The Religion of Atheism

sunday assembly for atheists? wth!...sundays are for sleeping in and riding my motorcycles...getting atheists to do anything together as atheists would be like herding cats...

 

Obviously there are enough to make a big deal about it.

 

Hell yeh! They mimic their theist enemies in every way and substitute the nature god for the supreme being God, have sermons and the who enchilada no different than any other church and then come out and say hey man just because we look like a duck quack like a duck and our poo poo stinks like a duck trust us we are not ducks!! LMAO

Atheist 'mega-churches' look for nonbelievers - USA Today

LOS ANGELES (AP) — It looked like a typical Sunday morning at any mega-church. Hundreds packed in for more than an hour of rousing music, an inspirational sermon, a reading and some quiet reflection. The only thing missing was [Supreme Being version of] God.

Dozens of gatherings dubbed "atheist mega-churches" by supporters and detractors are springing up around the U.S. after finding success in Great Britain earlier this year. The movement fueled by social media and spearheaded by two prominent British comedians is no joke.

On Sunday, the inaugural Sunday Assembly in Los Angeles attracted more than 400 attendees, all bound by their belief in non-belief. [church!] Similar gatherings in San Diego, Nashville, New York and other U.S. cities have drawn hundreds of atheists seeking the camaraderie of a congregation without religion or ritual.

The founders, British duo Sanderson Jones and Pippa Evans, are currently on a tongue-in-cheek "40 Dates, 40 Nights" tour around the U.S. and Australia to drum up donations and help launch dozens of Sunday Assemblies. They hope to raise more than $800,000 that will help atheists launch their pop-up congregations around the world. First thing they go for the money!

They don't bash believers but want to find a new way to meet likeminded people, engage in the community and make their presence more visible in a landscape dominated by faith.

Jones got the first inkling for the idea while leaving a Christmas carol concert six years ago.

"There was so much about it that I loved, but it's a shame because at the heart of it, it's something I don't believe in," Jones said. "If you think about church, there's very little that's bad. It's singing awesome songs, hearing interesting talks, thinking about improving yourself and helping other people — and doing that in a community with wonderful relationships. What part of that is not to like?"

The movement dovetails with new studies showing an increasing number of Americans are drifting from any [theist] religious affiliation.

It also plays into a feeling among some atheists that they should make themselves more visible. For example, last December, an atheist in Santa Monica created an uproar — and triggered a lawsuit — when he set up a godless display amid Christian nativity scenes that were part of a beloved, decades-old tradition.

"There's something not OK with appropriating all of this religious language, imagery and ritual for atheism."

That sentiment didn't seem to detract from the excitement Sunday at the inaugural meeting in Los Angeles.

Hundreds of atheists and atheist-curious packed into a Hollywood auditorium for a boisterous service filled with live music, moments of reflection and an "inspirational talk, " and some stand-up comedy by Jones, the movement's co-founder.

During the service, attendees stomped their feet, clapped their hands and cheered as Jones and Evans led the group through rousing renditions of "Lean on Me," ''Here Comes the Sun" and other hits that took the place of gospel songs. Congregants dissolved into laughter at a get-to-know-you game that involved clapping and slapping the hands of the person next to them and applauded as members of the audience spoke about community service projects they had started in LA.

At the end, volunteers passed cardboard boxes for donations as attendees mingled over coffee and pastries and children played on the floor. [right down to the offering basket!]

For atheist Elijah Senn, the morning was perfect.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/10/atheist-mega-churches/3489967/

what do you think churches are but a social group? The theists make a social group (church) out of the acceptance of God. It sure has an effect on neoatheists

 

Lol, believe me, I understand.

So, again, when I talk about level of information, it isn't really about how broad or narrow a definition is, it's about what information we can glean from that word. We could say every ontology is a cult, but then what does the word 'cult' mean? It just means 'ontology.' At that point, we no longer need the word 'ontology' and we need a new word for 'cult,' or, we just lose the concept of cult all together. 'Cult' now just means ontology, and heaven's gate and the branch dividians are just a world view without any distinction from judaism or catholicism.

