July 26, 2008

Atheism is a Religion!

I just read an article that was written on Friday in the local newspaper at my old stomping grounds. The article was chastising the state for making decisions based on religion. "The state picked financial winners and losers, and it did so on a basis of religious content." the Gazette claimed. The most poignant part of the article was the point made about the results of the decision of the courts. The ramifications are going to be wide spread. Let the fighting begin! The decision was that atheism is a religion!

Radical atheists and secularists likely won't applaud this ruling, favoring some religious discrimination over none at all. They'll argue for a ban on scholarships to students at any institution with any religious affiliation at all.

That can't be achieved lawfully, however, because "religion" has a fuzzy definition. A federal court, in an effort to help atheists, ruled in 2005 that atheism is a form of religion that deserves the same protections as beliefs more commonly recognized as religion (Kaufman v. McCaughtry). The Supreme Court of the United States has treated secular humanism as a religion, granting the Fellowship of Humanity religious tax exemption because it's philosophy is analogous to religion (Torcaso v. Watkins). Religion at its root is belief, which means it has everything in common with atheism and secular humanism. No theological position - "there is a god," "there isn't a god," or "it doesn't matter" - serves as common ground upon which the state can reside in order to avoid establishment and prohibition of free exercise. The only way to maintain religious freedom - avoiding de facto establishment, while providing equal protection and protecting free exercise - is to allow religious chaos.
(Gazette)

So there you have it, proof that America considers atheism a religion. Now it's our turn; In light of this newest declaration, since atheism has been ruled as a religion in our court system, we have no choice but to sue the states for pushing one religion over another in our public school system. Don't think for one moment that we shouldn't do this because the children are being targeted and lied to.

2 Timothy 3:7 "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."

And war is what was declared in our public school system. Listen to what an American Humanist named John Dunphy said by correctly prophesying about children back in 1983:

"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level--preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new--the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism."

Jeremiah 10:2 "Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them."

Romans 1:28 "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;"

tinyurl.com/AtheismReligion

44 comments:

  1. This is the Supreme Court- I take there statements about reality with a grain of salt. These are the people who did "blacks aren't people" and "seperate but equal" during the 19th century. My favorite is Roe v Wade- people can have abortions because they have a "right to privacy. I may be prochoice, but that is the most retarded explanation EVER.

    So, if the supreme court says that "atheism is a religion" I tend to think they are a bunch of idiots. Heck, the recent gun decision has more support than saying atheism is a religion.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If atheism is a religion then everything is a religion and nothing is a religion.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So Dan, again, maybe you need some lessons on reading comprehension. Did you see this bit?:

    A federal court, in an effort to help atheists, ruled in 2005 that atheism is a form of religion that deserves the same protections as beliefs more commonly recognized as religion

    So, this was done in an attempt to help and protect atheists. Not really because atheism is a religion. (As somebody else whose name I cannot remember said: "atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby").

    Then, you say:

    Now it's our turn; In light of this newest declaration, since atheism has been ruled as a religion in our court system, we have no choice but to sue the states for pushing one religion over another in our public school system.

    This is ridiculous, nobody is promoting atheism at public schools. If you mean science, science is independent of religions, and of any religious beliefs, if you mean evolution (and I think you do), evolution is part of science, not part of an "atheist belief system." You do not want to believe it, but several theists understand and accept evolution. Thus, not a religious anything. Evolution is a scientific discovery, not an atheistic "gospel."

    I have to insist that you have to learn what is it that you are opposing before you make your claims. Otherwise you just ridicule yourself.

    Annoyingly,

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  4. GE,

    I'm glad you weren't as lazy as I was and actually read the article. Even if the courts did define atheism as a religion, this would be ridiculous for obvious reasons. Why do religious people so desperately want atheism to be a religion? That is the interesting question. Clearly, they recognize that if it is so, then it will be the same nonsense as the rest of these weirdo beliefs.

    By the way, i love the stamp quote...that is one of my favs!

