Atheists Anonymous

AfterInfinity
reply to post by borntowatch

 

Then maybe you should look at this too.


Linky

If you think you are not religious then you can accept that for yourself

I have a different opinion on many things to you, so I assume.

We differ here, I can accept that

borntowatch

AfterInfinity
reply to post by borntowatch

 

Then maybe you should look at this too.


Linky

If you think you are not religious then you can accept that for yourself

I have a different opinion on many things to you, so I assume.

We differ here, I can accept that

Did you not read the link? I gave a very sound argument for not considering myself religious.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I read your link. I think that is a fine answer you posted. There's not much I can refute in it.

But I do have a few problems about some aspects of atheism that I've noticed appearing, and that there is a blurring of the lines that can no longer be denied. If I stick with the principle "actions speak louder than words", I have trouble telling the factions apart.

Atheists deny the promise of deities—sure, fair enough definition—but why won't they just do that? Be an atheist—don't believe in deities, and that's it, walk away, end of story. Atheism should be a transition, not an ending point. Let those from within the circle of religion use the derogatory term "atheist" on who they think are unbelievers. Do no take on the burden of that term just so that we can leave one foot in religion and the other foot out, because by doing so, we embody their use of the term, and we take part in the religious narrative, fuelling it, even giving it credit.

"Atheist" is a purely religious term. It has no use outside of the large sphere of religion and will never be found outside of religion-themed rhetoric. It is non-applicable to a non-religious life, simply because it is an opinion in regards to purely religious notions, and religious superstitions; and to perpetuate that opinion, is to retain and maintain an ideology about strictly religious ideas: that is, deities, and those who believe in them. It's time to graduate, put on the big-kid pants, and step fully out of religion so that we can develop meaningful opinions about it.

As atheism grows into a movement, a group, a view shared by many, a faction, an 'ism', a philosophy, a principle, where the mere mention of "atheism" draws in atheists for the sake of defending their word, it becomes an ideology, an ideology based on religious-notions—how can I not call this ideology a religion? People rally underneath the word "atheism"; and they will defend their atheism, their ideology, and likely in a mob-like fashion, at the expense of all other ideologies, of which there are just too many.

reply to post by Aphorism

People rally underneath the word "atheism"; and they will defend their atheism, their ideology, and likely in a mob-like fashion, at the expense of all other ideologies, of which there are just too many.

So, how does this reaction by 'opposing forces' differ from 'political ideology'?

reply to post by Aphorism




Or rather, to level the playing field. But Satan is fun too.

"Atheist" is a purely religious term. It has no use outside of the large sphere of religion and will never be found outside of religion-themed rhetoric. It is non-applicable to a non-religious life, simply because it is an opinion in regards to purely religious notions, and religious superstitions; and to perpetuate that opinion, is to retain and maintain an ideology about strictly religious ideas: that is, deities, and those who believe in them. It's time to graduate, put on the big-kid pants, and step fully out of religion so that we can develop meaningful opinions about it.

In the presence of an idea, a negative is created. When that idea goes away, so does its opposite. Mercy does not happen unless there is something to be had mercy from. Happiness does not happen until unhappiness has been observed. There is no left unless there is a right also. Atheist is a religious term because religion is the most obvious relevance to its existence, the most direct contrast. Without religion, there's no reason to care about not having a god. If Christianity did not exist, if Islam did not exist, if the Mormons and LDS and Protestants and Catholics and Buddhists and Baptist didn't exist...I would still be an atheist. Atheism isn't the shadow of any of those religions. It is a concept of its own. Even if all the religions of the world died, atheism would continue to exist.

Just because OTHER PEOPLE define us by the people we disagree with, does not make us the people we disagree with. Just because we are associated with those ideas, because our rejection of those ideas lends us distinction, does not grant us a seat in the same class as those ideas. Do you put black and white socks in the same drawer because they are opposite colors? Do you have to catching yourself backing out of the driveway because you were compelled to go forward and backward at the same time? Maybe you fell on your can entering the house because you were suddenly gripped with the urge to step forward with both feet at the same time, because we always have to keep opposites together.

That's what it sounds like you're saying here. Despite the fact that the difference of one critical element changes the whole game, the theme of the game ought to grant the same properties and qualities to each contender. No, atheism is not theism. That's the whole point.

re·li·gion[ri-lij-uhn]
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe (I read this pertaining to evolution in all its forms here), especially 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.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: (I see this reflects on atheisms, beliefs and practices, you are even preaching the atheist mantra to win converts, atheists even have teachings of how to do it more effectively)
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: (I see this reflects on atheism, now there are even atheist churches)
www.christianpost.com...
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.(I see this reflects on atheism)

Atheism is a religion of self, not unlike budhism

my views in red

Now atheists can argue with how wrong am, but i see it differently from you
build a bridge

reply to post by borntowatch


I don't feel like picking apart your post I simply don't want to however here is something you should think about. Religion is a belief in a supreme power and worship of it as the creator and controller of the universe without reasoning.

Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, for establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information. It is closely associated with such characteristically human activities as philosophy, science, language, mathematics, and art, and is normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature. The concept of reason is sometimes referred to as rationality and sometimes as discursive reason, in opposition to intuitive reason.

I don't believe in deities, but I don't claim to know for sure one way or another. That position is generally accepted by non believers so why isn't doubt an accepted stance by believers? That is just another thing for you to ponder.

reply to post by borntowatch


I wasn't aware there was a faith of atheism, priest of atheism, holy book of atheism, or universal set of edicts for atheism. I think you are using religion in the most vague of senses. I can sense some marvelous contortion taking place behind the scenes.

