Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ampersand]

I SAID THIS THREAD IS NOW ABOUT LISTENING TO 11.975MHz.

[Earthquake Damage]

It's not French. Try to translate the text. Also, read a few pages backward.

Well, the one strip certainly looks French ("donnez un coup de pied" and so forth).  The others?  Not so much.

Aaand it's lost my interest.  This thread is now about either dinosaur comics or the original topic.

[Ampersand]

What I was trying to say is, it's gibberish on the whole.

[G-Flex]

@ Earthquake:
There exists an Atheist religion. Alright? I'm tired of saying this. First thing I ever said in this thread:

As soon as a common belief system becomes coordinated, it's a religion or a cult.

Both the first definition, which I've posted enough, and the second:

a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects

Apply to the subject of the thread, organized atheists. They are of a religion. Sure, there are atheists that aren't, but some are.

Nope. If an organization of atheists actually has some belief system that makes statements about what they think the supernatural (or other facets of religion) ARE, then yes, that would be a religious organization.

However, atheists don't. They don't have a common belief system whatsoever. Even organized atheists share no belief whatsoever, just a lack of belief in some particular thing.

You statement is simply misleading.  An atheist religion may be a subset of atheism, but atheism itself is not a religion.  A theistic parallel:  Christianity is a subset of monotheism, but monotheism is not a religion.  The way you worded your statement reads similar to "Monotheism is one of the religions."

Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. Yes?
Major kinds of religious beliefs, as in, concerning things in the above definition, even if it is that they are against the things in the above definition as that is still concerning things in the said definition as is the definition of a religion:

POLYTHEISTIC - - -Animism, wikka, etc
MONOTHEISTIC - -- Judaism, Islamic, etc
ATHEISTIC - - - - - Atheism. That's it.
(AGNOSTIC?)

No, there are atheistic religions. Buddhism has not necessarily any belief in a god. Hell, scientology doesn't either, and some new-age/wiccan people I know certainly have religious beliefs but without a concept of any "gods" being part of the mix.

In other words, there's no reason why a religion can't be atheistic, and examples are around. Classifying religions based on the number of gods worshipped is kind of silly. There are a hell of a lot of other factors involved, and atheistic religions are a very real possibility.

An atheist religion may be a subset of atheism, but atheism itself is not a religion.

Depending on the Atheist.

This is ridiculous. If atheism is a religion to one person but not another, then obviously something other than atheism ITSELF is making the distinction. If one person has an atheistic religion, it's because he actually HAS faith or beliefs in what he thinks is TRUE about the universe and the supernatural, in ADDITION to not having belief in a god.

[Ampersand]

But seriously guys, how do you like the show?

[Sergius]

Unless you want to argue that this is true, stop using the dictionary as the final arbiter of what is or is not atheism.

No, that's right. Godlessness.

Where were you going with that?

Ok then, since it's official that you equal atheism with immorality (which you cleverly didn't quote while simultaneously agreeing to the quote - which seems to be your usual gimmick, like misrepresenting Ampersand's post dealing with atheist babies claiming that only the other part was said) I'm done taking anything you say with any semblance of respect.

It's obvious that you are a dishonest person as you remove parts of other people quotes pretending that they were never there and then use the remaining part out of context.

About the radio show, I'm having trouble accessing it from behind my firewall.

[¿]

Unless you want to argue that this is true, stop using the dictionary as the final arbiter of what is or is not atheism.

No, that's right. Godlessness.

Where were you going with that?

Ok then, since it's official that you equal atheism with immorality (which you cleverly didn't quote while simultaneously agreeing to the quote - which seems to be your usual gimmick, like misrepresenting Ampersand's post dealing with atheist babies claiming that only the other part was said) I'm done taking anything you say with any semblance of respect.

It's obvious that you are a dishonest person as you remove parts of other people quotes pretending that they were never there and then use the remaining part out of context.

That's kind of standard practice isn't it? Mocking what they said?
Words have MANY definitions. That was already agreed upon by most people here. One thing that qualifies under the definition of atheism is Godlessness. That is certainly. Note there was a semi colon, not a comma dividing Godlessness and Immortality. Either someone Godless or Immortal fits, but they don't have to be both.

It's obvious that you are a dishonest person as you ignore parts of other people's punctuation pretending that they were never there and then use the remaining part out of context. That and I really doubt you believe atheists are immortal.

I don't expect you to have any semblance of respect to what I say. You don't want to hear it and will ensure you never will.

For the love of your not-existing God G-Flex:
You are saying ALL Atheists. Ridiculous that it depends on the person? YOU are making broad sweeping generalizations now. I'm saying there are atheists out there that are a part of an atheist religion, and in the same post you rebuttal that with you admit there are religions with atheist beliefs. You're not going anywhere with that.

If atheism is a religion to one person but not another

Mormonism isn't a religion to me, but it is to Mormons. Christianity is a religion to some and just a guideline to others. It depends on how he goes about being atheist and what he believes himself.

[G-Flex]

Unless you want to argue that this is true, stop using the dictionary as the final arbiter of what is or is not atheism.

No, that's right. Godlessness.

Where were you going with that?

Ok then, since it's official that you equal atheism with immorality (which you cleverly didn't quote while simultaneously agreeing to the quote - which seems to be your usual gimmick, like misrepresenting Ampersand's post dealing with atheist babies claiming that only the other part was said) I'm done taking anything you say with any semblance of respect.

