So Neo, did you know that Atheism is a religion?

[Svartalf]

corrected myself, it's been more than 20 years that I haven't read Gulliver

[Seth]

That's only because you are mendaciously and truculently holding to the fallacious and evasive claim that most atheist have only a "lack of belief," they don't. They mostly have a very firm set of beliefs surrounding the issue of theism. You also appear to be unable or unwilling to comprehend the notion that beliefs are formed quite easily once a concept or idea is given consideration.

Not surprising at all really. I face this same deliberate blindness and cognitive disconnect in most on-line atheist forums, where atheists are so radicalized and fearful of being in any way associated with religion that they have an unthinking, unreasoning, paranoid reaction to the proposition that they might be behaving every bit as religiously about their dogma as the worst of evangelical religionists. So, they deny, obfuscate, pettifog, lie, dissemble, hyperbolize, sophistrize, and generally try to weasel their way out of the truth I speak, because it's so very discomfiting to them to acknowledge that they are religious zealots too.

and you, cur,

Tut tut. You're the wild, vicious cur, I'm the noble German Shepherd, friend and companion to Man.

are mendaciously and truculently holding to the fallacious and evasive claim that most atheists belong to a religion or any kind of group that has a common identity,

Actually, if you read carefully, you'll see that I don't do what you claim. I state that SOME people are religious Atheists, and I mention some names like Dawkins and Dennet, and then I merely point out that virtually all atheists are explicit, not implicit atheists, and that therefore they hold beliefs associated with atheism, and I state that this allows them to build an edifice of religion upon those beliefs, based on how they practice those beliefs.

I have not, quite deliberately, ever said that "most" atheists are members of a religion, merely that they CAN BE, and that SOME are.

Do try to keep that knee-jerk reactionary red fog of hatred and revulsion under control, eh?

Not so, Atheists are even more varied that any religion, precisely because they freely think for themselves, rather than within the bounds, or from the premises of a system that may not be doubted or exited, and they each arrive to their own philosophy.

So what? Each of them can have his own sect of religious Atheism with his or her own set of beliefs and practices. There is no maximum quota for religions, there can be one or a trillion.

The fact that these philosophies have in common of not including the divine, because it is either rejected, or simply not factored in, does not make them a group. Will you tell me that Socratists are the same as Cartesian thinkers?

Nope, but they may all be religions.

I'm sorry, but you seem to be wearing the cognitive disconnect blinkers, and I love how you accuse your opponents of using all the dirty tools that the deists have been using for so long, both to justify their own fallacies, and to condemn those who dissented.

Well, if the shoe fits, wear it. Radical religious Atheists do precisely and exactly use the same dirty tools of rhetoric and propaganda that theists have used. That's what makes them so repulsive and dangerous. Worse, they try to falsely cloak their interference with other's people's beliefs and religion in a mantle of supposed reason and logic that's actually far from either, and often looks far more like the "reasoning" of the Inquisition than the Inquisition itself.

Radical Atheists have no moral high ground I'm afraid, and their icons and prophets have feet of clay, particularly Dawkins, who is nothing more than an angry little man who was molested by a pedophile at school and who is taking his anger out on everyone of faith, none of whom had anything to do with his "unpleasant" experience.

And that's the point. Radical Atheists put their pants on one leg at a time and their shit stinks just like everyone else's. They are in no way superior, either in intellect or philosophy to those they revile and excoriate. Indeed, they are in large part far more morally bankrupt than most of their theistic counterparts because their agenda is the destruction of the religious rights of others through force of law and social pressure. They are not satisfied to be tolerant of the spiritual needs of others and respectful of their rights, they are intolerant, angry, disrespectful, deliberately insulting, and frankly mostly fucking evil people who are extremely unpleasant to be around.

That's not the case with most religionists I've met, but it's absolutely the case with most radical Atheists I've had the distinct displeasure of meeting.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

corrected myself, it's been more than 20 years that I haven't read Gulliver

40 for me.

[Seth]

Atheism is most likely true.

That's YOUR belief...

In that respect it is diametrically opposed to every religion's concept of gods.

So you believe. Except for, of course, those religions that have no god concepts....

[Seth]

Theists are frightened by people who don't share their delusions.

For very good and rational reasons: Radical Atheists wish to destroy their right to practice their delusions.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Theists are frightened by people who don't share their delusions.

For very good and rational reasons: Radical Atheists wish to destroy their right to practice their delusions.

More delusions.

[Svartalf]

Oh? when did atheists call for repeal or alteration of the first amendment?

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm am atheist, so is my cat, so is my shoe, so is a rock. Even the pope's hat is an atheist

Being an atheist doesnt even require you to be conscious never mind being alive, unlike being a Christian which requires an active effort to be so.

Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief system.

There are obviously people who don't like religion and thats an important part of their politics but thats nothing to do with atheism

Good try, but Seth's a religious, so facts don't enter into the debate. (At least not from his end.)