Grimpachi
reply to post by borntowatch

 

I don't feel like picking apart your post I simply don't want to however here is something you should think about. Religion is a belief in a supreme power and worship of it as the creator and controller of the universe without reasoning.

Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, for establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information. It is closely associated with such characteristically human activities as philosophy, science, language, mathematics, and art, and is normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature. The concept of reason is sometimes referred to as rationality and sometimes as discursive reason, in opposition to intuitive reason.

I don't believe in deities, but I don't claim to know for sure one way or another. That position is generally accepted by non believers so why isn't doubt an accepted stance by believers? That is just another thing for you to ponder.

edit on 10-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

Pick it apart for all I care, its just my opinion. I am sure your life wont change because of my opinion.

The dictionarys definition tells me atheists have a faith.

You say they dont, I think they do
Lets disagree and continue our lives, we are adults

AfterInfinity
reply to post by borntowatch

 

I wasn't aware there was a faith of atheism, priest of atheism, holy book of atheism, or universal set of edicts for atheism. I think you are using religion in the most vague of senses. I can sense some marvelous contortion taking place behind the scenes.

edit on 10-2-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

I dont, i think its very clear

Dawkins and scientist types are the priests, science your holy books. Theories are valid beyond question to some, not all.
Atheists defend their faith, preach and call for converts

Lets just disagree and be happy

reply to post by borntowatch


We're not converting, we are challenging. We are challenging that which you take for granted. That's not converting, that's examining. That's how science works.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by borntowatch

 

We're not converting, we are challenging. We are challenging that which you take for granted. That's not converting, that's examining. That's how science works.

yeah, if you want., Many atheists want religion ended. Whats next, converting Catholics? death camps?

Its safe to assume you hate religion with a fervour. That alone is religious, no doubt you will deny what I say, yet here you are, on your soap box...again

Disciples of Christ dont convert people either, they challenge people with the gospel of Jesus, teaching people to examine their lives and attitudes towards others, whilst examining their own lives and attitudes (yes thankyou, we fail at that very badly, sorry).

And what do we take for granted, surely you are taking science for granted as being an atheist only belief. Thats a little silly
Bible-Believing Scientists of the Past
en.wikipedia.org...

Atheism doesnt own science, it was Christianity and the reformation that brought education to the masses, starting the scientific revolution, not atheism, you can research that if you like


I still think you are religious, hope it doesnt offend you

We should just agree we disagree and move forward

you can just ignore my whole post

God Bless,

reply to post by borntowatch

yeah, if you want., Many atheists want religion ended. Whats next, converting Catholics? death camps?

Teaching children that humans lived with dinosaurs, that sharp teeth are not linked with carnivorous biology, and that the Earth is only 6,000 years old is a serious detriment to the critical thinking skills we wish to equip our future leaders with. How is it said again? Oh yes: we send our children to school so they can learn HOW to think, not WHAT to think. We want them to learn how to reason analytically and efficiently determine the best answer given any situation. That's called critical thinking skills. Saying that humans lived with dinosaurs and that the Earth is 6,000 years old doesn't really qualify.

Its safe to assume you hate religion with a fervour. That alone is religious, no doubt you will deny what I say, yet here you are, on your soap box...again

I don't hate religion. It may confuse me the way an autistic kid banging his/her head against the wall confuses me, but that's about it. And I don't have a soapbox. This thread is addressed to a particular group of people, including myself specifically, seeing as how I'm an atheist. If you don't want to be challenged, don't come to an atheist thread picking a fight. You want to make accusations, then I'll play with you. But don't cry if you get bruised in the process.

Atheism doesnt own science, it was Christianity and the reformation that brought education to the masses, starting the scientific revolution, not atheism, you can research that if you like

Is that why Christians still believe the earth is 6,000 years old and dinosaur fossils were put there by Satan to trick us? Or that water literally covered the entire surface of the Earth for a long enough period to kill anything that wasn't in the sky or on a boat? Or that a person was literally transfigured into a pillar of salt while a contained meteor blast annihilated a small town but none of the surrounding country? Or that a pillar of fire guided Moses, or that a burning bush gave instructions to Moses, or that Moses' staff parted an entire sea? These are the people we trust with pointing the way to legitimate science? These people who expect Jesus to come floating down from the sky on a white horse to destroy Satan and rule us for a thousand peaceful and prosperous years?

Please excuse my skepticism.

I still think you are religious, hope it doesnt offend you

My previous links have explained quite clearly why I disagree. What's the point of being offended? That implies that your religiosity has some degree of control over my ability to be happy.

We should just agree we disagree and move forward

you can just ignore my whole post

I'll agree to expect and respect your disagreement, but I will not agree to ignore your disagreement. If I feel I have something of worth to offer to you in response, then I will continue to do so.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Do Atheists have faith in scientific theory?
I'm sure Steven Hawking has a lot of faith in his Black Holes theory, or his Multi-Verse theory.
Without a shred of proof!

Is Richard Dawkings' "The God Delusion" not an Atheist handbook, that not only promotes Atheism and attempts to convert with his own ideology... But also full of reasoning for there not being a Divine Creator?
He doesn't just say "I am an Atheist", he tries to debunk, for want of a better word, the idea of a Deity!

Are those professors who are full of theories but no concrete evidence just the scientific equivalent of Priests,Vicars, Imams & Rabbis!
Because they seem to push their own ideologies in an equal amount to the clergy.



That all aside I have no problem with Atheism, I tolerate it like a normal human should.
What I do not like is the belittlement from both Non-Believers & Believers alike.
That's the boring and pathetic side of the whole debate that steers me away from the whole subject. It takes away from the intelligent opinions from either side.

Fundamentalism is the downfall of any belief or non belief.

Peace.