    ReplyDelete
  5. get_education

    "I have to insist that you have to learn what is it that you are opposing before you make your claims. Otherwise you just ridicule yourself. So Dan, again, maybe you need some lessons on reading comprehension."

    This is your final warning, clean it up or be censored. I am fed up with your attacks, I will rebuke you but I will give you some grace. I am being as kind as possible. Attack Christianity, but don't attack persons, including Jesus. Prove the person is wrong, without an attack.

    Blog Riles: "Keep the ad hominems out of the conversation. Personal attacks is unnecessary and wastes our time. I will delete personal attacks."

    To address you point the article said:

    "in 2005 that atheism is a form of religion that deserves the same protections as beliefs more commonly recognized as religion."

    Yes it is a religion now and you have all the rights people like me fought for to keep those rights but you are not going to play by your own rules. You will see, and have seen, various lawsuits to rid the religion of secular humanism out of our public school system. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Got a deal Dan,

    However, if you make the same mistake again and again, how am I supposed to let you know which it is without you thinking it is a personal attack? I am open to suggestions.

    Also, your post did not address anything I said. It holds that atheism is not really a religion, and that the court did the ruling to protect atheists.

    I am not trying to play by my own rules. Also, the lawsuits will be easily debunked by just calling the same witnesses as for the Dover trial. Those witnessing pro-evolution were christians, as was the judge ruling "intelligent design" (which is a semi-intelligent disguising of creationism to pose as science) out of the school system on the basis of it actually being a religious belief, rather than what it was designed to look like.

    Again, atheism is one thing, science, evolution, big bang, origin of life, are not the same as atheism, nor are they part of any "gospel."

    So go ahead and waste your money on that. It is your right.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Uh Dan, you do realize that Jesus can take care of himself? You don't have to protect him. Being the son of the creator of the universe and all that confers so inherent power.

    When you get all touchy like that, atheists who happen to have take psychology have the words "defensive reaction" spring, unbidden, into our heads.

    How is atheism a form of religion? Given that there are atheistic religions, how can you say atheism itself is a religion? Or are scientologists, buddists, taoists, raelians and their ilk all practicing TWO religions at the same time?

    Basically the claim ends up with the absurdity that EVEERYONE and EVERYTHING is religious. After all, using the definition of lacking belief, you can include inaminate objects, children, animals and more. To my knowledge that is both blatantly false and ridiculous- religion requires beliefs and rocks are incapable of having belief.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dan,

    The book "the language of god" by Francis Collins, the one you are promoting here, well, it is written by a christian who sustains that evolution is "unescapable," in the sense that there is so much evidence that you cannot deny it.

    This book is proof that evolution is not part of an "atheistic religion." It is plain scientific discovery.

    I hope I was able to make my point without you thinking it was an ad hominem.

    If not, your blog, your rules, go ahead and erase this and the previous ones.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dan,

    Can we make a list of what you consider ad hominem, I mean, not a comprehensive list, but the ones you think I did? Let me start it:

    1. Telling you that it is not convenient to your cause to use arguments you do not understand.

    2. Saying that those scientists you quoted are silly because they do not even know that evolution does not have anything to do with planetary discovery.

    3. Telling you that you should know what it is that you are criticizing so that you can do it properly.

    4. Telling you to read the context for a proper understanding of what is being said.

    5. telling you again to read things more properly so you are not ridiculed.

    6. Your call here.

    Hum, none of them look like personal attacks to me, but let me know how they are personal attacks. I mean, it looks like if I tell you that something puts you in an embarrassing position, then it is a personal attack. Am I right?

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  10. get_education,

    "However, if you make the same mistake again and again, how am I supposed to let you know which it is without you thinking it is a personal attack? I am open to suggestions."

    Just like that would do fine. If someone is wrong say it. Telling them "it's obvious your education was from a cracker jack box" is unnecessary. You are able to discern right from wrong when talking to people. If I am wrong I will try to be first to admit it. Just use some proper decorum, please.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Clos,

    I think I stole the stamp quote from one of your posts. Probably. :-)

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Some more comparisons of atheism with religion, for your delectation:

    If "atheism" is a "religion", then:
    - "bald" is a "hair color"
    - "off" is a "television channel"
    - "abstinence" is a "sex position"

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thanks zilch, these comparisons are nice and clear. I took notes.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "If "atheism" is a "religion", then: abstinence" is a "sex position"

    'abstinence' is indeed a 'position' taken on the subject of 'sex'

    "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice"- Rush (Freewill)

    So, atheism is a religion.

