Freedom From Atheism

Which religion bans people from baking cakes?

- - - Updated - - -

Numerous Christian churches and other religions approve of gay marriage, Wiccans for instance.

 

Where did I say or use believe or belief?

I believe Lao coffee the best in the world. Is that a religion or at least a belief system?

 

So you do not know what the elements of a religion are and you need me to teach you is that it?

 

Are you serious? Tell me that was just a joke, right? Wiccans are christian? Geezus I cant believe anyone would embarrass themselves by posting something like that.

 

Really? Free? Are you joking? Ok whats the last amendment you voted on?


PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Oregon bakery owners who denied service to a same-sex couple have paid $135,000 in state-ordered damages

Because they did not become an accessory to sin by violating the laws of 'THEIR' religion to accommodate some anti-Christ religion.

The atheist anti-Christ gubmint came to the rescue. Just like the taliban.

 

I fully understand your point

 

think of it this way: Probably because you are wrong.



Atheism starts its megachurch: Is it a religion now?


Organized Atheism is now a franchise.

Yesterday, The Sunday Assembly—the London-based “Atheist Church” that has, since its January launch, been stealing headlines the world over—announced a new “global missionary tour.” In October and November, affiliated Sunday Assemblies will open in 22 cities: in England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, the United States and Australia.


Structured godlessness is ready for export.

 

The state made 135,000 bucks from that fantasy didnt they....

 

What do you call someone who doesn't believe in the Atheist religion or any other religion?

 

If you think you can teach me 'the elements of religion' then why do you believe Atheism is a religion?

Atheism is as much as a religion as cricket is in India.

 

So then in your opinion atheists with their own congregation are nutjobs?

Short memory maybe?

Atheism starts its megachurch: Is it a religion now?


Organized Atheism is now a franchise.

Yesterday, The Sunday Assembly—the London-based “Atheist Church” that has, since its January launch, been stealing headlines the world over—announced a new “global missionary tour.” In October and November, affiliated Sunday Assemblies will open in 22 cities: in England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, the United States and Australia.


Structured godlessness is ready for export.



I could teach it but that has no bearing on your learning anything.

- - - Updated - - -

since we all have knowledge its a binary question.

How do you not believe in religion?

 

Loving a sport makes you a nut job?

 

what makes you think its not a religion, despite it has all the elements of a religion. I mean hell, you seem to want to tell me that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck its not really a duck its motorhome. Seriously?

 

Lets argue Atheism is now a religion, its possible, with the arguments made although I prefer Materialist Rationalism since that would fit more than Atheism which is a conclusion made about god-beings using MR as a world view.

Now if we are a religion or MR, then all the special rights and privileges should kick in. Our churches should get tax exemption, we should have the same superior freedom of speech, have the right to have chaplains in the armed forces, have the right to proselytize to other religions even in front of their holy places and kick it out of education well if we teach Evolution OR Creationism or anything about reality or religion its all a violation of the first amendment then. That would destroy education and learning since MR deal with reality and therefore is superior to other religious positions.

 

First, I'd like to point out that I don't have a background in linguistics, merely a layperson's interest.

I have two points regarding the "non-belief is a belief" issue. Firstly, atheism does, in many atheists' minds start with the unconvincingness of the religious arguments. Many start with being given claims like "it says so in the Bible, so it's so" and finding themselves not allowing that to influence their beliefs and thus reverting back to their opinion before they heard the argument. They then apply this to all arguments they've heard about religion (or a particular religion) and find that they must revert to the point where no arguments were made, which would be similar to the religious beliefs of a newborn (unless God is inscribed in the hearts of humans). That is the stance they are defending. It has the interesting feature that it is by construction the stance one should end up with if no arguments are convincing or resolved.

Of course, on top of that, many atheists find themselves thinking "we should have seen better arguments by now" and concluding quite confidently that indeed there is no god, but in my experience, that isn't so often the central point of what they're trying to argue, they're more interested in pitting the theist points of view against the newborn's point of view. The arguments are often meant to reflect how to act considering that we don't know what is true, rather than because we think there is no god.

