They're organizing, advertising, and certainly marketing for their cause.
The 'sermon' was jaw dropping in the honesty. A few things said: "We have no might" " We have to get back to giving Sermons"
"we need to group together. If you want to change the world you have to group together and be collaborative." like the religions have done.
Listen to the point, after the thunderous applause, one that I have not heard since Pastor Benny Hinn vigils BTW,
It was asked "Is there a spiritual connection"
Alain proclaims "Absolutely!..." "one can have spiritual moments, without a belief in a spirit" *facepalm
We have making this point all along with many posts since the very beginning, (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ) illuminating, like a beacon of hope, the very fact that Atheism is a Religion. The evidence, at this point, is overwhelming.
It always has been a religion. Sure, it may have been fragmented, leaderless, or not cohesive at times. Many religions have those same traits too though. As a friend pointed out, "Atheism is a chosen metaphysical position, therefore a religious position." Can I be an Atheist and believe in God? No? So they have a doctrine.
So there is nothing unique about their religion at all. This guy just wants to be more religious, or more like the other religions. We understand, most all of the false religions out there insist on it, after all.
bit.ly/Atheism2
Actually you don't understand: That is one guy who is looked upon as a loon by pretty much every other atheist. Why?
ReplyDeleteBecause he ...keeps saying things that deluded god-botherers love to hear...
And please, in pretty much every post where you make the claim that athiesm is a religion, you get shot down.
So denial of something makes it go away, or not true? Scot Peterson denied killing his child and wife. But the courts disagreed with him. As the courts disagree with you.
DeleteYes, we understand you disagree. But that does not affect one single thing for anything. It's an agenda as we all can plainly see that as pure fact. Deny away, it's your right, and benificial, to do just that.
The Devil's greatest trick was convincing the world he didn't exist. Your god is proud of you.
So denial of something makes it go away, or not true?
DeleteNo it doesn't - much like your denial of the primacy of existence doesn't stop it being true.
Scot Peterson denied killing his child and wife. But the courts disagreed with him. As the courts disagree with you.
The courts do not disagree, the 7th circuit court of appeals only held atheism as equivalent to religion for the purposes of discussing a 1st Amendment issue, it did not, despite your claim to the contrary, declare that atheism is a religion.
Yes, we understand you disagree. But that does not affect one single thing for anything. It's an agenda as we all can plainly see that as pure fact. Deny away, it's your right, and benificial, to do just that.
That is just word salad ... with a bitter and unappetising dressing.
The Devil's greatest trick was convincing the world he didn't exist. Your god is proud of you.
And that is just delusional fantasy. As atheists we believe in neither God nor the Devil. I'd guess that the God you purport to believe in would be less than proud of your lies ... if only He existed of course.
The whole, "atheism is a religion because the courts say so," is a pretty interesting line of argument.
DeleteSo Dan, are corporations people, because the courts declare that they are?
And another question is why anyone outside the USA should care about court rulings that are not binding on us. Are you aware that American law is not supreme over all of humanity, or maybe you'll concede that atheism is only a religion in jurisdiction where the courts decided that it is, and not in others.
Interesting points
Delete>>So Dan, are corporations people, because the courts declare that they are?
Yes, Corporations are people. That is the entire point. I certainly disagree, but its true. Abortions are legal, enough said.
>>maybe you'll concede that atheism is only a religion in jurisdiction where the courts decided that it is, and not in others.
Would you be willing to admit that Abortions are wrong for the very same reason? Chile, El Savadore, Vatican City* says its wrong and illegal. Does that make it so?
*Source http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/world02.htm
"Would you be willing to admit that Abortions are wrong for the very same reason? Chile, El Savadore, Vatican City* says its wrong and illegal. Does that make it so?"
DeleteI'm not sure why I should care what those countries have to say about abortion, again, I am not under their jurisdiction. I will however admit that the laws of a country is a fairly accurate depiction of what people in the country considers to be moral. Morality is cultural, not absolute, so the variations in law reflect differing ideas of morality.
