Atheist congregation meets every Sunday morning to discuss how they've rejected organized religion , page 3

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

---

I got that because they are manipulating their kids.

reply to post by spellbound

---

Oh, I thought you were directing that at me and was at a loss to understand why. Thank you for clearing that up.

reply to post by 5thElement

---

Yet he said nothing of the sort. If you must resort to strawmen do try to be less obvious about it. Pretty please?

reply to post by Deaf Alien

---

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
"Why is the sky blue?"

"Because God make it so"

BOOM! It's over!

This is exactly what I meant by by previous post. No, BOOM, it is not over. Just because God created everything, doesn't mean there wasn't a reason behind it, and a way behind it.

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
How is telling the kids that people believing different things brainwashing them?

And no, it doesn't tell the kids that the "answer doesn't matter". It expands their perceptions and understanding and to help them explore the possibilities and to find the best answers they could find.

Is that so? Then why is it that like most other religious segments of the population, children of atheists generally grow up to be atheists? Unless you mean that the 'best answer' is atheism .

reply to post by 5thElement

---

Atheism is a religion and Christianity is a relationship, there is a difference

My gosh, I want to blow the biggest raspberry I can fathom; but, I am laughing too much.
What a predictably, sickening employment of word-play!
Are you a politician- If not, I'd consider it, if I were you. There is big money to be made from such mind-boggling rationale. Maybe you can donate it to the Church!
Oh yeah, and remember: Its not a Tax, its a Levy!

reply to post by Darth Lumina

---

It actually is a religion, you can deny it all you want, but it is. You don't need to have a god in order to be called a religion, nor do you need a church. Atheism IS a religion.

GRRRREAT argument.. "since I say atheism is a religion, it is!" Not very convincing.

As posted before, the definition of religion doesnt fit atheism, as:

It is NOT a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, It doesnt have a set of beliefs and practices, No code of ethics, etc.

So you see, "it acctually is not a religion"

You probably dont believe in Zeus or Odin, that doesn mean your are part of a no Zeus religion, or no Odin religion.

If me not believing in Yahweh is a faith, then you not believing in other Gods is an equal faith.

reply to post by Daniem

---

Did not read the definition did you? If your going to haggle about definitions you might want to at least know it. Not treat your own person intrepretation as universal fact.

reply to post by contemplator

---

Contradiction. I love it! I never considered blanket generalizations about large groups of people rational. But, eh, who knows. And that is just one thing I can find wrong with your statement. But in all honesty, by all means, join the tribe that most suits you. Convince yourself it's the greatest thing since sliced bread and declare it transcendent of human nature and some of the nastiness human nature entails if that's what tickles your fancy. Just don't expect me to. I have better things to do with my time.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

---

post by Daniem:

If atheism is a religion, then theists would have no reason to criticise atheism being taught in schools as part of religious education.

post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows:

That makes sense to you? Atheism isn't a religion because theists would have a problem with it if it was taught as a part of a religious education?

RE-READ, and dont make assumtions as if this was said to proove if atheism is a religion or not. Read as is.



post by Daniem:

The difference between "believing there is no God", and "not believing there is a God, is that the first is a belief, the second is a lack of that belief.

post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows:

the only difference in those two sentences is the location of the negatory word. Rather like saying, " I see no tree." and "I cannot see a tree.", it means the same thing.

Nope. There is a big difference between positively believing that a thing does not exist, and simply lacking belief in it's existence.

If someone asked you about unicorns, would you say "I believe there are no unicorns", or would it be more honest to say "I do not believe in unicorns"? These are two different answers. Nobody disbelieves in unicorns purely as a matter of personal faith.

Again, apply the same reasoning to the Gods of other religions. Example : if you are a Christian, do you believe Odin does not exist? Or do you not believe in Odin?

And if such non belief is a religion as you claim, then may I say that you a member of the "No Odin" religion? Is it a matter of faith that Odin does not exist? Can I come along to your no-Odin church with you tomorrow?

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by 5thElement

---

Yet he said nothing of the sort.

I know.

Yep, I said it, not him, isn't that obvious ?

I was just expanding on "Atheism is religion" further...

If Atheism is a religion then it must be (IMO) the lowest one on the totem pole, hence others (Christianity for example) are more like personal relationship with God then just religion

Atheists (IMO again), however, have long ways to go to achieve their personal relationship with no God (to have a status as born again Atheists)...

What I'm actually trying to communicate here is that I accepted that "There is no God" is set of beliefs, therefore religion

reply to post by Daniem

---

RE-READ, and dont make assumtions as if this was said to proove if atheism is a religion or not. Read as is.

