(December 9, 2018 at 7:23 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(December 9, 2018 at 3:04 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: You are "Nones", which sounds like "Nuns", but is something else. 

National Geographic even did a story on it - The World's Newest Major Religion: No Religion

So maybe technically atheism isn't your religion, but rather you being "Nones" are the religion and atheism is just your leaning towards that religion.  Kinda like a religious denomination.  That's good for you since that's what you all wanted.  In Dec 2016, you were even included in the International Religious Freedom Act.  So it looks like you got a nice parting gift from Obama when he granted you your request. Congratulations.

You were engaged on this question already, and you chose to remain silent instead of actually engaging the arguments against your view.  That you are here repeating the same points after having been confronted on them previously shows that despite your bullshit claim that you want to learn from other people, you're not interested in learning or even talking to us, but simply in repeating your bullshit and ignoring any responses to it.  You're nothing but a religious spammer and a troll, and you haven't made that fact any kind of secret.  You are an openly unethical person who is simply here to pursue an agenda, and that agenda has nothing to do with learning from civil debaters and opposing viewpoints.  You have me on ignore, or are otherwise ignoring me, not because I've behaved badly but rather because my intelligence and opposition to your arguments was inconvenient to you.

(December 2, 2018 at 10:51 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: A quick note about the legal definition, ignoring other problems with it.  The law is a crude instrument and it errs on the side of inclusion instead of aiming for accuracy because its goal is not accuracy but protecting people from abuses.  Thus it is more inclusive than it needs to be, and for that reason alone the law does not qualify as a legitimate justification for viewing atheism as a religion, because the law is willing to err in order to accomplish other goals.  A more serious attempt at defining religion would be to argue from paradigm cases as to what features things that we intuitively recognize as religions engage in and reasoning that any group which engages in similar things likely falls into the same class on that account.  This is the approach noted religious scholar Ninian Smart takes in identifying what he calls the seven dimensions of religion.  Examining atheism on Ninian Smart's seven dimensions of religion shows that atheism doesn't share those dimensions with paradigm examples of religion.  It is at this point that we appeal to Liebniz' law that things which are identical share the same properties, that if two things possess different properties, they are not the same thing.  Intuitively this suggests that atheism is not a religion because it doesn't share these properties with things that are paradigmatically religions.  The only flaw here is that we are identifying things that are similar, rather than things that are identical, and so a failure to align on specific properties is not fatal as those properties may not be the relevant ones for establishing similarity and inclusion in a specific class.  So this argument is persuasive, but not conclusive.  We can see its persuasiveness by doing a thought experiment and removing those parts of a paradigmatic example of religion, such as Christianity, and subtracting all those elements which align with Smart's seven dimensions of religion.  Once we remove those aspects which align with the seven dimensions, would we still recognize that thing as a religion?  I think not.  And that closes the circle.  Things that do contain them are religions.  Things that don't contain them aren't.  Atheism doesn't contain those dimensions or only partially and incompletely contains them, and thus atheism is not a religion.

So, your legal argument be damned, atheism is not a religion in the United States, regardless of what the law says.  The law doesn't establish usage and in this case it's inaccurate.

(December 9, 2018 at 6:53 pm)Amarok Wrote:

Quote:Right, so it's the Christians who made you turn into a religion? 

Nope because were not a religion no matter much you repeat it 

Quote:  They made you build churches?

Nope we didn't build a church because their is no we and their are no atheist churches there's a cult desperately trying to impose religious rituals on something that is not a religion 

Quote:  They made you dance and sing in a choir?

 All the above 

Quote:Yep, blame it on the Christians.

Or accept the fact Atheism is neither no ever can be a religion

Oh, back to the "National Geographic" magazine lied?  No, sorry.   Maybe ask someone from your church if you are unsure.  If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a...

Hello again T0 Th3 M4X!

Uhm.... why do you keep posting the same, circular comments?

The few things you've posted to try and bolster your position have kind of shown to be... biased.

Most here simply point out that your attempt to label something in you specific way is... Singulalry pointless?

I would also hazard a guess that some of your posting language is rather... stiled in which parts of other people's posts you choose to use/'quote' with.

Still... as a happy, self identifying 'Non-theist' I can inform you that I've never seen, nor been, to nor know of any such 'Atheist Churches'.

Cheers.

(December 9, 2018 at 8:01 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: Hello again T0 Th3 M4X!

Uhm.... why do you keep posting the same, circular comments?

The few things you've posted to try and bolster your position have kind of shown to be... biased.

