.

Sure, sure beat. Just like you're one of those incredibly respectful and tolerant leftists that I've heard exist all over the place and yet have the pleasure of actually meeting.

But your generalizations are personally OK to offer - like this one right here - because you said it, right brucebeat? You disagree? Then let's see you produce evidence that your generalization is correct, ok?

Can't do it? BUSTED.

The hypocrisy of your posts is staggering. You think because you segregate Atheists into those "online" that you're not doing exactly what I did when I segregated them into those who I have experienced?

Your lecturing can stop here, hypocrite. It's flying out of your mouth faster than I care to acknowledge.

That's what YOU just did! You lumped an enormous group of people together and rationalized that you're not doing it merely because you qualified the groups as "ONLINE"!

 

There is one tiny problem with your glowing report regarding Sean Michael's post, and how it makes you friends.

The post was MINE.



You now have a serious problem. You have to explain to us how the words I used in that post are words to which you objected, but - because you mistakenly believed that they came from a friend, how they - suddenly - aren't supposed to have elicited the exact same response.

Ruh Roh.

 

Unfortunately, they will find nothing. Neut putting me on ignore does not limit my responses to posts I find in error. I did not put him on ignore, and have no intentions of doing so.
What Neut doesn't mention is that he was censored for his flamebaiting, which is what he was reported for and he is doing again. I have stated clearly and often that I am not an atheist, and for whatever very ungodly reason, he continues to bear that false witness against me in nearly every reference to me. What would motivate a self professed Christian to be a serial liar I can only speculate on, but the fact that he does it is not speculation. It is a matter of record.

 

OMFG!!!!!

I haven't laughed that hard in a while.

 

Not worth getting into. You disagree. I knew it before you posted. You didn't have to offer your objection.

 

Nobody is telling you that you have to encourage it. There is a difference between allowing people to smoke cigarettes and encouraging people to smoke cigarettes, is there not? You don't have to like black people to give them the same rights as anyone else, do you?

 

It's not worth getting into because your argument doesn't rely on sound logic. You already know gay people exist, how does giving them the same federal legal status change anything at all?

 

Pretty much this, and this ends my participation in this thread for now. There is no valid counter to this argument.

 

One response, and one only, Grasping. You will not like it; you will not accept it. I do not care.

Granting something 'legal' protection has a wider scope than simply making something legal. It makes something acceptable. I do not find the behaviour acceptable. I believe part of what makes a society strong is its acceptance and defense of a nuclear family, and that is one man; one woman and their offspring.

If goat focking were suddenly made legal, it would have to become acceptable. Yet, it would be considered disgusting, unsavory, and not something to which children should be exposed. I find homosexual relations to be exactly that. Like it or not, homosexuals are not emblematic of what a traditional strong family should be, just like a pedophile being able to marry and abuse a child should not be acceptable either.

I have a line, and it is a line which you do not possess. My line is one of standards and principles, and they are consistent.

You, because your line is unprincipled and inconsistent, will now find yourself forced to accept defending polygamy, because there is no legal standard which can separate protection of two men marrying, and not multiples.

You and your ideology are weak, but you and your ideology are hedonistic, and simply doesn't care.

 

Read the red highlighted part above. My "broad brush" statement was that atheists have many and varied world views. Pretty sweeping generalization, huh?
If you read the tone of my post, and then read the tone of your response, do you notice any difference?

 

A kind of silly post there.
I knew full well that it came from you. I posted to Sean's response to it.
My point was you don't have to be an ally of Sean's to be his friend.
You seem to find that idea comical, and I find that to be very sad.

 

Two peas in a pod.

 

Your post is hypocritical, and I posted proof. You claimed my post as Sean Michael's, and proclaimed that words like those made him your friend - while simultaneously attempting to claim that it is because of my words that I'm not your friend.



That is irony on several levels. The first is that you attempted to criticize me by saying that Sean Michael's words make him your friend, as though my words are examples of why I am not - only you SCREWED UP and posted my words! It isn't about the words, brucebeat - you can admit that now. Your mind was made up before you posted, which is the only possible way such a screwup could possibly take place.



That's all kinds of awesome #1.

What's great frosting atop that awesome cake is that Sean Michael isn't "your friend" because you sent him a friend request, but because he sent you one. Now you're strutting around like it's some sort of badge of honor for you to have accepted his friend request. Here's a clue, ferrous oxide: that's a testament to him; not to you.

You didn't send him a friend request; you didn't send me one either. I think you can stop gloating about with whom you are friends.