We can arbitrarily define a set of numbers to include -10, but now we have lost the consistent framework. Adding -10 makes a big difference, not just from a human perspective, but from a set theory perspective, it is now a 'disconnected' set. We can't infer any logical consistency in our definition, it now just has an arbitrary definition insofar as we can't give a reason why -10 should be included other than we just decided to include it. And, I think that way of thinking about definitions does have some utility. In other words, does it help us infer whether some other arbitrary concept falls under this definition as well?

 

Well, the argument is that he's provided a meaning which he argues is the common meaning (we might disagree with him, but that's another point).

I think the argument is that there wasn't another consistent framework to begin with. All definitions work because we decide to include things. We like making the rules simple, but there's no rule that they have to be.

 

more like a policy that they should be

 

.

Moral beliefs are the attribute of most if not all individuals. Even athiest have moral beliefs. Just believing in standards of behavior is not the standard for defining a religion.

Now if you said having moral beliefs that originate from an imaginary being....

 

Feel free to name one religion that has no moral prescription, and just because atheists hijacked, stole and repackaged them!


https://www.ecatholic2000.com/job/untitled-53.shtml

the horror to find out everyone is religious!

 

Lol, it's been long enough that I can't remember what his argument was, but it isn't all that important.

There has to be some framework otherwise language wouldn't work. Our definitions are also more than arbitrary sets of things, there is some logical extrapolation. I don't think it's about being simple, and there is no rule that language has to be logical and consistent either, but I think when there is some debate around definitions, logical consistency is the best place to start.

 

Sure, but only insofar that it's accurate.

 

Believe you are having a failure of comprehension. Of course all religions have moral prescriptions. However moral prescriptions are not the sole provenance of religion and therefore just having a set of moral prescriptions is not enough to define a religion.

Read my post again this time think before posting.

 

56 pages now and atheism continues to not be a religion, by definition. Just like not playing baseball isn't a sport. It continues to mean a lack of belief in a god or gods.

 

rahl, no matter how many times you post that rubbish you will continue being just as wrong as you were with the first.

since I am demonstrably correct, it wouldn't make sense to post a different refutation of your claim. Which is why we keep pointing out that atheism, by definition, is not a religion, just like water is not wet.

atheism, by definition, is a religion and is the belief no Gods exist.

Atheism Definition Quoted from the supreme arbiter on the usage and meaning of English words the Oxford Dictionary:

Atheism

• the belief that God does not exist.
http://www.webcitation.org/6Lm3Z4SP7

Purchase your copy of the greatest dictionary in the world
HERE, Source: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/p/th...MItoqj-KOz3AIVQrXACh1DEQ7UEAQYASABEgJr9fD_BwE

More than 100 years in the making, The Oxford English Dictionary is now universally acknowledged as the world's greatest dictionary—the supreme arbiter on the usage and meaning of English words, a fascinating guide to the history and evolution of the language, and one of the greatest works of scholarship ever produced. The Washington Post has written that "no one who reads or writes seriously can be without the OED." Now with the Compact, the world's greatest dictionary is within the reach of anyone who wants one.

rahl you dont understand, when you lack 1% of the required belief to be an absolute theist, that makes you a weak theist not an atheist!

There is and I tried that once and it went zing over all the neo atheists heads


A grammar is ambiguous if it generates a string with two distinct parse trees.
You know like lack belief? LMAO
Example:< expr > ::= x|y|z|(< expr >)
< expr > + < expr >
< expr > ∗ < expr >

http://cs.txstate.edu/~ch04/webtest/teaching/courses/5318/lectures/slides2/s4-amb-assoc-prec.pdf

Most certainly is when it(they) are practiced

 

56 pages now and atheism continues to not be a religion, by definition. Just like not playing baseball isn't a sport. It continues to mean a lack of belief in a god or gods.

 

Well, if you tried to invoke context free grammar in the context of the natural language we use to speak, then I'm sure it did since it doesn't really apply, and even in the respects that it might, the philosophical implications are pretty much nil. However, I'm doubtful you did. I'm thinking you found something that to your mind sounded a tiny bit applicable and threw a bunch of the symbols out in hopes that the person you are arguing with wouldn't understand them any more than you do.

Would you like to define the grammar, and the parse trees you can derive therefrom to arrive at 'lack belief' in a way that illustrates your point?