The second point is one of practical linguistics. If you disagree with someone on when the word atheism is applicable, the solution is to either avoid using that word or concept, or to make it clear that that is what you mean, and if people don't agree with you, ask them to ignore that aspect in favour of the issue at hand. Instead of just telling people your view over and over. Semantics is one of the philosophical points where it is acceptable to disagree, and unless your point is to confuse and take pot-shots, you should allow for disagreement and work around it.

You are right that there is no difference between those two statements, but there is a difference between "I believe there isn't" and "I do not believe there is". Imagine you are at a country fair, and there is a price for telling how many beans there is in a jar. You meet someone who says "there is an odd number of beans in the jar, I saw it in a dream". You can now disbelieve him without by doing so committing to the idea that there is an even number of beans in the jar.

I disagree. A person or a government can be positively or neutrally posed to a religion and still think it shouldn't be the be-all-end-all of public life. There are many examples of this.

I have a hard time following your train of thought. In what sense do I propose a state being omnipotent? I do not live in America, what does the first amendment have to do with me? Besides, the logic I have presented has been taken into account when it comes to the first amendment, that is why there is a law (or prejudicate or whatever) saying that atheism is to be considered a religion for the purposes of the first amendment, regardless of whether it is one (indeed, the fact that that law is even needed indicates that atheism being a religion is at best contested). It seems to me the law and lawmakers agree with me that the law exists for a reason, and when that reason applies to atheism (as it does), then so should the law (as it now does).

As mentioned earlier, you seem to be using a non-standard definition of religion. That means you will fail to communicate your ideas, and ideas you hear will not be correctly communicated to you.

I don't consider that to be a failure of the law, it's merely out of the scope of what the law is there to do.

There is much overlap between atheists and secularists, so pointing out something some atheists do doesn't mean it springs from atheism rather than secularism. It can easily be by virtue of secularism that one disfavours criminalising homosexuality. Atheism doesn't say homosexuality is right or wrong, but the absence of religion leaves room for secularism (in this case, as well as socially liberal ideas unrelated to religion) to allow homosexuality.

This is a non-standard definition of religion. This is not what anyone else, including the authors of the first amendment or the atheists you debate with mean when they say "religion". The exact definition of religion is contested (mostly because a lot of people want Buddhism to be a religion, but it doesn't fit most of the proposed definitions) but none of them conform to what you say (other than colloquially, people can say "football was his religion" as an analogue without indicating that it is equivalent to Christianity or something like that).

You are free to use the word like that, but you have to acknowledge that it's like using the word "one" when you mean two, or speaking to people in a language they do not understand. This can be resolved by you telling them what's going on, but not by just saying it over and over.

 

Who cares if atheism is a religion or not? That's just a troll anyway. A stupid troll at that. It's like saying that atheism is just as ridiculous as theism... so the theists making the argument are basically calling theism ridiculous.

 

You nailed it. Clearly the atheist majority in America passed a law banning polygamy.

 

You Are so right. Every athiest I know deeply believes in an imaginary being without any evidence whatsoever. Clear proof that Athiesm is a religion.

 

True that.

With it's vast majority of 6 atheists in all the State Houses, Congress, Governorships and mayors combined, why those omnipresent
atheists are just throwing out laws left and right.

Perhaps a Christian will be allowed to serve as a member of Congress, or maybe even President some day - but
until that time, we will just have to put up with the overwhelming control of government by atheists ...

 

Next thing you know the tiny Christian minority will be trying to get some nonsense like "freedom of religion" through the Athiest controlled government. Never happen.

 

No, Wiccans are an other religion. They are theists who support gay marriage. So your claim that gay marriage is atheistic is utter bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Do you believe in Buddhism? If not, is your religion, Not Believing in Buddhism? How about Hinduism or Zoroastrianism? How about any of the other 4,000 religions that are not Christianity? You see, not believing in Buddhism is not a religion just like not believing in Christianity is not a religion.

 

Frankly, I think polygamy should be legal, and no one has provided me with any reason as to why it shouldn't be.

 

I don't have a problem with it either. It's curious that K thinks atheists would, it's the religious who are all uptight about what goes on in other peoples bedrooms.

 

Exactly. People need to stop interfering in the lives of others. Self-righteousness has got to be the most disgusting, pathetic trait I've ever seen in human beings.