Most here simply point out that your attempt to label something in you specific way is... Singulalry pointless?

I would also hazard a guess that some of your posting language is rather... stiled in which parts of other people's posts you choose to use/'quote' with.

Still... as a happy, self identifying 'Non-theist' I can inform you that I've never seen, nor been, to nor know of any such 'Atheist Churches'.

Cheers.

It's not biased. I don't mind Christian, Muslims, atheists, or whatever.  We're just a bunch of people sharing a planet.  But no sense making things up.  We have multiple science magazines/journals with studies stating such a thing, and people saying they are wrong.  Welp, reject science then.  If you fit something by its definition, that's what you are.   It doesn't make you evil, mean, a bad person or whatever.  I'm a human.  If I go around telling everybody I'm a unicorn, then I would be full of something. That's how I see it, and if people want to differ with their view, then that's their choice, but I'm sticking to what the scientific studies are indicating.  Here's another one from The Atlantic.

Title: Atheists Are Sometimes More Religious Than Christians

It also identifies atheists, agnostics, etc... and recognizes them as the "Nones" just like National Geographic.  But I suppose someone is going to suggest they are making things up too.  Waiting for it...

(December 9, 2018 at 3:37 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(December 8, 2018 at 10:03 pm)CDF47 Wrote: No, actually I believe we landed on the moon. I believe in real conspiracies like CIA MK Ultra, FBI Cointelpro,...

But Fetzer claims they were faked and he holds a PhD in the philosophy of science just like your hero Meyer. You accept one but not the other.

You further illustrate your dishonesty.

Dr. Meyer is brilliant.  Just listen to his videos and debates.  He crushes every debate he is in.  Hands down crushes them.  It's pretty cool to see.

(December 9, 2018 at 8:14 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: It's not biased. I don't mind Christian, Muslims, atheists, or whatever.  We're just a bunch of people sharing a planet.  But no sense making things up.  We have multiple science magazines/journals with studies stating such a thing, and people saying they are wrong.  Welp, reject science then.  If you fit something by its definition, that's what you are.   It doesn't make you evil, mean, a bad person or whatever.  I'm a human.  If I go around telling everybody I'm a unicorn, then I would be full of something. That's how I see it, and if people want to differ with their view, then that's their choice, but I'm sticking to what the scientific studies are indicating.  Here's another one from The Atlantic.

Title: Atheists Are Sometimes More Religious Than Christians

It also identifies atheists, agnostics, etc... and recognizes them as the "Nones" just like National Geographic.  But I suppose someone is going to suggest they are making things up too.  Waiting for it...

 *Sigh*

  It's good/great that you don't mind all those things.
  You understand that... Just because something appears in a journal, doens't make it 'True', right?
  Something posted in a journal has;
(1) Been accepted as 'Fit to print' by said Journal.
(2) The pedigree of said Journal reflects the articles posted within.
(3) Any such publication is constantly subject to reveiw, revision, testing for rpeatabilty/consitency etc.
(4) Jounral don't determin 'Reality'. They simply post works/research that they find acceptible.

 Again, I'm finding your 'Anthropomorhic' veiw of the world coming to the fore.

Is it not interesting that you are having a conversation on a forum with many 'A'-theists and 'Non'-theists from across the world and, given such a large and eclectic sample size, you are not finding any such people who identify as such agreeing with your premises?

Me thinks your Journal referances do not well reflect reality.

Cheers.

Not at work.

---

(December 9, 2018 at 8:22 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Dr. Meyer is brilliant.  Just listen to his videos and debates.  He crushes every debate he is in.  Hands down crushes them.  It's pretty cool to see.

Uhm... no?

I've seen quite a few Google-tube posts where Dr Meyer is shown to be rather... 'Simple' (?) in his views and such?

Perhaps there are a myriad amount of such things and you'be been lucky enough to veiw the positive ones?

 But.. really, we're not talking about the fellow's Youtube prescence, are we?

We're talking about how wll educated the fellow is in the topics about which he speaks.

To whit "Not, sweet fek all, seeming." I would posit in reply.

I mean, what i would love to see. Would positivly be enamoured with. Would be something demonstratable by I.D. propoents.

Some "Here's my process from 'Hypothesis' to testing to verification to acceptance amongst said peers which becomes accepted as a 'Theory'." kind of thing.

 So far, all I ever see (Time an time and time add nausem) again is 'Evolution is wrong because reasons."

That's... not how it works. Just saying thing 'X' is wrong... does not make thing 'Y' right.

You have to show (Demonstrate etc) the why 'Y' is right. Or at least a darn good working tool that can be overlaid upon reality such that verification developed.

