Why do NeoAtheists deny the practice of atheism is a religion?<<MOD WARNING>>

That kind of logic can apply to anything.
I stand on my position with no religious influence.

 

more deception, you cant claim you have no religious influence and maintain the set of moral standards that you just admitted.

 

Sorry, you have no case here,
You can try to play on words, but you have no point.

 

then tell us how you managed to bridge the gap that no academics to date have been able to accomplish

 

I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about.
And don't care.

You have your fantasy of what an atheist is, and it means nothing to me.

 

but there:

Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation![4][5]
https://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_statistics

do you think atheism should be banned as a public safety hazard since it has no moral basis?

 

Atheism is inert, it has nothing.
It is simply a disbelief in a god.
It has no structure to assign morals
It is simply a disbelief in a God.

 

but God = supernatural, morals derive from the supernatural, then to deny G/gods is to deny morals, you are going in circles.

False it is not simply the disbelief in a God it is also a disbelief in the efficacy of what a God stands for which of course is morals which the article clearly points out atheists do not have.

It is painfully obvious that atheism is a public safety hazard.

 

You sound more dangerous than any atheist I know.

 

I disagree, if there is anything the world should fear its atheists getting into power.

How can you support the atheist religion with this kind of track record?
again:
Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things?

If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them.

If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation![4][5]

https://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_statistics

 

I hate to tell you this Koko, but Atheists are already in power....unless you actually believe Trump is Christian. In which case Christianity is nothing to be proud of.

 

with an 18.3 million percent lower crime record than atheists I think Christians have a lot to be proud of.

 

I have never heard of a percentage being in the Millions but...sure. I'm confident your statement is true as usual....NOT!

 

58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder

 

That is almost as inaccurate.....almost. I have no idea where you come up with this crap, but it cannot be a bright part of your mind.....if there is one.

 

https://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_statistics

guess I should have posted it in braille.

Have to laugh these threads always end up with atheists ears pinned against the wall speechless ranting about how their failure to explain anything explains everything, Jake is right on target

 

You continue, after all of your threads, to insist that you know more of the motivations of those you attack than they do. Simply amazing when you continually ignore any statement that you think is not in your favor.

You claim to achieved some kind of victory when only you claim to know the rules, which change at your whim.

You continue to claim to be an agnostic yet give praise to this gawd at every opportunity. This makes you a liar which casts all of your other claims in doubt. You have convinced no one of anything other than that you are continually wrong and cannot accept what facts are posted to you, you have to go and plagiarize the works of your betters to try and prove your claims which only occurs in your mind.

Best advice that you will ever get....give it up.

 

Just for once, provide some creditable proof of your claim. Which you can't.

 

Prove your claim that morals derive from the supernatural.

 

Especially since the morals change with the different gods.

 

If you could provide actual proof of anything you claim, you would have. As it is, you frantically search for anything that you claim supports you, no matter how much you have to twist it. Since you haven't, it is obvious that all you have is delusions and wishful thinking.

 

He also has booze.

 

That site is absolute garbage.

Pretending that is an "analysis" is just plain idiotic.

 

Why would you limit your god to just the supernatural? Besides that, maybe there is some portion of the supernatural that opposes your god - like Satan, or something.

Beyond that, all civilization requires attention to morality and ethics. Even social animals demonstrate that.

It's a very human trait that you would assign your view as having come from a god. It's a great way to claim authority.

I would agree that there is a lot of religious thought related to morality and no real reason to ignore it.

But, I don't share your idea that a god was required.

 

please dont substitute god for supernatural

another page of wasted bandwidth. Take love for instance, it cannot be proven in the natural realm anymore than God can be proven in the natural realm, therefore love is not a word atheists can 'legitimately' believe in, and if anyone thinks they can set up the proofs.