Some people consider atheism a religion and some don't, some people consider abortion wrong and others don't. Trying to use the legal system to argue in favor of anything is silly, because you will find different rulings on the same topic, if you look at different legal systems in the world. At present, no legislature or court can make a decision for all of humanity.
>>Morality is cultural, not absolute, so the variations in law reflect differing ideas of morality.
DeleteIf "collective moral reasoning" as you're claiming were true, then "morality" is a relative term. Moral relativism is illogical. Here, we will demonstrate that by taking this point through to its logical conclusion.
>>Trying to use the legal system to argue in favor of anything is silly, because you will find different rulings on the same topic, if you look at different legal systems in the world.
Didn't you just proclaim that things are determined by culture? IF said "culture" determines that Atheism is a religion, like here in the U.S., then it is. QED
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteRaygor,
DeleteI know you deleted what you said but I just wanted to point you here to this post to address your point. bit.ly/lackofbelief
Dan
DeleteIf "collective moral reasoning" as you're claiming were true, then "morality" is a relative term. Moral relativism is illogical. Here, we will demonstrate that by taking this point through to its logical conclusion.
All one has to do to show how moral relativism is illogical is to look at how xians consider themselves "pro-life" yet they (ex. William Lane Craig and Dan in another post, have no problem with "God" ordering babies and pregnant women killed.
Think Susan Smith. Biologically, she was messed up. Theologically, there's no difference between her and Craig et al.
As for Alain de Botton, he's a clueless, self promoting, accomodationist arse.
ReplyDeletefreddies_dead beat me to almost all of what I was going to say, so I'll just say this: if Dan and other xians, it seems, take one person and holds him to be the typical atheist, then can we take the most unappetizing xian that we can find and pretend that he or she is typical of all xians?
ReplyDeleteEquivocation fallacy -FTW
DeleteIf it were just one dude, you would have a point. The 18+ posts reveal that is not the case.
If some flake makes a claim, its written off. When the entire congregation agrees, it becomes something more.
That would be like you claiming one priest molested a child, and it's not the entire congregation's fault. You're ignoring the shifting cover up, PR, and advertising to cover up the 1000's that did that too.
You all are trying to cover up the agenda, dogma, that you indeed have. The gig would be up if you all admit to it... just like the RCC.
"If some flake makes a claim, its written off. When the entire congregation agrees, it becomes something more."
DeleteSo we can't just pick any xian, and claim they speak for all xians, we need an entire congregation to agree, and then we can claim that they speak for all xians, as you claim this guy speaks for all atheists.
What "entire congregation" Dan? This de Botain guy has almost no one. Damn near every atheist commentator who's spoken of this has slammed the guy.
ReplyDeleteYet, as the 18 other posts points out, others are doing and saying the same thing. You all "say" you're not organized, yet there is more money and meet up groups doing just that. You say you have no dogma, yet your teach each other how to be more effective in your evangelizing. Over all you're all part of a religion.
DeleteBy that criteria, the ASPCA is more of a religion than atheism is.
DeleteYour silly argument is taken seriously by no one.
Let's have a quick look at those 18 posts you claim support your point here:
Delete1. All about trying to have a go at atheism through disparaging Madalyn Murray O'Hair. There is a side note (your own words) containing a quote from John Dunphy who was suggesting teaching Humanism in a similar manner to the way preachers proselytise ... of course humanism =/= atheism. Fail.
2. You once again try to falsely equate humanism with atheism. You fail.
3. You falsely report the courts as defining atheism as a religion. The examples you use are a) the one I've already refuted on this thread and b) the Supreme Court's decision to grant religious status to secular humanism. Of course secular humanism =/= atheism. Fail.
4. You simply re-assert your claim adding the word 'definitely' yet only point at your blog post at 3 as support for your claim, lol. You're not even trying. Fail.
5. Is you moaning about ads on buses - doesn't even have anyhing to do with your claim that atheism is a religion although you do link to another fallacious post where you try to equate secular humanism to atheism at the end. Fail.
