It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in


posted on May, 23 2009 @ 01:02 PM

Just because you belong to a religion doesn't mean you believe in God either.

I know. A religion may be atheistic, but atheism is not a religion. A newborn child is an atheist, but has no religion.

Still havent found a source that says the supreme court deems atheism a religion.

Ill be back tomorrow, gtg now. I wanna discuss untill we have narrowed it all down to the point where everyone understands

[edit on 23-5-2009 by Daniem]

posted on May, 23 2009 @ 01:40 PM

Originally posted by Daniem
Still havent found a source that says the supreme court deems atheism a religion.

The most hilarious thing about this whole argument is that this very delusion (Atheism is religion) is actually helping Atheist organizations to be tax-exempt, basically enabling them to grow faster and reach theists and those who are sitting on the fence easier

posted on May, 23 2009 @ 03:14 PM

Originally posted by 5thElement

Originally posted by Daniem
Still havent found a source that says the supreme court deems atheism a religion.

The most hilarious thing about this whole argument is that this very delusion (Atheism is religion) is actually helping Atheist organizations to be tax-exempt, basically enabling them to grow faster and reach theists and those who are sitting on the fence easier

I don't think Christianity has a problem with that 5th, I mean if you guys are pooling monies to help people in need, housing, food, care, shelter etc,. I think that would be wonderful. The fact that atheist's don't believe in God has never been a problem with me anyway.

What I think enrages them both is the differences they have in origins which is another topic entirely. Other than that, atheist's are people like any other people. The thing that Sam Harris is worried about is public announcements made by people like Richard Dawkins and Neil Degrasse tyson who have said in books and television they intend to use their television and literary mediums to advance atheism attaching it to evolutionary science, something we have always known just by our own experience. Yeah everyone that is an atheist is not an evolutionist is the same as those who follow a different denomination of religion and yeah some say they are Christians while believing in evolution too but those are exceptions to the rule.

Now what Sam is worried about is that a competition of religiously motivated science such as Dawkins and Tyson propose, will bring that science into a Scientism such as scientology has done with their brand of clinical psychology and mental health science which they claim they are NOTHING like but also are all about. Dianetics became Scientology because iit was the only way they could get recognized as a Science religion or what is called "Scientism" or Scientology to them.

The science community of atheism has done so much to affiliate themselves AS "the Science Community" that most people associate them with that in discussions over evolution. Matrix Prophet brought that up in one of her posts also. (it is "she" is it not ?)

Now what we will see then is law suits brought about as a backlash from the ID community to get evoluton removed for church and state and I know this to be already in the works for just such a law suit and a bill to be passed after it gets out of committee. This is exactly what Sam Harris was trying to tell atheist and has kept as one of his talking points on speechs he has made around the country. He is also frustrated at atheist's who do not understand that using this kind of semantic tom foolery will NOT bode well for the case they surely will fight.

Saying things like "Yeah I know their are atheistic religions but atheism is not a religion" is just that kind of semantic contradiction, for what MAKES a religion atheistic, is its atheism.

[edit on 23-5-2009 by Con Science]

posted on May, 23 2009 @ 04:08 PM
reply to post by TurkeyBurgers

Can I be MORE afraid of Religious Political Extremism than Non-Religious political extremism?

Or is that a stereotype. Crap I think it is. Atheism sucks. I am getting off this planet.

Don't you see that it's all a box? Most belief systems/structures are boxed to keep its members in line. Step outside the box, then, we aren't being stifled in our searching.

posted on May, 23 2009 @ 04:16 PM
reply to post by Daniem

How are we supposed to even discuss anything here when all i see is christians (purposly) misunderstanding, twisting words around and even insinuate that language is different from an atheistic point of view?!

Hmmmm? I think undo & Con Science are the only Christians here on this thread, and she is being very considerate, and he is logically being straight forward. I don't know, who else?

I am not Christian, nor religious, and I have gone to great extent to outline atheism as a religion. Go back and read! Is it possible your bubble is burst regarding your atheism being categorized as a religion?

Accept it, rather than deny it. For you cannot change reality.