    ReplyDelete
  15. By sex position the poster meant how you... moved yourself in relation to the other partner.

    Please- lets not use such analogies. It is unfair to those who haven't been so lucky.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I think what ge was trying to say was that the court was just trying to help atheists out, even though most people don't recognize it as a religion.

    We certainly don't.

    No holy books, no worship or belief in a higher being, no rituals, no heirchy of priests, etc. In short, there's nothing that religion has in common with atheism. Atheism is at most, technically, a viewpoint about religion. That's the closest that one can really get.

    It's not even a worldview as atheists have all sorts of viewpoints on social, economic and other issues.

    We just don't believe in a god/gods. That's it.


    The court trying to help atheism out has obviously backfired since it plays into the hands of religious people.

    I'd also look at the first comment that Samual Skinner made.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Reynold,

    We certainly don't. (recognize atheism as a religion.)

    No
    holy books, no worship or belief in a higher being, no rituals, no heirchy of priests, etc. In short, there's nothing that religion has in common with atheism. Atheism is at most, technically, a viewpoint about religion. That's the closest that one can really get.


    Who are you trying to convince, me or you? You even have two separate holidays!

    Nice try though, thanks for the laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dan, I'm starting to understand why you wind up complaining about "ad-hominem" attacks. The quality of some of your posts brings them on yourself.


    Let's have a look at the links in your reply to me:

    Your first link is a secularist who is just talking about religion

    second link is a picture of darwin as an ape. guess what, genius? We don't regard him as a higher being. He was a human.

    good grief.

    Ok, now your third link is a link to a skeptical meetup. So what? You've got a very loose definition of "ritual" here. I guess school board meetings are a "ritual" held by the worshippers of education then?

    Fourth link is to Richard Dawkins site. You think he's our "priest"? He doesn't speak for all atheists. Remember his idea of calling non-believers "brights"? Not many people went for that. He got criticized for that. Not many preists have that happen to them, do they?

    Dawkins is just someone who agrees with a lot of the stuff that we do. There are also areas where people disagree with him.

    Fifth link is a book written by another xian fundy (David Noebel) who's trying to make the same association you are. It's like trying to learn about judaism from a nazi (not as extreme, mind you, but you get the idea---learning about one group by reading what a member of a group who hates the first group writes about that first group)

    Try reading a review of it by real atheists.

    Sixth link
    You do realize that picture is taken from a computer game, right? In other words, it's fictional!


    Now, as to us having "two separate holidays", let's see:

    It's Christians who call us fools, and say that April first is a "holiday" for us. Yet you're acting as if we picked it out ourselves?

    The second one is about "darwin day". You should do a little reading about it...The only thing celebrated is science and reason itself.

    Out of all your "claims" only the "darwin day" one can even be stretched into a point, and not a very good one.

    Since it was OK for you to say it to me, I'll justly return the favour:
    Nice try though, thanks for the laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Oh Dan,

    See? You complain about ad hominem for the most minimum insinuation, such as that you should know better what it is you are opposing. Yet, it is OK to call atheists fools. I guess that is not ad hominem ecause you think that comes from the bible and not from yourself. Would it be fine if we call you something by referring it to someone else?

    Reynold made an excellent job at debunking your stuff. I am only left to say that I had JUST told you that evolution is not the same as atheism. I referred you to a book you are promoting in this very blog (the language of god), written by a god-believing person who said that evolution is inescapable (because the evidence is beyond doubt). Yet you insist that celebrating darwin's achievement is an atheist holiday, and to portray darwin as some kind of god for atheists?

    Do you really want this blog to be a debunking of atheists?