6. Is the post you link to in 5 - secular humanism =/= atheism. Fail.
7. Is you still moaning about bus ads and thinking that, because children in the stock photos used in the ads were Christian, somehow makes some sort of difference ... it doesn't. You also seem to think that labelling the bus ads as dogma makes them so - unsurprising given your propensity to try and make the abitrary true - again, it doesn't. Fail.
8. You use a dictionary definition of the suffix 'ism' as an indicator that something is man-made (theism anyone?) and then simply repeat your belief that atheism is a religion as a non sequitur - and for evidence you give us a World Net Daily link which uses some religious terminolgy to describe a debate between Hitchens and D'Souza. Fail.
9. Here you simply link to someone else falsely asserting that atheism is a religion. The other article is a mish-mash of bullshit which singularly fails to show that atheism is a religion ... hell, it didn't even refer to Dan's favourite court decision and contains the wonderful line 'It is a religion of "no-religion"' - utter brilliance. Fail
cont'd...
cont'd...
ReplyDelete10. Is just Dan's dislike for Dan Barker - not even a mention of atheism = religion. Fail.
11. Here Dan flip-flops madly between belief (which atheism is) and religion (which atheism isn't) as if they're interchangeable ideas ... they're not of course. Fail.
12. Another unsupported assertion - this time that atheists are the antichrist - just because you got pissy at Alex B pointing out that you're as bad as conspiracy theorists when people point out where you're wrong. Fail.
13. Is you attempting to point and laugh at people who either don't understand what atheism means - hilarious considering your own issues with the term - didn't properly understand what they were asked in a poll or the answers they gave have been wrongly interpreted to mean they believed in a personal God. It does nothing to show atheism is a religion. Fail.
14. Just showcases you don't understand satanism any more than you understand atheism and how there seems no way on earth you'd get the difference between the two concepts. Fail.
15. You give Gary - Mr. Batshit Insane himself - the floor and he tries to show that atheism isn't viable - he failed epically but even if he'd succeeded, how does that demonstrate that atheism is a religion? It doesn't of course. Fail.
16. Re-definition time where you attempt to dictionary define atheism out of existence ... and fail. Then try to claim Batshit Insane Gary's already refuted assertion - "Atheism is a chosen metaphysical position, therefore a religious position." - is proved true based on your semantic bullshit. Fail.
17. You're back falsely equating atheism with satanism. Fail.
18. Where you advance the argumentum ad DJum. Apparently a DJ at an obscure Christian radio station is a philisophical authority. He states that atheism is a religion - by redefining both religion and atheism to fit what he wants it to be of course - therefore it must be true. Fail.
So, there we have it, not only do these 18 posts fail to support your claim - that atheism is a religion - most of them undermine the claim and some don't even address it at all.
I am impressed! I was wondering who was going to do a point by point. I am now thinkinging whoever would do that MUST be dedicate to their dogma and cause.
DeleteOF COURSE you have to seperate humanism and Atheism. So if I can make the case that the two are cohesive, you would acknowledge that you are indeed part of a religion? Of course not, but I may post about it in detail later. Until then...
Maybe these will help:
Is "Secular Humanism" a "Religion"?
And,
Are secular humanists atheists?
Hopefully, that will help.
I am impressed! I was wondering who was going to do a point by point. I am now thinkinging whoever would do that MUST be dedicate to their dogma and cause.
DeleteWhat dogma are you talking about? Pointing out that atheism doesn't fulfil the requirements necessary to qualify as a religion and that you've failed in your attempt to show that it does is simply a statement of the facts.
OF COURSE you have to seperate humanism and Atheism.
OF COURSE I do, because they're different things...
So if I can make the case that the two are cohesive, you would acknowledge that you are indeed part of a religion? Of course not, but I may post about it in detail later. Until then...
Of course not indeed, and that's simply because demonstrating that two things have a tendency to go together - in this case that some atheists also happen to be secular humanists - is not the same as showing that atheism is a religion or that atheists are religious.
Maybe these will help:
I doubt it but we'll see...