[edit on 23-5-2009 by MatrixProphet]

posted on May, 23 2009 @ 04:47 PM
"Its doctrine: evolution.

Its scripture: the many skeptic magazines, online websites, and books.

Its churches: skeptic meetings.

Its prayer: chanting; "God does not exist!" "Prove that God exists!" Etc.

Its leaders: Many such as; Richard Dawkin's, Christopher Hitchens, Charles Darwin.

Its clergy: teachers in schools, and professors in colleges & universities."

These statements just do not seem fair. It is the big brushstroke analogy.

It's Doctrine would be MORE than just Evolution. It would be Cosmology, It would be ALL of science! so lets change the Doctrine to The Scientific Method.

It's Scripture skeptic magazines, online websites, and books. Well you would have to include EVERY science book and EVERY piece of scientific evidence EVER written and the many yet to BE written. So lets label the scripture as anything written involving Science.

Its churches: skeptic meetings. That does seem to be a fair analogy.

Its prayer: chanting; "God does not exist!" "Prove that God exists!" Etc.
The Etc. is more important than anything! The Etc. you so easily wrote off is again EVERY Scientific statement ever uttered under the premise of attempting to understand through the Art of Science. And any yet to be uttered. Basically quoting anything from our scripture, which of course would be the WHOLE of Science.

Its leaders: Many such as; Richard Dawkin's, Christopher Hitchens, Charles Darwin. Basically Any Scientists that has ever lived. Regardless of that scientists personal religious preference if they used unbiased Science they fall into this category. So the Leaders would be ANY Scientist that ever lived and any yet to live.

Its clergy: teachers in schools, and professors in colleges & universities." And Scientists.

So lets just Rename "Atheism" to "The Church of Science". Would you guys be down with that?

Or what about "the Church of Religious Skepticism through Scientific Understanding of the Universe".

Either Way I am not really sure I care one way or another if My lack of a belief is considered a religion or talking to other people about my lack of belief is considered a church.

All that matters to ME is that I do not give up the search to understand the Answers of this amazing universe.

I will study ANYTHING to get to the bottom of it. The clues are so vast and involve so many different things that you are probably not going to find the answers to them inside of one single book.

As the Guano Apes sing

"Open your eyes, open your mind
proud like a god don't pretend to be blind
trapped in yourself, break out instead
beat the machine that works in your head"

The Church of Science invites you all to be members of its ranks. Lets find the answers out together without prejudice.

posted on May, 23 2009 @ 04:50 PM
Well look on the bright side. The God delusion can never be taught in public school because it uses the word God way too many times and would be infringing on the rights of atheists.

posted on May, 23 2009 @ 05:45 PM

Originally posted by Daniem

Still havent found a source that says the supreme court deems atheism a religion.

U.S. Supreme Court
Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
Torcaso v. Watkins

No. 373

Argued April 24, 1961

Decided June 19, 1961

367 U.S. 488



Appellant was appointed by the Governor of Maryland to the office of Notary Public, but he was denied a commission because he would not declare his belief in God, as required by the Maryland Constitution. Claiming that this requirement violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, he sued in a state court to compel issuance of his commission, but relief was denied. The State Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the state constitutional provision is self-executing, without need for implementing legislation, and requires declaration of a belief in God as a qualification for office. Held: This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States. Pp. 367 U. S. 489-496.

223 Md. 49, 162 A.2d 438, reversed.

Page 367 U. S. 489

MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

Article 37 of the Declaration of Rights of the Maryland Constitution provides:

"[N]o religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God. . . ."

The appellant Torcaso was appointed to the office of Notary Public by the Governor of Maryland, but was refused a commission to serve because he would not declare his belief in God. He then brought this action in a Maryland Circuit Court to compel issuance of his commission, charging that the State's requirement that he declare this belief violated "the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. . . ." [Footnote 1] The Circuit Court rejected these federal constitutional contentions, and the highest court of the State, the Court of Appeals, affirmed, [Footnote 2] holding that the state constitutional provision is self-executing, and requires declaration of belief in God as a qualification for office without need for implementing legislation. The case is therefore properly here on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(2).