There's no point debating with someone about religion who says that "lack of belief" equals "belief".

That's only because you are mendaciously and truculently holding to the fallacious and evasive claim that most atheist have only a "lack of belief," they don't. They mostly have a very firm set of beliefs surrounding the issue of theism. You also appear to be unable or unwilling to comprehend the notion that beliefs are formed quite easily once a concept or idea is given consideration.

Not surprising at all really. I face this same deliberate blindness and cognitive disconnect in most on-line atheist forums, where atheists are so radicalized and fearful of being in any way associated with religion that they have an unthinking, unreasoning, paranoid reaction to the proposition that they might be behaving every bit as religiously about their dogma as the worst of evangelical religionists. So, they deny, obfuscate, pettifog, lie, dissemble, hyperbolize, sophistrize, and generally try to weasel their way out of the truth I speak, because it's so very discomfiting to them to acknowledge that they are religious zealots too.

But, at bottom, even a dearly held affirmative belief that there are no gods is not a religion. Period.

[Seth]

Theists are frightened by people who don't share their delusions.

For very good and rational reasons: Radical Atheists wish to destroy their right to practice their delusions.

More delusions.

Hardly. It's about the only well-founded rational fear they have. One can argue endlessly over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or whether one group is going to Heaven and another to Hell, but there's no doubt that there is a well-established secular legal attack on religious rights in the U.S. and Europe. France just banned the head scarf for strictly anti-religious socialist reasons. Dawkins would make it a crime for them to pass on their religious beliefs to their children.

[Svartalf]

BTW, Seth, how can refusing beliefs, refusing rites, refusing groupthink, and refusing to establish structures, hierarchies, or any of the trappings and elements of a religion be regarded as religious?

[Seth]

Oh? when did atheists call for repeal or alteration of the first amendment?

Constantly, little by little, using the "Death of a Thousand Cuts" method. How many times has the ACLU sued to prevent any hint of religion in schools, even when it's not school-sponsored? How many times have atheists sued to prevent the erection of Ten Commandments monuments in public parks? How many times have atheist abused zoning laws to exclude churches and religious gatherings? I'll answer that one: Often enough that Congress was compelled to write a federal law, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, just to put a stop to the widespread and pervasive abuse of exclusive zoning laws to oppress and suppress religion.

It goes on and on.

[Seth]

BTW, Seth, how can refusing beliefs, refusing rites, refusing groupthink, and refusing to establish structures, hierarchies, or any of the trappings and elements of a religion be regarded as religious?

What are the beliefs that lead one to engage in such activities? Are they held and practiced with devotion as a matter of ethics or conscience?

[Seth]

But, at bottom, even a dearly held affirmative belief that there are no gods is not a religion. Period.

It can be, if that belief is held devotedly and as a matter of ethics or conscience.

[MrJonno]

That's only because you are mendaciously and truculently holding to the fallacious and evasive claim that most atheist have only a "lack of belief," they don't. They mostly have a very firm set of beliefs surrounding the issue of theism. You also appear to be unable or unwilling to comprehend the notion that beliefs are formed quite easily once a concept or idea is given consideration.

Not surprising at all really. I face this same deliberate blindness and cognitive disconnect in most on-line atheist forums, where atheists are so radicalized and fearful of being in any way associated with religion that they have an unthinking, unreasoning, paranoid reaction to the proposition that they might be behaving every bit as religiously about their dogma as the worst of evangelical religionists. So, they deny, obfuscate, pettifog, lie, dissemble, hyperbolize, sophistrize, and generally try to weasel their way out of the truth I speak, because it's so very discomfiting to them to acknowledge that they are religious zealots too.

That simply isnt true most atheists simply couldnt give a toss about religion, never think about god or its its lack of existance. Theism or non-theism simply play no part in their lives.

Richard Dawkins and similar are exceptions, they are political activists (most of which I agree with) but the idea they are typical is just absurd. You've been hanging around religious nutjobs too long and think that the 'norm' which maybe in your part of the world thats true. What I do know is at 39 I've met more openly gay people in my life than I have met those who were openly Christian. Now it doesnt mean I've havent met more christians but they kept it pretty quiet.


And no you don't need to be capable of belief in god to be without it, its the default position every person is born with through some research does say toddlers do have an innate ability to see intent in objects that have none.

[Svartalf]

BTW, Seth, how can refusing beliefs, refusing rites, refusing groupthink, and refusing to establish structures, hierarchies, or any of the trappings and elements of a religion be regarded as religious?

What are the beliefs that lead one to engage in such activities? Are they held and practiced with devotion as a matter of ethics or conscience?

it's not a belief, it's an opinion, that says that the beliefs and practices of the religious are false or a best superfluous.

This said, if you really want to worship a deity that treated its own son, or a just man like Job the way it did, you're free of course, just don't wait for me to start mass.