Now, regardless, in the context of the discussion swennson and I were having, it is true that english is not mathematically complete or consistent.

WRT lack of belief, if you shuffle a deck of cards, do you believe or disbelieve that they will be shuffled in new deck order? (In advance, I am predicting you will duck this question if we follow the line of reasoning to the point where your logic is backed into a corner, at which point I will say 'pyle')

 

yasureoktoo:

Webster's Dictionary confirms what Collins Dictionary says. Look at the words bolded in red from your own quotation. Those words make no mention of belief in a god or gods. Instead, the focus is on "beliefs held to with ardor and faith." Atheist religionists hold with ardor and faith that there is no Jehovah.

As Collins Dictionary says (bolded in blue):

"Collins
World English Dictionary
religion (rɪˈlɪdʒən)

— n
1. belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny
2. any formal or institutionalized expression of such belief: the Christian religion
3. the attitude and feeling of one who believes in a transcendent controlling power or powers
4. chiefly RC Church the way of life determined by the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience entered upon by monks, friars, and nuns: to enter religion
5. something of overwhelming importance to a person: football is his religion
6. archaic
a. the practice of sacred ritual observances
b. sacred rites and ceremonies"​

Alter2Ego

 

lack 1%
lack 50%
lack 99%
lack 100%
Lack a little
Lack some
Lack a lot

The reader can draw an infinite number of conclusions all could be wrong.

Using the word lack carries no presumption of 100% in fact just the opposite.

I dont believe,
I disbelieve
I believe not

The reader can draw one and only one conclusion.

I believe the card will be in a new order
I disbelieve the cards will be in the same order before you shuffled.
whats WRT?

 

56 pages now and atheism continues to not be a religion, by definition. Just like not playing baseball isn't a sport. It continues to mean a lack of belief in a god or gods.

 

Athiesm is a belief not a system of beliefs ( note plural). Nor can you demonstrate or even assume athiesm is of overwhelming importance to an athiest. So your attemp at dictionary prrof that athiesm is a religion fails according to the definitions you have selected.

And for further quibble we can get into the definition of belief.

 

The same can be said for theism both are descriptors that define a system of beliefs that it ascribes. You are trying to invent a distinction that pretends there are no associated beliefs.

Could surely fool everyone out here.

Your whole premise is a composition fallacy

We did that already and the atheist version already been debunked as nothing more than another fallacy that you keep repeating over and over.

Neither did I dodge your challenge as you predicted

 

See making stuff up again. Where did I say in the post referenced that you would dodge the challenge. In fact unless you are posting as Alter2Ego I don't think my post was even directed at you. And for you to think that denying the existsnce of a god is as emotionally important as proclaiming the existance to it's followers is just plain silly. Just look at how many OPs are started by god believers to attack athiests versus the opposite. Course it could be the religious are just defensive knowing they have nothing but superstition to support their position.

 

Looks like ET did! Looks like I didnt!
I responded to it and ET ducked my response! So many sock out here I get them confused sometimes

However I answered the question before, it appears you simply repeat and rerun the same stack of questions regarless that they have been previously answered.

Its a public service to improve literacy.

 

Right... so, I think it's safe to say you had no idea what you were posting when you posted this?:

In other words, trying to bs people isn't going to help your cause. Unless, you can explain how the above applies? If not, I have to 'believe' that you threw that out there hoping it was complicated enough that nobody was going to understand it well enough to call you out on it. Then you could claim some special knowledge which would somehow help your cause.

In response to what you did say however... well, you didn't really say anything. English is imprecise, that's about it. But, I think we could clarify things a bit more below.

Unimportantly: wrt = with respect to. Also, when I say 'new deck order' I mean the order the cards were in when the deck was first opened, but it's not important, interpreting that as a different order than it is in before the shuffle started is the same thing.

Now, wrt the cards, would you say that the level of belief or faith required to believe that the cards will end up in new deck order is higher or lower than the belief that the cards will be in any other order?

 

No it can't, they are opposite.

Of course since you just make **** up. a Halibut can be the same as a horse, in your mind.

 

here we go set the stage in mud

so then you agree that lack is a matter of degree.