    Wow, just wow. If I say anything else you will accuse me of ad hominem, so I stop my comment here.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Oh G.E.,

    Calling you a fool isn't an ad hominem at all.

    Person A makes claim X.
    Person B makes an attack on person A.
    Therefore A's claim is false.

    I'm not claiming you are wrong at something because God calls you a fool. I am just saying you are a fool, according to God.

    "I am only left to say that I had JUST told you that evolution is not the same as atheism."

    Are you actually claiming that 'atheistic evolutionary theory' isn't atheistic? Again who are you trying to convince, me or you?

    Truth is truth, If your speaking truth you are speaking of God because God is truth. Speak false things and I will call you on it and I expect you to do the same. We can get nowhere being dishonest.

    Now I sent this pictures, in jest, to show the hypocrisy of what is being said. I stretched the the meanings of some pictures to make a point here. Just being humorous to prove a point.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I will not continue with the ad hominem. Apparently if we insinuate any insult to you, it is ad hominem, if you say that I am a fool because God said it, it is not. OK, got it. Your blog your rules, even if contradictory.

    Are you actually claiming that 'atheistic evolutionary theory' isn't atheistic? Again who are you trying to convince, me or you?

    It is called "Evolutionary theory," not "atheistic evolutionary theory." I told you a second time. Now third. I am being honest, many people who believe in a god understand and accept evolution. Evolutionary theory is not something made up to deny God, it is a scientific, well founded, theory encompassing and nicely explaining many many scientific facts. Implications about God's existence, of this and/or any other scientific discovery/theory/fact, are up to you. Other people can reconcile science and religion quite well.

    You should also know that many atheists do not understand evolution whatsoever, nor try to use it to deny God. They just do not feel like there is any reason to believe in God.

    I am being honest Dan. Even if you find this hard to believe.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dan,

    I know what ad hominem is. I just thought you redefined into "insulting you." Why? Well, because I started something by telling you that you should be careful to understand the claims before you posted them. This was not ad hominem. I did not say those things were wrong because you did not understand them. Next thing I did was to explain why those things were wrong. Not because you did not understand them, but really why. That is not ad hominem. Nowhere did I say those were not valid because you did not understand them.

    So, hope this explains why I started exchanging "ad hominem" for "insulting." Now, since this is clear, does it mean we can insult you as well as you can insult us if that is not used to invalidate your argument?

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  23. G.E.,

    "does it mean we can insult you as well as you can insult us if that is not used to invalidate your argument?"

    You are cracking me up. If I say yes the flood gates will open, if I say no then I am too sensitive. Is there a third choice to be friendly and poke at each other without anger and bitter dissension? I choose three.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Atheistic intelligence theory? What is next- atheistic gravitational theory? Atheistic special relativity?

    Can you avoid from attaching random labels onto words? Yes, the theory doesn't refer to God- just like all other science.

    ReplyDelete
  25. From the Apple dashboard dictionary, because I don't even need to crack a book or type in a web address to nip this little bit of stupid in the bud:

    "Religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal god or gods."

    You know, the very thing that atheists DON'T believe in. Next time you want to try and redefine a word, you might want to check out what it means, first. Good luck promoting your doublethink.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Atheism is not a religion because it has no dogma, or tenets. It is the lack of belief in a god, which is one qualifying factor. In and of itself, it has no ties to skepticism, logic, or rationality, although most atheists believe in those things also.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Yeah@,

    >>Atheism is not a religion because it has no dogma, or tenets.

    Denial much? Although, I do appreciate that smile.

    There are certainly a dogma that non believers follow. You cannot seriously say that people like Richard Dawkins, and possibly yourself, does not have a dogma that he adheres to. Here is a short list of the atheistic dogma from the assistance of reality check:

    The universe is self-existing and self created. The Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Life began as a result of spontaneous generation. Mankind is a result of organic evolution. Morality is an artificial construct of humans-there is no transcendent moral standard. Religion and religious belief/dogma is harmful to human development. Religion is antithetical to reason. There are two others that are not universally accepted by atheists/agnostics, but a misunderstanding of them will taint their beliefs. Science is an authority and you can only rationally believe in that which can be scientifically proven.