There is, and can be, no dispute about the purpose or effect of the Maryland Declaration of Rights requirement before us -- it sets up a religious test which was designed to,

Page 367 U. S. 490

and, if valid, does, bar every person who refuses to declare a belief in God from holding a public "office of profit or trust" in Maryland. The power and authority of the State of Maryland thus is put on the side of one particular sort of believers -- those who are willing to say they believe in "the existence of God." It is true that there is much historical precedent for such laws. Indeed, it was largely to escape religious test oaths and declarations that a great many of the early colonists left Europe and came here hoping to worship in their own way. It soon developed, however, that many of those who had fled to escape religious test oaths turned out to be perfectly willing, when they had the power to do so, to force dissenters from their faith to take test oaths in conformity with that faith. This brought on a host of laws in the New Colonies imposing burdens and disabilities of various kinds upon varied beliefs depending largely upon what group happened to be politically strong enough to legislate in favor of its own beliefs. The effect of all this was the formal or practical "establishment" of particular religious faiths in most of the Colonies, with consequent burdens imposed on the free exercise of the faiths of nonfavored believers. [Footnote 3]

There were, however, wise and farseeing men in the Colonies -- too many to mention -- who spoke out against test oaths and all the philosophy of intolerance behind them. One of these, it so happens, was George Calvert (the first Lord Baltimore), who took a most important part in the original establishment of the Colony of Maryland. He was a Catholic and had, for this reason, felt compelled by his conscience to refuse to take the Oath of Supremacy in England at the cost of resigning from high governmental office. He again refused to take that oath when it was demanded by the Council of the Colony of

Page 367 U. S. 491

Virginia, and, as a result, he was denied settlement in that Colony. [Footnote 4] A recent historian of the early period of Maryland's life has said that it was Calvert's hope and purpose to establish in Maryland a colonial government free from the religious persecutions he had known -- one "securely beyond the reach of oaths. . . ." [Footnote 5]

When our Constitution was adopted, the desire to put the people "securely beyond the reach" of religious test oaths brought about the inclusion in Article VI of that document of a provision that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Article VI supports the accuracy of our observation in Girouard v. United States, 328 U. S. 61, 328 U. S. 69, that "[t]he test oath is abhorrent to our tradition." Not satisfied, however, with Article VI and other guarantees in the original Constitution, the First Congress proposed and the States very shortly thereafter

Page 367 U. S. 492

adopted our Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment. [Footnote 6] That Amendment broke new constitutional ground in the protection it sought to afford to freedom of religion, speech, press, petition and assembly. Since prior cases in this Court have thoroughly explored and documented the history behind the First Amendment, the reasons for it, and the scope of the religious freedom it protects, we need not cover that ground again. [Footnote 7] What was said in our prior cases we think controls our decision here.

In Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 310 U. S. 303-304, we said:

"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states a incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. . . . Thus, the Amendment embraces two concepts -- freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be."

Later, we decided Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U. S. 1, and said this at pages 330 U. S. 15 and 330 U. S. 16:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor

Page 367 U. S. 493

the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or nonattendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.'"

While there were strong dissents in the Everson case, they did not challenge the Court's interpretation of the First Amendment's coverage as being too broad, but thought the Court was applying that interpretation too narrowly to the facts of that case. Not long afterward, in Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U. S. 203, we were urged to repudiate as dicta the above-quoted Everson interpretation of the scope of the First Amendment's coverage. We declined to do this, but instead strongly reaffirmed what had been said in Everson, calling attention to the fact that both the majority and the minority in Everson had agreed on the principles declared in this part of the Everson opinion. And a concurring opinion in McCollum, written by Mr. Justice Frankfurter and joined by the other Everson dissenters, said this:

"We are all agreed that the First and Fourteenth Amendments have a secular reach far more penetrating

Page 367 U. S. 494

in the conduct of Government than merely to forbid an 'established church.' . . . We renew our conviction that"

"we have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion. [Footnote 8]"