It was. Here, allow me to provide the whole statement:

If atheism is a religion, then theists would have no reason to criticise atheism being taught in schools as part of religious education.

But it is amusing to see the classic "I know you are but what am I." principle applied once again. I am not making any assumptions. Oh, and here:

Irrelevant Conclusion: diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than address it directly.
Example
Argument: Kim Jong Il believes that war is justifiable therefore it must be justifiable.
Problem: Kim Jong Il can be wrong. (In particular this is an appeal to authority).
Special cases:
purely personal considerations (argumentum ad hominem),
popular sentiment (argumentum ad populum--appeal to the majority; appeal to loyalty.),
fear (argumentum ad baculum),
conventional propriety (argumentum ad verecundiam--appeal to authority)
to arouse pity for getting one's conclusion accepted (argumentum ad misericordiam)
proving the proposition under dispute without any certain proof (argumentum ad ignoratiam)
Also called Ignoratio Elenchi, a "red herring"

SOURCE:en.wikipedia.org...

Nope. There is a big difference between positively believing that a thing does not exist, and simply lacking belief in it's existence.
If someone asked you about unicorns, would you say "I believe there are no unicorns", or would it be more honest to say "I do not believe in unicorns"? These are two different answers. Nobody disbelieves in unicorns purely as a matter of personal faith.

Only when you base your arguments off semantics. And am I to assume you're are claiming all atheists are the latter? If that is the case I refer you to what I said to another about blanket generalizations and large groups of people. Basically a to z your argument is flawed.

Again, apply the same reasoning to the Gods of other religions. Example : if you are a Christian, do you believe Odin does not exist? Or do you not believe in Odin?

And if such non belief is a religion as you claim, then may I say that you a member of the "No Odin" religion? Is it a matter of faith that Odin does not exist? Can I come along to your no-Odin church with you tomorrow?

LoL! If I was Christian I think it would be pretty obvious I didn't believe in Odin, it would inherently a statement that I didn't believe in Odin. Gee your arguments are fun.

reply to post by 5thElement

---

No, you were making assumptions and treating them as fact with the intention of trying to sound funny. And did rather poorly at that.
Or do you honestly think that everyone who has any criticism of something *this case atheism* must be that things opposite *this case theism or more precisely unless I missread your inference Christianity*. Too bad dualism is unrealistic at best.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by 5thElement

---

In politics, we have one ruling party and one opposing faction; such is the futility of democracy!
Religion is political too; but has the element of Dogma. This is the difference. atheism lacks its own dogmatic purpose.
So, just because Atheism is opposed to religion ( and is bereft of Dogma- in its own right ); does that really make Ateism a religion?
I think we could change our mind if there were a network of meeting places, and spiritual surrender to a higher being. if Atheism hadd these concepts it would have its own dogmatic approach, so therefore be considered a bonafide religion.
But, without preists, a congregation, and church; as it is only opposition.
Creating the above fraternity, would say be similar to Satanism?

reply to post by Roark

---

If you ask me, then "organized" religions are as useless as "unorganized" if you feel me.

All the ethic and values we have descended from jesus, but we know that stuff now, so why can't those christians just accept that not everyone believes what they do.
The most famous words jesus taught was 'treat others as you want others to treat you' or something like that, but everyone knows that by now, so i see no reason why they can't just mind their own fairytale business.

But to be perfectly honest, if i had a religion it would totally be nordic religion. it's basically the same as christianity, except there are more gods, and you honor them by getting #faced.

Im proud of being a hethen.

reply to post by benzon

---

If you ask me, then "organized" religions are as useless as "unorganized" if you feel me.

Ahhh. the concept of Attachment/Non-attachment; I do believe that is Zen and Not Christian.
You wouldn't know about Christianity, unless Roman Emperor Constantine, organised the original Catholic Chuch; for his empires profit.
This was established in 325AD, with his formulation of the Council Of Nicea.

The Truth About the Garden of Eden Story
  Posted 6 days ago with 49 member flags

We Have Been Lied To
  Posted 18 days ago with 37 member flags

The Mormon Church is a Cult
  Posted 9 days ago with 23 member flags

Who killed the prophet Muhammad? A 1400 year old murder mystery.
  Posted 15 days ago with 16 member flags

Quake Reveals Day of Jesus\' Crucifixion
  Posted 2 days ago with 10 member flags

Is The Bible Real?
  Posted 17 days ago with 9 member flags

The talk too controversial for TED to post...
  Posted 10 days ago with 9 member flags

The game, laid bare (illuminati)
  Posted 5 days ago with 9 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: