An Idea Regarding Atheism

Right, because I am the one that began by claiming Christians were buldozing schools in Loas, which was backed up by UXO, and then confounded by the denial of having ever made the claim after several posters confronted you on it.

Your conclusions are just rationalizations to excuse your behavioral issues.

Kind of hard to engage on a topic when ego centeric atheists refuse to define their position for grave fear of being wrong and having their smug sense of superiority challenged in way that might actually humble them and remind them of their humanity?

Can't have that now can we? Whatever would atheists do if they realized they were just as human as everyone else?

 

Have a nice trip.

Is there anything other than perception?

I can accept that.

Then your problem (as pointed out to others regarding their issues with definitions) is that you don't like the definitions in that dictionary. Are you attempting to say that you are smarter than the people who wrote and published that dictionary?

So now you are advocating the notion that things happen for no reason... "it just happens".... Something happening without a cause. Wow! Almost like common conceptions of 'magic'.

Nice opinions... can you add some substance to those opinions by providing some objective evidence?

Nice to see that you admit to being opinionated. That in itself is a refreshing breath of fresh air. Thanks for that bit of honesty.

Not quite true. When researching the legal meaning of 'philosophy', I found the following text in my favorite online dictionary:
"See: doctrine, posture, principle, theory

Burton's Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc."

"pos·ture (pschr)
n.
1.
a. A position of the body or of body parts: a sitting posture.
b. An attitude; a pose: assumed a posture of angry defiance.
2. A characteristic way of bearing one's body; carriage: stood with good posture.
3. Relative placement or arrangement: the posture of the buildings on the land.
4. A stance or disposition with regard to something: "Those bases are essential to our military posture in the Middle East" (Gerard Smith).
5. A frame of mind affecting one's thoughts or behavior; an overall attitude."

Also, see my signature line.

 

No it isn't, I've already stated the exact opposite.

I've absolutly no issue with any of the dictionary definitions you quoted for religion, atheism or theism. My objection was with your statement that one of the definitions of religion ("A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.") applies to atheism.

We've already established that this doeesn't apply to all atheists (based on your on concession that you're only talking about the sub-set of atheists posting on forums like this one) which supports the position I've been holding from the very start, that while there are certainly religious atheists (of various kinds), atheism itself is not a religion.

It's disapointing to see you demonstrate that you are a lying troll. If you're going to keep playing childish (yes, this time I mean childish) little word games, our discussion will be at an end.

 

No! You have proposed the establishment of such a notion that the definition does not apply to all atheists. However, that notion has not manifested with any proof showing that the definition does not apply to all atheists. Yet you continue to clamor against the accepted definition. So, you see, your argument is not with me, but with the definition itself. I did not write the definition. That was the work of people who are in some circles considered as scholars.

Life is full of disappointments, many of which a person simply has to deal with by accepting the circumstances as they may be. On the other hand, classifying my use of the dictionary as 'childish word games' only shows me that you have no interest in increasing your knowledge of the world, which of necessity, would include the world of 'words'.

 

You're going around in circles. You already admitted that you're not referring to all atheists but only to atheists who post on forums. You're therefore no longer talking about atheism as a whole, you're talking about a sub-set of the people who are atheist.

Atheists can be religious. Atheism is not a religion.

 

No! You are merely misinterpreting what I am saying (to your convenience I might add).

One more time:

Are you an atheist? Are the people on this forum who call themselves atheists, atheists? Are you on this forum? Do you support Atheism? Does atheism have a purpose or a principle? Do atheists have a posture (as in a state of mind which influences their behavior)?

 

I would caution the poster you're asking that the capitalization here is important. Incorporeal is trying to imply that there is some broad atheist movement--that atheism constitutes something more than the rejection of belief in deities.

No principle other than disbelief in deities, obviously.

Obviously, there is no common position or set of behaviors other than a disbelief in deities. There is no central committee of atheism, or one book of atheist doctrines, or church of atheism, or so on. There is no official source of atheist doctrine or authority--atheists obviously adopt philosophies, but those are unrelated philosophies from a very wide range of secular philosophies, potentially including their own individual philosophy.

 

Well, perhaps you should write a letter to the folks sponsoring the following website, and correct them on the usage of the capital "A" as in 'Atheism' which is used throughout the website.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/index.shtml

Ah, then you do admit that there is a 'principle' involved in Atheism. Thus qualifying 'Atheism' under the definition of 'religion'.

Atheists adopt a lot of things that are used as rationalizations (excuses) but their adoption of those things means no more than some other formal group of people adopting other things.

 

It does:

http://www.atheists.org/

http://www.atheistalliance.org/

http://www.positiveatheism.org/

And there are many, many more.


You cannot have it both ways atheists. You cannot claim your faith is a single sentence, and then, when people notice the hurled law suits and organzied campaigns, the best selling novels (and yes, that is what they are), and pretend that someone else is doing it.

Stating something in direct contradiction of evidence is silly.

 

None of the above represent atheism.

 

Yep, clearly they are all Buddhist?

So, no one is supposed to notice atheists banding together and formulating policies and trying to enact them - its clearly a grand conspiracy theory of Christians who are making these groups up, funding them, encompassing these groups membership, filing lawsuits ....

All to make atheists look bad?

Not all atheists belong to these groups, therefore no atheists are doing anything in these groups

Because every Christian thinks the same way and belongs to the same denomination?