The Maryland Court of Appeals thought, and it is argued here, that this Court's later holding and opinion in Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306, had in part repudiated the statement in the Everson opinion quoted above and previously reaffirmed in McCollum. But the Court's opinion in Zorach specifically stated: "We follow the McCollum case." 343 U.S. at 343 U. S. 315. Nothing decided or written in Zorach lends support to the idea that the Court there intended to open up the way for government, state or federal, to restore the historically and constitutionally discredited policy of probing religious beliefs by test oaths or limiting public offices to persons who have, or perhaps more properly profess to have, a belief in some particular kind of religious concept. [Footnote 9]

Page 367 U. S. 495

We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against nonbelievers, [Footnote 10] and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs. [Footnote 11]

In upholding the State's religious test for public office, the highest court of Maryland said:

"The petitioner is not compelled to believe or disbelieve, under threat of punishment or other compulsion. True, unless he makes the declaration of belief, he cannot hold public office in Maryland, but he is not compelled to hold office."

The fact, however, that a person is not compelled to hold public office cannot possibly be an excuse for barring him

Page 367 U. S. 496

from office by state-imposed criteria forbidden by the Constitution. This was settled by our holding in Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U. S. 183. We there pointed out that, whether or not "an abstract right to public employment exists," Congress could not pass a law providing " . . . that no federal employee shall attend Mass or take any active part in missionary work." [Footnote 12]

This Maryland religious test for public office unconstitutionally invades the appellant's freedom of belief and religion, and therefore cannot be enforced against him.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals of Maryland is accordingly reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.


[Footnote 1]

Appellant also claimed that the State's test oath requirement violates the provision of Art. VI of the Federal Constitution that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Because we are reversing the judgment on other grounds, we find it unnecessary to consider appellant's contention that this provision applies to state as well as federal offices.

[Footnote 2]

223 Md. 49, 162 A.2d 438. Appellant's alternative contention that this test violates the Maryland Constitution also was rejected by the state courts.

[Footnote 3]

See, e.g., I Stokes, Church and State in the United States, 358-446. See also cases cited, note 7 infra.

[Footnote 4]

The letter from the Virginia Council to the King's Privy Council is quoted in Hanley, Their Rights and Liberties (Newman Press 1959), 65, as follows:

"According to the instructions from your Lordship and the usual course held in this place, we tendered the oaths of supremacy and allegiance to his Lordship[;] [Baltimore] and some of his followers, who making profession of the Romish Religion, utterly refused to take the same. . . . His Lordship then offered to take this oath, a copy whereof is included . . . , but we could not imagine that so much latitude was left for us to decline from the prescribed form, so strictly exacted and so well justified and defended by the pen of our late sovereign, Lord King James of happy memory. . . . Among the many blessings and favors for which we are bound to bless God . . . there is none whereby it hath been made more happy than in the freedom of our Religion . . . and that no papists have been suffered to settle their abode amongst us. . . ."

Of course, this was long before Madison's great Memorial and Remonstrance and the enactment of the famous Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty, discussed in our opinion in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U. S. 1, 330 U. S. 11-13.

[Footnote 5]

Hanley, op. cit., supra, p. 65.

[Footnote 6]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[Footnote 7]

See, e.g., the opinions of the Court and also the concurring and dissenting opinions in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145; Davis v. Beason, 133 U. S. 333; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296; West Virginia State Bd. of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624; Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U. S. 67; Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U. S. 1; Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U. S. 203; McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420.

[Footnote 8]

333 U.S. at 333 U. S. 213, 333 U. S. 232. Later, in Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306, 343 U. S. 322, Mr. Justice Frankfurter stated in dissent that

"[t]he result in the McCollum case . . . was based on principles that received unanimous acceptance by this Court, barring only a single vote."

[Footnote 9]

In one of his famous letters of "a Landholder," published in December, 1787, Oliver Ellsworth, a member of the Federal Constitutional Convention and later Chief Justice of this Court, included among his strong arguments against religious test oaths the following statement:

"In short, test laws are utterly ineffectual; they are no security at all, because men of loose principles will, by an external compliance, evade them. If they exclude any persons, it will be honest men, men of principle, who will rather suffer an injury than act contrary to the dictates of their consciences. . . ."

Quoted in Ford, Essays on the Constitution of the United States 170. See also 4 Elliott, Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 193.