    Welcome though and keep seeking the truth, because when you do, you will find God.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Maybe we should get Atheism classified as a religion then everyone would not have to pay tax.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Atheism is a religion in the same way that bald is a hair colour.

    religion
    –noun

    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.

    Pay particular attention to: "when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies,"

    Atheism is a lack of a belief in any and all deities, and hence is not a religion.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Journeyer,

    First, the US has determined that Atheism is indeed a religion and you have the same rights as any not for profit, faith based organization. Secondly you do promote a philosophy of secular humanism even though your attempt in skewing the proper definition.

    Second, (a)--prefix meaning "not," "without" from L. a-, short for ab "away from" (cf. avert), or its cognate, Gk. a-, short for apo "away from, from," both cognate with Skt. apa "away from," Goth. af, O.E. of.

    theist--from Gk. theos "god"

    For grins, I also looked both atheist and atheism up.

    Atheist--1571, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny god, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god"

    Atheism--1587, from Fr. athéisme (16c.), from Gk. atheos "without god".

    Third there is no such thing as neutrality to a worldview. You have picked a side.

    Y'all have denominations, y'all organize camps to indoctrinate your philosophy to young children, y'all publish books and promote atheism. You definitely belong to a religion!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Ever notice how the same types of people that say, "I don't care what the court says, atheism is not a religion" will conveniently quote the courts when it comes to Creation Science and Intelligent Design? Heh. As if a court ruling could shut down the real debate.

    Dan, I gave this article a link in my latest at http://xrl.in/5sx7. I'm telling you flat out because it is not showing up in the "links to this post" area. Naturally, they're going to come here to whine about what I wrote because they won't understand how they're proving my points.

    ReplyDelete
  32. First, I would like to thank you for bringing up this issue, to which I would like to address.

    First, I would like to point out that you are a theist. A theist is a person who believes in a deity or deities. Now, this is not a description of your belief system, but of one facet of your belief system. That is, you hold a belief that a deity exists. The statement that you are a theist says nothing of what other beliefs you might potentially hold, only that a deity is part of them. To have any meaningful discourse on your beliefs, we would have to address your Christianity, not your theism.

    This holds true of the term atheism as well. Atheism simply means the lack of theism. As previously stated, theism is the belief in a deity or deities, so by extension, atheism is the lack of belief in a deity or deities. This should not be confused with the Greek word Athos, which means "no god."

    As such, the terms theism and atheism fail to inform us of the full extent of a belief system, as they are not systems of belief at all. Instead they describe only one belief or the lack thereof.

    For instance, there are new age religions that believe in abstract mystical forces of good and evil where deities are unimportant or non-existent in their belief systems (think Star Wars). They are by definition atheistic, since they lack a belief in a deity. However, this is very different from Secular Humanism, which rejects the supernatural entirely and is also atheistic. Both these groups consist of atheists, but both have completely different belief systems and world views.

    I hope this has been informative and helpful!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Alex,

    a⋅the⋅ism  /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
    Use atheism in a Sentence
    See web results for atheism
    See images of atheism
    –noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
    2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. [from www.dictionary.com]

    Even an Atheist friend of mine said, "In actual common usage, atheism means the specific belief that there is no god. (Personally, I prefer Webster's myself, but dictionary.com is easier to link to.) Simply put, some people want to broaden the category of atheism so as to make the category to which people want to refer in such discussions too cumbersome to specify. If, for some reason, one wishes to identify himself only as not a theist, the term non-theist will suffice. But the term is not often used, as the category is useless to discussion. And that is why I regard the attempt to broaden "atheist" to be synonymous with "non-theist" to be dishonest. "

    There is a HOST of reasons why you have faith in a religion, called Atheism. You certainly cannot claim there is no evidence for the existence of God, because there is. But because you deny the evidence, its what makes you follow a dogma called atheism.

    I hope this has been informative and helpful!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Please read my statement carefully. At this point, I've defined atheism as the lack of belief in a deity. Now you are trying to relabel me under your definition of atheism and claim that I have a positive belief that no deity exists.

