walldork Wrote:Oh! However no examples given, disappointing but not surprising. Talk is cheap.

Well at least you are honest about the fact you are not here to add any intellectual merit to the discussions on here, but rather just here to sling mud.

I dont give a shit wether I disappoint you or not you cretin.

You have no idea how many people laugh at your stupid ass on this forum with every post you make..and I mean laugh in a NEGATIVE way.

Damn right I am honest..something that you are incapable of being since you are a Cretin that worships the lord of hell...as far as judging my intellectual merit..allow me to respond:

You are a fucking idiot!

I think my rank of judging merit on this forum has progressed because of such an astute judgement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWweqP_ZWbg

Hi SW, you never did tell us if any professional anthropologists use Smarts "seven dimensions of religion" to define atheism as a religion.

Until you can I'm afraid your argument is vacuous.

i love how a theist trying to prove atheism is a religion seems to be a negative thing to them, when they are the ones who follow religions..


also the biggest point i see for it not being a religion is all people reject beliefs, no one follows every religion and most think other religions are false, yet that is not a religion to them.

is thinking the flying spaggeti (sp) monster does not exist a religion as well...

but so funny his I GOT YOU MOMENT would be YOU ARE IN A RELIGION TOO SO YOU ARE JUST AS DUMB AS I AM HURR DURR

reverendjeremiah, you really annoy me. Such strong language is needed and does not add to the merits of any discussion. You come across as a rather young person who has not practiced debating a lot (yet) in the way you type your posts.

Now on to Statler: I think that the problem with how you try to define new atheism is that it is really hard to point out who 'belongs' to it and who does not. Other believes indeed have their 'folk tales' which they believe in, with each religion having their own folklore. The trick, so to speak, is that each folklore is specific to a certain religion. The Qu'ran is something for Muslims, for example. You could identify believers why the central tennets that they follow. There might be exceptions, but I don't know of exceptions yet.

The difference is that 'the origins of life' is not something 'just for' new atheists. Plenty of people believe that things happened as described in these scientific theories. You try to make a destinction in the role that these sciences have in the lives of a person, instead in whether they study/believe it, or not. But where is the line? There are plenty of people who would call themselves 'new atheists' but not take a 'rabid' stance on such sciences, and leave plenty room for doubt (as it should be with science). There are plenty people who are willing to admit that scientists can make mistakes, and have indeed done so in the past (btw, I do avoid the line 'science makes a mistake'. Science is a method, methods do not make mistakes, its practioners do).
So if new atheism would be considered a religion, how do you define who is a follower?

Also on the note that the scientic theories about the origins are 'events that nobody observed' and thus 'have a folk tale fare to them', I think that is more a personal thing. What makes something a folk tale fare for you?

So far it seems kind of 'it kind of looks like religion, and this kind of looks like a central dogma, and that kind of looks like a central tennet'...but kinda looking like the deal does not make it the actual deal. I think that making atheism a religion, even with science as a central aspect of it, stretches 'religion' too far.

(May 5, 2011 at 4:18 pm)Girlysprite Wrote: reverendjeremiah, you really annoy me. Such strong language is needed and does not add to the merits of any discussion. You come across as a rather young person who has not practiced debating a lot (yet) in the way you type your posts.

[wipes tears out of eyes]

Oh god, I nearly had an asthma attack about that one.

Sweet, now we are at post #5, girlysprite and you are still telling people how they should behave. You have not spent very much time here. I am starting to think someone is paying you to come here and defend Statler against rev. because that seems to be the bulk of what you are doing.

(April 15, 2011 at 7:44 am)oggtheclever Wrote: How many times do we have to have this discussion? Atheism is not a religion. How can it be? It's no more a religion than the disbelief in Robin Hood is a religion.

If Atheism is a religion, then sanity is mental illness.

If Atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a form of sexual activity.

If Atheism is a religion, then health is.a disease.

Quote:Atheism is simply the position held by an individual that there exists no God or gods. That's it. End. Nothing more. Nil. Zip. Fin!

Sorry, but I mildly disagree. Atheism literally means only a lack or absence (A-) of belief in gods (-theism.) Lacking belief in something is different than disproof or denial of the remotest possibility of a god hypothesis. I do not believe in gods, demons, little skinny Martians, chupacabras, Big Foot, or yellow dolphins in the Methane seas of Titan.

Gorgonopsid

THERE ARE TOO MANY FUCKING DINOSAURS IN THIS FORUM!!!

NO SILLY!!! MAMMAL LIKE REPTILE!!!!

Girlysprite Wrote:reverendjeremiah, you really annoy me. Such strong language is needed and does not add to the merits of any discussion. You come across as a rather young person who has not practiced debating a lot (yet) in the way you type your posts.

Perhaps you can educate me in the art of debate so that I may mature and grow in knowledge?

---

(May 5, 2011 at 4:51 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: THERE ARE TOO MANY FUCKING DINOSAURS IN THIS FORUM!!!

Its an atheist forum..its bound to be popular