[Footnote 10]

In discussing Article VI in the debate of the North Carolina Convention on the adoption of the Federal Constitution, James Iredell, later a Justice of this Court, said:

". . . t is objected that the people of America may, perhaps, choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for?"

And another delegate pointed out that Article VI

"leaves religion on the solid foundation of its own inherent validity, without any connection with temporal authority, and no kind of oppression can take place."

4 Elliot, op. cit., supra, at 194, 200.

[Footnote 11]

Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal.App.2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id. at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47

posted on May, 23 2009 @ 06:32 PM
reply to post by MatrixProphet

Funny it's the one's who's religion is demonized as being ignorant and intolerant savages are the ones being logical and considerate. And telling in more ways than just one. Just to clarify it doesn't mean they are right. Just goes to show who's being more honest and open minded.

[edit on 23-5-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

posted on May, 23 2009 @ 06:35 PM
reply to post by Con Science

The thing that Sam Harris is worried about is public announcements made by people like Richard Dawkins and Neil Degrasse tyson who have said in books and television they intend to use their television and literary mediums to advance atheism attaching it to evolutionary science, something we have always known just by our own experience.

Why does the dishonesty of this go unnoticed by so many????? But then again we have so many joyfully jumping into the BS creationism versus evolution fight as if evolution somehow refutes the possibility of a higher power. Humanity. OYE!

posted on May, 23 2009 @ 06:36 PM
reply to post by The Mack

And because it's religious propaganda for a religion that tries to pretend it's anything but.

posted on May, 23 2009 @ 06:52 PM
reply to post by Unsane

I'm laughing at logically flawed arguments and over-abuse of semantic twister all the while not knowing the definition of the word of which he speaks and treating his personal definition or the one given to him by the label he accepted *I learn towards this explaination to be brutally honest* as universal. If you think his argument is coherent *largely because you agree with them* more power to you. But I and at more than few other disagree and you're going to have to live with that.

posted on May, 23 2009 @ 07:30 PM
Speaking of dishonesty..... AD CAMPAIGNS! Geee I have never seen a group soo keen on selling a belief system while simultanously trying so hard to insist they are doing anything but.
That is what bugs me, not the belief *yes, they could well be right although I rather doubt it, I know how to take my beliefs with a grain of salt though and give the benefit of the doubt*, it's the dishonest tactics in those attempting to advance their belief system.
People who claim to be nothing more than a bunch of individuals advancing a group agenda. Yep, sounds like dishonest to me.

Chicago buses get ads reading 'In the beginning, man created God'

This is the slogan that was put on 25 buses in Chicago this week, as a part of the Indiana Atheist Bus Campaign. The bus ads will be seen cruising all over Chicago through the month of June.
The Chicago Tribune reports that the Indiana Atheist Bus Campaign (IABC) has collected more than $10,000 USD in private donations to buy ads in Indiana and Illinois, with help from the AHA.

Charlie Sitzes, a spokesman for the group from Indiana says that "The intent of the campaign is to stimulate discussion of religion and its place in our society."

They took the campaign from Indiana to Chicago after a similar campaign with a different slogan "you can be good without God" was reject by the public transportation authorities in Bloomington and stalled by officials in South Bend because they didn't want the ads to be posted during the speech of President Obama at Notre Dame University.

In reaction to the Bloomington refusal, the Indiana chapter of the ACLU has sued the Bloomington Public Transportation Corporation on behalf of the IABC. The mayor of Bloomington, Mark Kruzan has denounced his own public transportation corporation, saying that he does not agree with government censorship.

"It would appear that where there is more opposition to the message that maybe that would be the place where we needed dialogue more," Sitzes said, maintaining that the slogan is a simple fact.

"All non-believers believe God is a creation of man," he said. "We used to have thousands of gods. Now we’re down to one. We’re getting closer to the true number."

The guidelines ruling advertising on the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) say that ads must be truthful and "not directed at inciting imminent lawless action."

While at this moment, Trinity Christian College is the only religious organisation advertising on the CTA, eight religious organisations have done so last year, including Muslims, Roman Catholics, Christian Scientists and Seventh Day Adventists.