It's obvious that you are a dishonest person as you remove parts of other people quotes pretending that they were never there and then use the remaining part out of context.

That's kind of standard practice isn't it? Mocking what they said?
Words have MANY definitions. That was already agreed upon by most people here. One thing that qualifies under the definition of atheism is Godlessness. That is certainly. Note there was a semi colon, not a comma dividing Godlessness and Immortality. Either someone Godless or Immortal fits, but they don't have to be both.

It's obvious that you are a dishonest person as you ignore parts of other people's punctuation pretending that they were never there and then use the remaining part out of context. That and I really doubt you believe atheists are immortal.

I don't expect you to have any semblance of respect to what I say. You don't want to hear it and will ensure you never will.

For the love of your not-existing God G-Flex:
You are saying ALL Atheists. Ridiculous that it depends on the person? YOU are making broad sweeping generalizations now. I'm saying there are atheists out there that are a part of an atheist religion, and in the same post you rebuttal that with you admit there are religions with atheist beliefs. You're not going anywhere with that.

If atheism is a religion to one person but not another

Mormonism isn't a religion to me, but it is to Mormons. Christianity is a religion to some and just a guideline to others. It depends on how he goes about being atheist and what he believes himself.

I never claimed that there's no such thing as an atheist religion. I gave examples.

I claimed that atheism itself does not ever constitute a religion. I gave my reasoning why.


... And I'd CERTAINLY like to see why you don't consider Mormonism a religion. It's a set of fairly-dogmatic beliefs concerning God(s), the supernatural, the afterlife, transcendent morality, etc. and, since I know this seems important to you, it's fairly organized.

[¿]

... And I'd CERTAINLY like to see why you don't consider Mormonism a religion. It's a set of fairly-dogmatic beliefs concerning God(s), the supernatural, the afterlife, transcendent morality, etc. and, since I know this seems important to you, it's fairly organized.

It falls into the "Cult" category as does Jehovah's Witnesses.

I never claimed that there's no such thing as an atheist religion. I gave examples.

You gave examples of atheism in religions. That didn't really prove anything.

I claimed that atheism itself does not ever constitute a religion. I gave my reasoning why.

That "even organized atheists share no belief whatsoever, just a lack of belief in some particular thing" while there are still atheists who share a solid belief in the non-existence of a particular thing. Yes we already know there are atheists with a lack of belief as opposed to an opposing belief. I've already said that myself. I'm talking about the other ones. They constitute a religion when they band together.

You are still making a broad generalization that ALL Atheists merely have a lack of belief.

[Ampersand]

My cat is an Atheist. Is it part of a religion?

[LegoLord]

What is the point of this and is there any defined evidence for either argument? (I'm not seeing any of either)

@ &:  Nice one.

[¿]

My cat is an Atheist. Is it part of a religion?

Does he:
-Believe in the non-existence of God, not just have no belief in God?
-Share his related to the above set of beliefs with other atheists who do the same?

What is the point of this and is there any defined evidence for either argument? (I'm not seeing any of either)

I say there is an Atheist religion of Atheists because they meet the requirements of the definition of a religion. Earthquake says: "Ah! But not all of them have a belief about God, just a lack thereof!". I said: "True, but there are Atheists that have an outright belief in the non-existence of God which falls under the definition of a religion. They also congregate and organize and share their set of beliefs on the subject, which is also defined as a religion. Therefore, there is an Atheist religion." Then G-Flex jumps in and says: "Ah! But not all of them have a belief about God, just a lack thereof! Therefore ALL atheists do not ever constitute a religion, nor any portion of them." and can't seem to make it past that.

Maybe this will speed things along.

[viskaslietuvai]

I realize that I was part of the madness that was this thread, but I did stop.
Seriously, there's no convincing going on here. New points are not being raised. This is the merry go round that will not stop.
I thought this thread woulda died by now.

To &: Thanks for showing us a new radio show thingy. I was, at one point thinking of moving to Austin, so it was nice to here that something like this existed in what is stereotypically known as Bible-thumper country. Then again, Austin is pretty liberal, and when outnumbered the minority tends to get pretty damn militant. (for lack of a better word, maybe vocal would have been more appropriate.)

[Virex]

This whole discussion. I wouldn't call it useless or anything, but it's diverging from the point. It's interesting to see that you're so vigorously debating a definition question without actualy asking yourselves what kind of importance the definition actual holds. Because to me it seems that you're debating because the word religion holds some special contonation that you either want to ascosiate atheims with, or want atheism not to be ascosiated with. But I fail to see what this contonation is, and why it would be important.

It's similar to the discussion that's often seen about evolution. People argue over wether something can evolve out of it's species, but they forget that a species is a human construct. In another vein, people often see molecules as the ball-and-stick models we often see, forgetting that the atoms are spinning around all the time, and the electrons can't even be pinpointed at a single place but swarm around everywhere in a cloud of quantum indescision. It's somethimes a good idea to take a step back and tell ourselves that our definitions and models are just that, definitions and models. They try to give us handels to describe the world with, but these only work if you're using the correct model for the case. A classifications in species might be usefull for taxonomy and breeding purposes, buit when talking about genetics it becomes but a small part of the description, along with other things like genetic similarties and ancestral lines.
In this case I think it's time to take a step back and ask wheter this debate is realy about anything relevant.

[¿]

There's nothing relevant or important and it is totally useless to try to convince anyone of anything on the internet. I've just got nothing to do and apparently neither does a number of people here.