Is "Secular Humanism" a "Religion"?
A suitably biased source but that's only to be expected. Unfortunately for you it only comes to the conclusion that:
Secular Humanism is a religion "for free exercise clause purposes," and it is not a religion "for establishment clause purposes."
Which, of course, isn't really a conclusion at all. I know you want it to be a religion (as do the writers of that site, the bitterness that they couldn't show that it is was quite palpable) but quite frankly you've failed to show that it is in any meaningful way.
And,
Are secular humanists atheists?
A similarly biased site ... again, I'm not surprised. As expected though it fails to demonstrate (despite you wishfully thinking otherwise) that atheism = secular humanism. Some atheists will identify as secular humanists and vice versa but then there's nothing to say that atheists must be secular humanists and there's also nothing to stop theists from being secular humanists either.
Hopefully, that will help.
Well it helped me demonstrate that you're still floundering about trying to conflate atheism with secular humanism and, while you're failing at that, you're also failing to even show that secular humanism is itself a religion. So thanks for that.
>>A suitably biased source but that's only to be expected.
DeleteYou do understand that you linked to AE's blog to back your words up, on this thread alone.
Would you like me to go back and see how many times you have linked to talk origins, or rationalwiki, etc.? Bwahahaha Atheistic hypocrisy.
Dan said...
DeleteYou do understand that you linked to AE's blog to back your words up, on this thread alone.
As other people were trying to explain to you, Alain De Botton is a loon that almost no other atheist takes seriously. I figured it would be apt to show how other atheists view him instead of simply asserting that that's how he is viewed. I'm wondering why you think this is a problem?
Would you like me to go back and see how many times you have linked to talk origins, or rationalwiki, etc.? Bwahahaha Atheistic hypocrisy.
What hypocrisy are you on about? Have I ever said that you aren't allowed to suggest those sources are less than partisan in their approach? Have you not, in fact, complained previously that you believe them to be biased in their conclusions? There was no hypocrisy in my stating my belief that the sources you referred to were biased in their view of atheism Dan.
Appeal to popularity. Got it.
DeleteWhy are you such a coward, Dan? What caused you to be afraid of talking to people rationally?
DeleteNot a coward, not afraid. It's difficult, but not impossible, to have a discussion on a rational level with someone in denial.
DeleteMissing some "filler" on that strawman of yours.
What appeal to popularity are you talking about Dan?
DeleteShowing other atheists denouncing Alain de Botton as a loon isn't appealing to popularity - it supports the argument that other atheists view him as a loon - it says nothing about whether his position is true or false. If you'd bothered to read the linked article you might have noticed that the author actually gives their reasons as to why they reject AdB's position as a load of bollocks.
Pointing out the bias of a source isn't an appeal to popularity either, in this case it's just a statement of fact.
Are you perhaps opening your "Big Book Of Fallacies" and picking one at random?
It's difficult, but not impossible, to have a discussion on a rational level with someone in denial.
Delete.. and despite this difficulty, we keep trying.
Oh, I see what you did there.
DeleteFreddies Dead,
Delete>>Pointing out the bias of a source isn't an appeal to popularity either, in this case it's just a statement of fact.
As I pointed out. It is consistent with what is going on in evangelistic, and indoctrination, methods.
So if the American Humanist named John Dunphy 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."
Then this guy shows up after all the books and blogging and billboards, etc., then we all know that there is a push for YOUR religion, deny it if you must. You must to keep under the radar. We understand.
What religion Dan? You've yet to demonstrate atheism is a religion beyond the most trivial meaning of the word - which also turns the Boy Scouts, stamp collecting and bird watching into religions.
DeleteI don't really care if you wish to devalue the meaning of the word, I just wonder why you think doing so and then attempting to use it in a derogatory manner makes your religion look any more reasonable?
The only way you'll manage that is to provide evidence for your God. Care to try?
A quick prediction here that Dan will claim that evidence has been given and throw in a number of links to pages (probably his own) where the 'evidence' provided has already been thoroughly debunked. He may also suggest that all evidence is evidence of God, in keeping with his played out presuppositional position.
