Catholic church at it again. This time Holland.

[Seth]

Given that any god appears to be undetectable and there is no evidence one exists I personally am not going to waste my time of getting involved with what has every appearance of being a made up one.

Grand idea. Does this mean you're going to now STFU about God and leave the theists alone to enjoy their delusions in peace?

Sounds like a fair deal on one proviso: If the millions of missionaries, evangelists and proselytisers stop praying in our schools, we promise not to think in their churches.

[Seth]

Given that any god appears to be undetectable and there is no evidence one exists I personally am not going to waste my time of getting involved with what has every appearance of being a made up one.

Grand idea. Does this mean you're going to now STFU about God and leave the theists alone to enjoy their delusions in peace?

Something tells me (an invisible little bird chirping in my ear) that you are fibbing, and that you actually ARE going to continue to "get involved" with God-claims, because like most militant Atheist religionists, you just can't stand to not shove your oar in to the debate because it's a matter of religious faith to you that you oppose theism whenever it rears its ugly head because you think, perhaps, your opinions actually matter.

Talk about your delusions...

Riiiight, so atheists are the ones that love the oar-shoving are they?

Indeed. The problem is not the oar-shoving per se, it's the intent, or the violence with which the oar is wielded.

Most Christians shove their oar in because they are concerned about the immortal souls of non-believers and they want society to be a better, more loving and more peaceful place through Christian faith.

Most radical militant religious Atheists shove their oar in because they intolerantly hate theists and theism and want to see them vanish from the face of the earth forever and are willing to suppress and oppress those who have a different religious belief than their own.

Intent matters.

[Rum]

Given that any god appears to be undetectable and there is no evidence one exists I personally am not going to waste my time of getting involved with what has every appearance of being a made up one.

Grand idea. Does this mean you're going to now STFU about God and leave the theists alone to enjoy their delusions in peace?

Something tells me (an invisible little bird chirping in my ear) that you are fibbing, and that you actually ARE going to continue to "get involved" with God-claims, because like most militant Atheist religionists, you just can't stand to not shove your oar in to the debate because it's a matter of religious faith to you that you oppose theism whenever it rears its ugly head because you think, perhaps, your opinions actually matter.

Talk about your delusions...

Riiiight, so atheists are the ones that love the oar-shoving are they?

Indeed. The problem is not the oar-shoving per se, it's the intent, or the violence with which the oar is wielded.

Most Christians shove their oar in because they are concerned about the immortal souls of non-believers and they want society to be a better, more loving and more peaceful place through Christian faith.

Most radical militant religious Atheists shove their oar in because they intolerantly hate theists and theism and want to see them vanish from the face of the earth forever and are willing to suppress and oppress those who have a different religious belief than their own.

Intent matters.

Utter balderdash.

[klr]

...
Indeed. The problem is not the oar-shoving per se, it's the intent, or the violence with which the oar is wielded.

Most Christians shove their oar in because they are concerned about the immortal souls of non-believers and they want society to be a better, more loving and more peaceful place through Christian faith.

Most radical militant religious Atheists shove their oar in because they intolerantly hate theists and theism and want to see them vanish from the face of the earth forever and are willing to suppress and oppress those who have a different religious belief than their own.

Intent matters.

What a "radical militant religious Atheist" then Seth? Apart from being a 24-carat oxymoron of course. Is it someone who fire-bombs believers at their place of worship? Someone who forces people to profess disbelief at the point of a gun (or sword)?

You get the drill.

[Seth]

Utter balderdash.

Complete hogwash!

[Rum]

Utter balderdash.

Complete hogwash!

Unmitigated cogs-wallop!

[Seth]

Utter balderdash.

Complete hogwash!

Unmitigated cogs-wallop!

Absolute tripe!

[DaveD]

Utter balderdash.

Complete hogwash!

Unmitigated cogs-wallop!

Absolute tripe!

Methink thou art a general offence, and every man should beat thee. I think thou wast created for men to breathe themselves upon you

[bdelugma]

Atheists form a most unusual group. They exist to talk about a God they don't believe exists, the ways in which he doesn't exist, and to criticize the behavior of those who think he does. This distinguishes them from the merely non-religious, in whose lives religion plays no part, either to praise or condemn. It also distinguishes them from the religious for whom the gods simply aren't important. This very forum likely would not exist if not for a reaction to God and belief in him. Yet atheists as a whole vocally protest not to believe in anything particular, when the unity of purpose, thought, act, and word make clear that they do.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Atheists form a most unusual group. They exist to talk about a God they don't believe exists, the ways in which he doesn't exist, and to criticize the behavior of those who think he does. This distinguishes them from the merely non-religious, in whose lives religion plays no part, either to praise or condemn. It also distinguishes them from the religious for whom the gods simply aren't important. This very forum likely would not exist if not for a reaction to God and belief in him. Yet atheists as a whole vocally protest not to believe in anything particular, when the unity of purpose, thought, act, and word make clear that they do.