Which is just layer #3 of awesome hypocrite cake.

 

OMFG?
We all know what that stands for.
Is that how you show your respect and avowed worship of your god?
I'm certain he is very touched by your love.

 

Again, I ask you to note the tone with which you address me, and the tone with which I respond, and then ask yourself why.

Now, I knew full well the first part of that post was yours, and the second was his. I had already read yours on the previous page. The only point to my post was pointing out that it wasn't only Christians that appreciated Sean's tone. I did, too, and have enjoyed our conversations.
Your reaction to my comments are not connected in any way to my post. They are a representation of a need in you to try to find some victory in this.
And I do commend Sean for befriending me. I was very happy to see it and accepted it immediately. It speaks very well of him, that his self control extends beyond the public parts of the forum and into the private as well. I take no credit for that at all, but do take responsibility for accepting him and not making a blind rejection from preconceived notions.

If you want to show your integrity, acknowledge that I responded to Sean's post that included a quotation from you. I did address you in that response, but wanted Sean's typically kind and measured response to be included in that reply, as it clearly shows the difference in his choice of discourse and your own.
The irony is that you praise him for his consistent kindness, and yet reject it in yourself.

 

I'd say that when the multiverse was introduced to make an end round around fine tuning atheism became a religion.

 

He likes to use

Not exactly a friendly emote, and one he's chosen to import to this forum from some site called ex-christian.net

What's that tell ya?

 

Except that denying same-sex marriage violates the 14th amendment of the US Constitution. So yes, it is within the justification of the federal government to address.

I'm not gay, but nonetheless, what a wonderful way to treat your fellow man, Christian.

Hyperbolic nonsensical BS. It's not as if allowing gay-marriage somehow takes the place of "standard" marriage, it's just in addition to. It would in no way lessen the personal value of your marriage/family or that of anyone else. If the gay couple down the street get married, please explain to me how your marriage somehow means less? What's that? Oh it doesn't? Then there's no problem and we can finally dispense with this issue of blatant discrimination.

I'll agree with this, so do many people. However, even if the tax disparity were removed, that still doesn't address other issues such as hospital/familial rights/etc.

Ah, but you see, the difference is that I am not fighting to restrict your equality in some fundamental way. In fact, I support your right to be a bigoted hatemonger, but that doesn't make it right, or mean that you can extend your personal feelings into policy to the detriment of a huge group of people.

Could you please define "consistent morality"? It sounds like you are implying "objective morality", which does not exist. It should be obvious that morals are entirely subjective.

You sure about that? ...

Didn't think so.

Bull. First, you may want to rethink your statement of "all law". Tax laws are based on morality, really? Even if we narrow it down to the big ones - don't steal other people's junk, don't murder everyone, etc - these still are based on common sense and/or evolutionary instinct. You think Christianity (or Judaism, technically) came up with "Thou shalt not kill"? Please. You just conscripted them and claimed them as your own.

And I am, so? This does not equate to only private expression to the exclusion of all public forms in any manner, nor did I say such a thing. Here is where "non sequitur" can be applied.

You have yet to defeat anything.

Until the concept of god becomes falsifiable and is able to produce empirical evidence, it is unequivocally not science.

No, what frightens me is people like you who keep trying to slip this ID creationist nonsense into our science classes and textbooks. It is truly terrifying. I long for a future where the main driving force of humanity is simply to better ourselves through knowledge, technology, exploration, and finding answers to the mysteries of the universe. Religion and superstition don't have real answers, they provide comfort. Maybe that's enough for many, but it holds us back as a whole. If we ever made contact with an intelligent alien species, I'd be embarrassed. I'd try to explain to them, "I don't know those guys".

Don't be ridiculous. The whole point of science is to explore things beyond our current level of knowledge. As soon as religion can provide a falsifiable hypothesis and actual empirical evidence, we'll start listening.

 

It tells me that atheists will go to great lengths to demonize people they disagree with. That is what it tells me.

 

Was permitting divorce and interracial marriage also "a decay of traditional family values"? I do believe they were by definition at one point, since the then-traditional model was changing.

Was the automobile "a decay" of traditional transportation? The Amish seemed to think so, though nowadays they cheat on that quite a bit. Get with the times and quit predicting doom every time someone wants to change a law to allow someone a basic freedom that never should have been denied them in the first place.

Gays marrying each other will not harm anyone or anything. They're gay either way, they live together either way, etc.

 

You are two of a kind.