Not at work.

(December 9, 2018 at 4:03 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 9, 2018 at 3:41 pm)Amarok Wrote: So to recap 

Atheism is simply a disbelief in god nothing else the cults add to it have anything to do with atheism and are wholly apart from it 

Atheist may be given the same legal protections from persecution by the religious but that not the same as being a religion

---

Not even

You are a religion.  You even organize as a religion.  You do the exact same things that everybody else is doing.  Churches, preaching, offerings, tax exemptions, church leaders conducting services, and so on and so on.  Sorry, but I'm just going to have to agree with National Geographic.  They've been around for decades and have been known to be very reputable.

Good video.  I didn't know they acted so much like a religion.  I knew they did but not to that extent.

(December 9, 2018 at 8:37 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Good video.  I didn't know they acted so much like a religion.  I knew they did but not to that extent.

 No, it's not a good video.

Others have already explained that said video is froma biased source and its depiction is biased.

That no one you are posting too is identifying with the images and pictures being presented shuld be telling.

(December 9, 2018 at 8:26 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote:

(December 9, 2018 at 8:14 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: It's not biased. I don't mind Christian, Muslims, atheists, or whatever.  We're just a bunch of people sharing a planet.  But no sense making things up.  We have multiple science magazines/journals with studies stating such a thing, and people saying they are wrong.  Welp, reject science then.  If you fit something by its definition, that's what you are.   It doesn't make you evil, mean, a bad person or whatever.  I'm a human.  If I go around telling everybody I'm a unicorn, then I would be full of something. That's how I see it, and if people want to differ with their view, then that's their choice, but I'm sticking to what the scientific studies are indicating.  Here's another one from The Atlantic.

Title: Atheists Are Sometimes More Religious Than Christians

It also identifies atheists, agnostics, etc... and recognizes them as the "Nones" just like National Geographic.  But I suppose someone is going to suggest they are making things up too.  Waiting for it...

 *Sigh*

  It's good/great that you don't mind all those things.
  You understand that... Just because something appears in a journal, doens't make it 'True', right?
  Something posted in a journal has;
(1) Been accepted as 'Fit to print' by said Journal.
(2) The pedigree of said Journal reflects the articles posted within.
(3) Any such publication is constantly subject to reveiw, revision, testing for rpeatabilty/consitency etc.
(4) Jounral don't determin 'Reality'. They simply post works/research that they find acceptible.

 Again, I'm finding your 'Anthropomorhic' veiw of the world coming to the fore.

Is it not interesting that you are having a conversation on a forum with many 'A'-theists and 'Non'-theists from across the world and, given such a large and eclectic sample size, you are not finding any such people who identify as such agreeing with your premises?

Me thinks your Journal referances do not well reflect reality.

Cheers.

Not at work.

---

(December 9, 2018 at 8:22 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Dr. Meyer is brilliant.  Just listen to his videos and debates.  He crushes every debate he is in.  Hands down crushes them.  It's pretty cool to see.

Uhm... no?

I've seen quite a few Google-tube posts where Dr Meyer is shown to be rather... 'Simple' (?) in his views and such?

Perhaps there are a myriad amount of such things and you'be been lucky enough to veiw the positive ones?

 But.. really, we're not talking about the fellow's Youtube prescence, are we?

We're talking about how wll educated the fellow is in the topics about which he speaks.

To whit "Not, sweet fek all, seeming." I would posit in reply.

I mean, what i would love to see. Would positivly be enamoured with. Would be something demonstratable by I.D. propoents.

Some "Here's my process from 'Hypothesis' to testing to verification to acceptance amongst said peers which becomes accepted as a 'Theory'." kind of thing.

 So far, all I ever see (Time an time and time add nausem) again is 'Evolution is wrong because reasons."

That's... not how it works. Just saying thing 'X' is wrong... does not make thing 'Y' right.

You have to show (Demonstrate etc) the why 'Y' is right. Or at least a darn good working tool that can be overlaid upon reality such that verification developed.

Not at work.

Believe what you like. Unless you have some reason to discredit said journals/studies, then I'm sticking with my view. Also, you can consider this site a "sample" but it isn't a "study" and there are no controls in place so as to provide reliable information.  Besides, the one in The Atlantic that discusses PRC's findings already addresses this, so I don't think a forum would be a more favorable sample.

*Sigh*

 So... if/when people post journals/studies opposing your current views/stance you'll be... confliceted?

What ever.

Cool, fine.

*Wavesi* All the best, ciao.

Not at work