I don't really care if you wish to devalue the meaning of the word, I just wonder why you think doing so and then attempting to use it in a derogatory manner makes your religion look any more reasonable?
DeleteHe's a bit too dense to see that this devalues his own beliefs at the same time.
>>I don't really care if you wish to devalue the meaning of the word, I just wonder why you think doing so and then attempting to use it in a derogatory manner makes your religion look any more reasonable?
DeleteValid point, but I am not seeking to devalue the term "religion." I am merely pointing to the fact that you're adherence to one, though you deny it. False religions exists and yours is a fine example of that. You will get tax breaks, like other religious organizations, if you choose to organize, as pointed out in our courts. You rights will be protected to worship the way you see fit, even if you worship humans. I will vote/fight to protect those rights. The point is that it's a false religion and that truth needs to be revealed, as I am doing here.
Also, I do not get tax breaks for being a Christian, but my church would. So if you went to an organization that promoted Atheism, they would get those tax breaks. Personally, I do not get tax breaks to put ads up on billboards. You would be a part of that religious organization though. Whether you are actually part of that organization or not is not the point, as you proclaim that your worldview has 'no God' as a part of it. Same as my worldview holds 'truth' (Christianity) in mine. :7p
>>He may also suggest that all evidence is evidence of God, in keeping with his played out presuppositional position.
Erm, ‘evidence’ also presupposes logic, knowledge, and truth care to tell me how you account for them according to YOUR worldview?
What in blazes does YOUR worldview have to contribute to those things, much less be the "accounting" for them?
DeleteGood grief, your own god has the prophet Samuel lie to Saul when he went out to anoint David. The bible talks of a "lying spirit" which biblegod occasionally makes use of, yet you claim that your "worldview" is the basis for truth??
D.A.N. said
Delete>>I don't really care if you wish to devalue the meaning of the word, I just wonder why you think doing so and then attempting to use it in a derogatory manner makes your religion look any more reasonable?
Valid point, but I am not seeking to devalue the term "religion."
And yet you seek to use it in a derogatory manner.
I am merely pointing to the fact that you're adherence to one, though you deny it.
You haven't yet demonstrated that atheism is a religion so I have no reason to deny adherence to any such religion.
False religions exists and yours is a fine example of that.
What the hell is a false religion? How do you determine which one of the thousands of religions is 'true' and which ones aren't? I'm guessing that the one you profess to follow is the one true religion eh Dan? What a surprise ... and as you've yet to demonstrate atheism to be a religion the rest of your sentence is incoherent.
You will get tax breaks, like other religious organizations, if you choose to organize, as pointed out in our courts.
I'd get nothing - especially as I'm from the UK - however, unless you can show where organisations such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation or American Atheists are getting the same tax breaks as the churches then your assertion is simply baseless irrespective of any court rulings.
You rights will be protected to worship the way you see fit, even if you worship humans. I will vote/fight to protect those rights.
My right to NOT worship is already enshrined in your constitution (Again, as I'm in the UK it doesn't really apply to me but still)
The point is that it's a false religion and that truth needs to be revealed, as I am doing here.
You're revealing nothing Dan, least of all anything like truth. You haven't even managed to demonstrate that atheism is a religion, let alone a false one.
cont'd...
cont'd...
DeleteAlso, I do not get tax breaks for being a Christian, but my church would. So if you went to an organization that promoted Atheism, they would get those tax breaks.
And this is just you repeating yourself in the vague hope that your assertion might suddenly become true if you repeat it enough.
Personally, I do not get tax breaks to put ads up on billboards.
And? Would atheists get ad breaks to put ads up on billboards? I don't think they would. Do atheist organisations get tax breaks to put ads up on billboards? Again, I think this is unlikely, however, if they did would those breaks relate to their status as a 'religion' or as an exempt organisation under US law?. Note that you will need evidence that they get tax breaks due to religious status if you wish us to do anything more than dismiss your claim that they do as baseless. Do churches get tax breaks on their advertising Dan?