    More importantly, the academic definition of atheism that I have given still stands. Atheism is not to be confused with the Greek word athos (no god). You have already agreed to the definition of theism being the belief in a deity or deities. When the prefix a- is added to a Greek word, it changes the term to the nullification of that term (theism = belief in deity/deities, atheism = no belief in deity, deities). Those who do hold a positive belief in their being no deity are most certainly atheists, as they qualify for the term.

    It seems that you are laboring under the assumption that atheism stands for a kind of philosophical materialism. As given in my previous example, qualifying as an atheist is not an automatic dismissal of supernatural beliefs.

    Again, I hope this has helped clear things up.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Forgive me for the double post. I decided to provide a list of Greek words starting with the a- prefix to provide more proper context of the use of a- in common usage.

    amoral - "without morals."

    anesthesia - Greek for "without sensation."

    anonymous - "without name."

    Here is a link to a website with these definitions and a description of the a- prefix on it.

    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anonymous

    I'd also like to add that I would fall under your definition of non-theist. However, this is an English hybrid word. I believe the non- prefix originates from the Anglo-Saxon tongue, but do not take my word on that. I do know it isn't Greek, however.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Alex,

    >>Please read my statement carefully.

    Really? I sure will try. *pshaw

    Read my lips. You deny God. Its a dogma. I am not sure who you are really trying to convince here. Its certainly not me. I believe you are trying to make yourself more comfortable with your faith and beliefs.

    Theist is from Gk. theos "God". I am a Christian though (from Gk. khristos "the anointed"), not merely a Theist. As a Christian, its my position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.

    Oh as for as your definitions. Your etymology is lacking. Maybe this will help you,

    amoral (Greek privative prefix a- "not"), anesthesia (from an- "without"), anonymous (again from an- "without")

    If you need more I have just two more:

    Atheist ( "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" ) and Atheism (from Gk. atheos "without god")

    Like my Atheistic friend said, "the attempt to broaden "atheist" to be synonymous with "non-theist" to be dishonest." Admit to your dishonesty and we can move on, but God said you would act like this.

    “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2: 14)

    More direct to you is,

    "A fool takes no pleasure in understanding but only in expressing his opinion." ~Proverbs 18:2

    Its OK to admit when you are wrong. Its healthy. A move to truth, is a move towards God.

    I believe this is the most important question to you though:

    How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    ReplyDelete
  37. It appears I linked the wrong page unintentionally. Here is the page I intended to link.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Greek_words_with_English_derivatives

    Actually, you do count as a theist by definition, since you believe in at least one deity.

    Here is another example:

    Asymmetric = "without symmetry"

    Also, you are correct. The greek prefix a- can also mean "not", but theism does not equal Theos. Theos is greek for "deity".
    Theism is greek for "belief in a deity or deities."

    Again, the accepted academic definition of atheism is "without belief in a deity or deities."

    I do apologize for posting the incorrect page. Also, I meant no disrespect to you when I asked you to please read carefully.

    However, it was rude to assume that I was an atheist without asking. Also, if a "non-theist" is a person who denies your deity, then I made a mistake labeling myself under that definition of yours. I do not "deny" your deity since that would involve me first believing in it. I simply see no reason to believe your deity exists.

    Also, no disrespect, but since I do not believe in your deity's existence, I do not hold your holy text in any regard, so quoting the bible in what I can only presume as some kind of personal attack against me is pointless. Given that you have resorted to personal attacks, any further discussion is pointless.

    Nonetheless, thank you for your time and responses.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Alex,

    >>Also, you are correct. The greek prefix a- can also mean "not", but theism does not equal Theos. Theos is greek for "deity".

    I know I am right but you are wrong. You cannot barely assert that "theism does not equal Theos" when I provided the EVIDENCE that says it is.

    Atheism (from Gk. atheos "without god")

    Psst. you lose.

    >>I simply see no reason to believe your deity exists.

    That is why you are an Atheist. One that denies God's existence.