Charlie Sitzes thinks it is sad that the European-inspired advertisement campaign has been opposed in his home state. In Great-Britain, ads were used that said "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

The AHA used pictures with a man in a Santa suit, saying "Why believe in a God? Just be good for goodness sake." in Washington DC.

Sitzes said that the Chicago slogan "makes the point that religion is a social, man-made creation – like literature, art, politics, and science – and as such, it should be subject to debate like everything else," He add that the view of atheists, agnostics and secular humanists are often ignored in public life.

"Atheists, agnostics and secular humanists have a unique perspective on the topic that usually gets ignored in public discussion, and we’d like to make ourselves heard," he said. "The ads aren’t an attack on religious people but an affirmation of a different point of view."

posted on May, 23 2009 @ 08:02 PM
Sorry, I missed this one. To err is to be human and all that.

reply to post by KRISKALI777

Considering the Satanist's bible was written intentionally to be the exact opposite of everything the Christian's bible said I don't think it could be any other way. LaVey did it as a joke I have been told but I haven't really cared much either way to check into the factuality of it. The Judeo-Christian belief set is not something I have been overly interested in, most likely due to a largely irrational rebellionish response to having it shoved down my throat at an early age. But, I, unlike a great many don't fault anyone for it, I simply follow the path that feels best *otherwords rings of truth to me* for me and let others do the same. And that is the way I believe it should be. And just in case you think I am being hypocritical, allow me to reiterate, I have no problems with atheism as a belief system. I have problems with people dishonestly and aggressively pushing their belief system while saying they are doing anything but.

[edit on 23-5-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 05:40 AM
reply to post by Con Science

I cant see that it even mentions atheism as beeing a religion. If you kindly would point out where it says so id appreciate it.

Atheism is not a religion. It would be the biggest religion in the world then, cause chairs and animals dont believe in gods.

To illustrate your foolishness:
Those who keep scores on how many people got killed from what religion, do you feel that the religion that killed the fewest is the best?

You're an iPuD. An invicible Pink unicorn Denialist. The disgusting thing is that YOUR fellow iPuD's have commited all the horrible mass murders in history. Hitler, Stalin, The spanish inquisition, The crusades, The Jihads etc.. all invicible Pink unicorn Denialists.

Question: Do you say theism is a religion??

[edit on 24-5-2009 by Daniem]

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 09:33 AM

Originally posted by Daniem
Question: Do you say theism is a religion??


ANY theism is a religion.

If you believe in AFTERLIFE of any kind, you are religious.

If you believe that whatever or whoever created the universe or universe itself has higher conscience then we are, you are religious ...

There you go

The problem with boxes is that they have corners

They come in many, many different sizes.

But they are ALWAYS there

[edit on 24-5-2009 by 5thElement]

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 10:01 AM
reply to post by 5thElement

Atheism and theism are not religions
And if anyone still thinks so after all i have posted, then there is something wrong with you.. or you purposly wont understand.

Under atheism comes religions, like buddism
Under theism comes religions, like christianity, judaism


Im not wasting any more time on you. If you dont get it now then too bad.

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 02:55 PM
To many of us God is not a threat. He is an enhancement to our search.

If one leaves out the conditioning regarding a higher power, leaves the issues of religion behind, this MAY open a door to understanding the cosmos and consciousness more.

GOD extends the search through science. He doesn't inhibit it. Only our projections regarding him limit our thinking and our search.

It is not to be in fear of limiting science to God, it is limiting God to science! -MP

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 05:48 PM
Let me pose a question to everyone who says that a God of some type or form exists.

Can you say that the possibility DOES exist that a God does NOT exist.

Just the possibility?

Are you open to this as a possibility?

Or is your stand unmovable beyond a reason of a doubt?

Is it possible that God does not exist?

I believe that the answer to this question is important for a person to answer.

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 06:35 PM
reply to post by 5thElement

Your personal definitions are not universal sorry to tell you. Why is it just you *those you agree with* get to treat your personal definitions as universal? Why not everyone else? I mean we do all want equality after all. Or do you? And please don't answer it's a rhetorical question.

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back — more at rely
Date: 13th century
1 a: the state of a religious b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
— re·li·gion·less adjective

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in