You would be a part of that religious organization though.
What religious organisation are you on about? I'm not part of any.
Whether you are actually part of that organization or not is not the point,
Now you're babbling - is this the famed "speaking in tongues" thing that proves your God exists?
as you proclaim that your worldview has 'no God' as a part of it.
My 'proclamation', as you call it, is merely the expression that I lack belief in the existence of God(s).
Same as my worldview holds 'truth' (Christianity) in mine. :7p
To what truth are you referring? Do you suddenly have evidence for your God demonstrating that your beliefs are the one true religion?
>>He may also suggest that all evidence is evidence of God, in keeping with his played out presuppositional position.
Erm, ‘evidence’ also presupposes logic, knowledge, and truth care to tell me how you account for them according to YOUR worldview?
Almost exactly as I predicted. My answer is The Primacy of Existence Dan, logic, knowledge and truth can only be grounded in a reality where that primacy holds. You, on the other hand, have no such accounting. Instead you first steal concepts which affirm the Primacy of Existence and then use those same concepts to profess a worldview that denies the Primacy of Existence in favour of the Primacy of Conciousness - quite literally you profess a worldview where "wishing makes it so", which, of course, does not comport with actual reality.
Look who's trying to pretend he understands cohesion - LOL
ReplyDeleteCohesiveness only demonstrates compatibility, not relation For example, I can show that the brand of theology you espouse is cohesive with nihilism (you can almost hear Nietzsche cackling in his grave). Yet I'm pretty sure Christians would recoil (and logicians laugh) at the notion that Christianity = nihilism.
Go study the subject before trying to sound like you understand it.
Look who's trying hide, and in denial of, his coercion - :7)
DeleteSo, Dan, you've completely given up any pretense of having a conversation, and now you just spout out the most impressive words you can think of, with no idea what they mean.
DeleteCoercion involves using force or threats to make someone act a certain way. Since he has not used force or threatened you, he hasn't coerced you.
Threats of eternal suffering for atheists(among others)however, is coercion.
So, Dan, you've completely given up any pretense of having a conversation
DeleteDan dropped the pretense the moment he adopted Sye as his mentor.
Are you absolutely certain of that? If so how? :7p
DeleteAsked and (unintentionally) answered
DeleteDan, you're hilariously one dimensional.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to see Dan's con-man tactics in action.
ReplyDeleteDan: Allain is so popular among atheists that they hang on his every word and follow his directives without question.
Critic: That's not true. In fact, most atheists think he is a loon.
Dan: Appeal to popularity. Got it.
Do you see what he did there. Dan starts off by making a claim about popularity. When he is corrected on it, the correcting statement is necessarily also a statement about popularity and so Dan falsely calls it an appeal to popularity. An actual appeal to popularity would be to argue that Allain is a loon because most atheists believe it.
Nice try Pvb,
DeleteI am not saying he is popular, I am saying that his sentiments are the same as OTHER Atheist's M.O.
They are rallying and organizing, getting tax breaks, evangelizing, indoctrinating, etc. I am just saying that this guy is being truthful about it and is trying to direct the organization efforts. He could be your Robert Tilton to you all, for all I care, but he is indeed proclaiming what your religion is striving for.
Catholics say that those "priests" are not what the RCC is about either. So?
Dan:
ReplyDeleteMy first inclination about this guy is that he is a "reverse Poe" deliberately setting the stage so that you and others can make the claims about atheists that you do. And I will need to see some evidence for the tax breaks that you say stheists are getting.
"but he is indeed proclaiming what your religion is striving for"
My religion? I've told you this before. I don't have one. Even if you consider atheism to be a religion, I still don't have one, as I am not an atheist either. I don't fit into neat little categories.
Oh, by the way. I don't make a distinction between catholics and other denominations of christianity. Are you conceding that those priests are representative of you?
ReplyDeleteWho is this "they" that Dan is referring to? Just how desperate is he to try to lump atheists into this strawman group that he's got in his head?
ReplyDelete