Double standards galore. Get that a lot with atheists.

Wouldn't it be easier and quite a bit more honest to simply conceed that there are indeed atheist organizations? Then maybe take a critical eye to these groups paltforms and acknowledge that much of the criticism levelled against them is valid?

I don't see too many Christians ddging the Westboro Baptists Church's excesses by claiming that they are not Christian - and the few who do? No atheist accepts that.

The ever changing standrds of atheism are quite absurd.

 

It's highly amusing how the absence of the religion of, say, a Christian or a Muslim can be so complicated to them, yet their own absence of faith in Zeus, Odin and Mazda Ahura is the simplest of all things.

 

I really do not care what they say. They do not represent me, so it is irrelevant. They can say what they wish, because they are entitled to free expression. Despite what they might claim, atheism remains simply a lack of belief.

Hardly. Religions are a great deal more than a common lack of belief. Religions posit doctrines, moral codes, beliefs about the world and the afterlife, claims about the universe and its nature, and speculate about reasons for existence. They are worldviews; not simply singular ideas. Calling atheism a religion is like calling, say, riding a bike a religion. Sure, those who ride bikes all understand the same basic principle of balance... but that doesn't make it a religion.

Single ideas--or even very small sets of ideas--are not religions. To claim that a single idea is the same thing as a religion is not only dishonest and inaccurate, it is disrespectful to actual religions.

The problem you have here is that you're still trying to treat atheists as a group of people with common doctrines and beliefs. This is fundamentally the cause of your profound misunderstandings.

 

Whether you consider them to be your representatives or not is matter that is irrelevant. If you live in the US, you live within a Congressional district and as such, the constituents of that district are represented in Congress. Because you express such a disdain for the social laws of this country, then it is implied that you also are rebellious toward the laws of this country. Interesting.

Such things as what scientists and social engineers do.

Per the definition of 'religion', bicycle riding could be construed a religion, dependent upon the devotion and amount of zeal applied to that endeavor.

Again, depending on the devotion and amount of zeal applied to that sigle idea.

They do have a common doctrine and belief. The doctrine of anti-theism and a common belief that there is no God or gods.

 

well said Incorporeal..

and why shouldn't we get the same tax breaks as religious organizations??

 

Well thank you charliedk! I presume from the nature of your compliment that you also agree that atheism is a religion according to the dictates of the US Supreme court and for the purposes of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the US?

 

They do. Non-profit tax rules apply to anyone that meets tha standard. That is how secularism works.

Now, why are atheists attempting to take away a non-profit tax benefit from a group based solely on its religious faith?

Doesn't that violate the principle of secularism? Of religious freedom?

 

Atheism is not a religion and therefore has no idea or idology, or mythiology or other forms of brainfarting. Or is that brainwashing.

 

Well, obviously atheism does result in 'brainfarting' and a lack of conscious thought (at least in your case). Why? Check your spelling and see.

 

What am I misinterpreting exactly?

You claimed atheism is a religon on the basis of the definiton "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." and when I pointed out that is not true of the majoruity of atheists, you replied;

You suggested that means atheism is a religion, I'm suggesting that it only means atheists can be religious.

Yes. Most though not all I suspect. Yes.

No. No. No, not one specific to being atheist.

 

Says who? Atheism is simply not believing in the unbelievable.

 

LOL .. so atheism is only a religion within the jurisdiction of the USSC?

Besides the original application for this ruling, namely for irreligious, incarcerated US citizens to get equal treatment as their fellow, but religious inmates, what's your application of it? Does it merely make you feel warm and fuzzy inside or does it actually have some useful meaning?

 

Only "within the jurisdiction of the USSC?" Is that what I said? No? As usual, you are back up to your old antics of misrepresenting what I have stated. You are only proving yourself to be incapable of NOT misrepresenting what others have stated. You also have little or no comprehension of how those various USSC rulings apply to every person across the US, not just those that are incarcerated.

 

Why would you say such a thing? I mean, no atheist in these threads is saying anything that crazy, so what prompted you to come to such a bizarre conclusion?

To some extent, yes. By definition, every Christian/theist thinks God/gods exist, and every atheist thinks gods don't exist. Those are the two "denominations" being discussed. That's the heart of the issue, so please stop trying to divert the discussion towards meaningless things.

Your inability/unwillingness to comprehend the basic issues being discussed only reflects badly on you, not on atheists.

Given that all the atheists here have done that, why are you pretending otherwise? We just keep pointing out it's not relevant, any more than discussions of bad Christians are relevant.

Irrelevant deflection on your part, being that I'm not bringing up bad Christians as a reason for not believing in gods. What some individual somewhere else might have done is not relevant, because _I_ am not doing it, and you're talking with me.

Yet you've never been able to point out even one changing standard of atheism. You've only been able to show that some single random atheist somewhere was inconsistent. So, complete fail on your part. While you've convincingly defeated the cartoon atheism of your imagination, you're amusingly helpless when trying to criticize the real thing.

Atheists like me have only one consistent standard, that they lack belief in gods, because belief without evidence is irrational. Can you point out the inconsistency of that standard?

 

The above is where you have misrepresented me. I have made no such admission. You have misrepresented me.

The remainder of your post below does not even need to be addressed because it is based upon at least that one misrepresentation as shown above.