    >>Also, no disrespect, but since I do not believe in your deity's existence,

    That is disrespectful dude. No disrespect, but you're a liar. Does that soften it any?

    >>I do not hold your holy text in any regard, so quoting the bible in what I can only presume as some kind of personal attack against me is pointless.

    So if you don't believe in something automatically makes it not true? Really? Try saying you do not believe in gravity and go jump out a window. *pshaw

    >>Given that you have resorted to personal attacks, any further discussion is pointless.

    RUN!!!!!!!!! Go hide behind your failed logic and reason that you cannot even account for. Just remember you cannot run from Hell. Find out the truth before that.

    >>Nonetheless, thank you for your time and responses.

    Yea right. Go lie to someone else. Patronizing is not your strongest suite, yet you try so hard. You're not fooling anyone here. Now run away scared little boy. Maybe someday you can Bring your "A" game.

    Have a wonderful day. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  39. This is really simple. Atheism is not a religion, its a lack of belief of any deity. There is no doctrines, no set of rules to follow and no cookies every Sunday. We are free to admit that there are more things we don't know and we have to learn. But it doesn't mean God is real or X is right. We simply don't know.

    and Yes, Atheism is a religion. Maybe, you can visit our church. Our God FSM is the true salvation.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Murasaki,

    >>its a lack of belief of any deity.

    Wrong deux, its a positive claim.

    a⋅the⋅ism  /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
    Use atheism in a Sentence
    See web results for atheism
    See images of atheism
    –noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
    2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. [from www.dictionary.com]

    Even an Atheist friend of mine said, "In actual common usage, atheism means the specific belief that there is no god. (Personally, I prefer Webster's myself, but dictionary.com is easier to link to.) Simply put, some people want to broaden the category of atheism so as to make the category to which people want to refer in such discussions too cumbersome to specify. If, for some reason, one wishes to identify himself only as not a theist, the term non-theist will suffice. But the term is not often used, as the category is useless to discussion. And that is why I regard the attempt to broaden "atheist" to be synonymous with "non-theist" to be dishonest. "

    There is a HOST of reasons why you have faith in a religion, called Atheism. You certainly cannot claim there is no evidence for the existence of God, because there is. But because you deny the evidence, its what makes you follow a dogma called atheism.

    I hope this has been informative and helpful!

    >>There is no doctrines

    You're kidding right? Are you discounting the humanist Bible called 'The Good Book'?

    >>no set of rules to follow and no cookies every Sunday.

    I don't even know what that type of fallacious argumentation is called. One "rule" to be called an Atheist is a belief in NO God. Duh! Just because there is no communion does not negate it from being a religion either. Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims do not partake in a communion, I don't believe, does that negate them from being a religion? Nope. Your argument is illogical. Shocker!

    ReplyDelete
  41. The only definition of atheism that should matter here is the court's. Not some "friend" who plays word games to remove some ambiguity of a notion such as whether a person actively denies the existence of deities or just simply doesn't believe in a deity. Regardless, the end result is the same; unless an atheist were to act like many theists and attempt to force their beliefs upon others.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >>The only definition of atheism that should matter here is the court's.

      Valid point because our Government has indeed determined Atheism to be a religion (tinyurl.com/AtheismReligion

      >>Regardless, the end result is the same; unless an atheist were to act like many theists and attempt to force their beliefs upon others.

      What an interesting point, because that is what I am trying to point out here so many times. With all the, what I call the Death camps, and all the advertising that would make any Ad agency jealous (tinyurl.com/AtheismReligion2)

      We have to be honest here. "It’s a fantasy to imagine that children can be raised in a philosophically neutral environment without some dominant world-view."

      An American Humanist named John Dunphy even said in 1983:

      "I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level--preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new--the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism."

      There is indeed a "forcing of their beliefs" in all facets of life. Even in science where they push an unfounded paradigm called naturalism. No empirical evidence for it. It is just assumed and theories are made around it, and because of it. They get it wrong.

      But they know this, because God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God. We call it self deception. Self deception is very powerful to the mind.

      Delete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>