I used to say, "I'm not religious enough to call myself an atheist." It wasn't "god" that caused me to become an militant atheist, it was people using "god" to fuck with our schools. I'm not concerned about "god", if it was there it would have made itself known long ago.

[Seth]

Atheists form a most unusual group. They exist to talk about a God they don't believe exists, the ways in which he doesn't exist, and to criticize the behavior of those who think he does. This distinguishes them from the merely non-religious, in whose lives religion plays no part, either to praise or condemn. It also distinguishes them from the religious for whom the gods simply aren't important. This very forum likely would not exist if not for a reaction to God and belief in him. Yet atheists as a whole vocally protest not to believe in anything particular, when the unity of purpose, thought, act, and word make clear that they do.

I used to say, "I'm not religious enough to call myself an atheist." It wasn't "god" that caused me to become an militant atheist, it was people using "god" to fuck with our schools. I'm not concerned about "god", if it was there it would have made itself known long ago.

Maybe it has, just not to you...

And bdelugma is correct, which is why I distinguish "atheists" from "Atheists" and call the latter members of a religion. Religion, you see, doesn't require a god, it merely requires a belief/practice set that meets the definition of "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience."

[Audley Strange]

Atheists form a most unusual group. They exist to talk about a God they don't believe exists, the ways in which he doesn't exist, and to criticize the behavior of those who think he does. This distinguishes them from the merely non-religious, in whose lives religion plays no part, either to praise or condemn. It also distinguishes them from the religious for whom the gods simply aren't important. This very forum likely would not exist if not for a reaction to God and belief in him. Yet atheists as a whole vocally protest not to believe in anything particular, when the unity of purpose, thought, act, and word make clear that they do.

I used to say, "I'm not religious enough to call myself an atheist." It wasn't "god" that caused me to become an militant atheist, it was people using "god" to fuck with our schools. I'm not concerned about "god", if it was there it would have made itself known long ago.

Maybe it has, just not to you...

And bdelugma is correct, which is why I distinguish "atheists" from "Atheists" and call the latter members of a religion. Religion, you see, doesn't require a god, it merely requires a belief/practice set that meets the definition of "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience."

To a large extent I can see why people would think such, I myself would find this line of argument somewhat compelling since I claim it applies equally to all political groups anyway. As I've said before, I don't even like the concept of atheist as being someone defined as that which they don't believe in, by those that do. However I'd suggest that the folks who you do tar with the brush "Atheist" as a negative, would be equally as vociferous and aggressive towards whatever out-group their belief system targeted as the bad guys.

I'm afraid I'm coming round more and more to thinking it's the people who are flawed, not the argument because most of them would be asy to dismiss without effort if it were not for the yahoos yelping about their special group of sinners or Marxists or Creotards must be cast out.

The mechanism and behaviour is always the same, to not recognise it in a group one associates with is exactly the same kind of double standard said groups recognise in their "enemies".

[Robert_S]

Atheists form a most unusual group. They exist to talk about a God they don't believe exists, the ways in which he doesn't exist, and to criticize the behavior of those who think he does. This distinguishes them from the merely non-religious, in whose lives religion plays no part, either to praise or condemn. It also distinguishes them from the religious for whom the gods simply aren't important. This very forum likely would not exist if not for a reaction to God and belief in him. Yet atheists as a whole vocally protest not to believe in anything particular, when the unity of purpose, thought, act, and word make clear that they do.

I used to say, "I'm not religious enough to call myself an atheist." It wasn't "god" that caused me to become an militant atheist, it was people using "god" to fuck with our schools. I'm not concerned about "god", if it was there it would have made itself known long ago.

Maybe it has, just not to you...

And bdelugma is correct, which is why I distinguish "atheists" from "Atheists" and call the latter members of a religion. Religion, you see, doesn't require a god, it merely requires a belief/practice set that meets the definition of "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience."

So, the odd internet forum, meetup, and occasional political action is now a religion?

Is non-hoplophobia a religion?

[amused]

Theists like to drag atheism, science and reason down into the gutter with religion so they can make lame comparisons. It's an admission of the inferiority of their position and ideas.

[Robert_S]

Theists like to drag atheism, science and reason down into the gutter with religion so they can make lame comparisons. It's an admission of the inferiority of their position and ideas.

Fence sitters like to do the same so they can avoid having opinions which, when expressed, might be interpreted as less than courteous.