(March 31, 2014 at 5:19 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(March 31, 2014 at 3:47 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: It would have been funny if it hadn't been the only comprehensible point in your reply.

Indeed, every point we've made to you has been met with a de facto silence on your part over said points aside from where you reveal you do not comprehend either secularism or parody.

If I may ask a serious question. Are you here to learn anything about who atheists really are and what we (don't) believe, or just to confirm your prejudices based on imagined positions you think we hold?

(March 31, 2014 at 4:04 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Given that it was the only thing in your contention against atheists, why would I not take it seriously? If it was a joke, doesn't that mean that you can, in fact, imagine the kinds of moral and pragmatic reasons we do what we do, rendering your entire argument moot, and pointless even from the outset?

Get off your high horses already, I thought "atheist" meant having no belief in God? So why would my example of what I would do if i didn't believe in a God, reflect upon atheists as a whole? Wouldn't I just be some guy who just happens not to believe in God?

also you seem to use the word "we" quite liberally, are you sure you're not a religious organization?

re·li·gion [ri-lij-uhn]
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:

So more non-replies to more non-issues, yes?

I'll take your refusal to engage as an admission of your inability to do so. I'll also take it that you're here simply to troll or incite arguments (your MO appears to be to say something unsubstantiated and then run away when people reply to you), and I will report you as such.

Only if you respond to any of the points already raised will we get onto your erroneous prejudices about what atheism is and who atheists are (note; atheism is a religion like bald is a hair colour. But I suspect that, too, will go over you head).

So, one more time; If I may ask a serious question. Are you here to learn anything about who atheists really are and what we (don't) believe, or just to confirm your prejudices based on imagined positions you think we hold?

(March 31, 2014 at 5:32 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: So more non-replies to more non-issues, yes?

I'll take your refusal to engage as an admission of your inability to do so. I'll also take it that you're here simply to troll or incite arguments (your MO appears to be to say something unsubstantiated and then run away when people reply to you), and I will report you as such.

Only if you respond to any of the points already raised will we get onto your erroneous prejudices about what atheism is and who atheists are (note; atheism is a religion like bald is a hair colour. But I suspect that, too, will go over you head).

Not it at all. Like I've stated before, I don't start threads. I respond to a particular persons post if it piques my interest, and will generally just address them. Seeing how I'm outnumbered you can't possibly expect me to reply to everyone.

Quote:So, one more time; If I may ask a serious question. Are you here to learn anything about who atheists really are and what we (don't) believe, or just to confirm your prejudices based on imagined positions you think we hold?

there are no prejudices. Growing up I had two good friends who were "agnostic" and "atheist" respectively. Religion or atheism was never discussed. They just weren't interested. Just curious about the attraction to discuss something you're not interested in.

(March 31, 2014 at 6:32 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(March 31, 2014 at 5:32 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: So more non-replies to more non-issues, yes?

I'll take your refusal to engage as an admission of your inability to do so. I'll also take it that you're here simply to troll or incite arguments (your MO appears to be to say something unsubstantiated and then run away when people reply to you), and I will report you as such.

Only if you respond to any of the points already raised will we get onto your erroneous prejudices about what atheism is and who atheists are (note; atheism is a religion like bald is a hair colour. But I suspect that, too, will go over you head). It doesn't matter who you've responded to, you may as well have not responded at all for all it advanced the conversation.

Not it at all. Like I've stated before, I don't start threads. I respond to a particular persons post if it piques my interest, and will generally just address them. Seeing how I'm outnumbered you can't possibly expect me to reply to everyone.

But that's the issue. You've contributed nothing to this thread aside revealing a propensity to not understand both secularism and parody.

(March 31, 2014 at 6:32 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

Quote:So, one more time; If I may ask a serious question. Are you here to learn anything about who atheists really are and what we (don't) believe, or just to confirm your prejudices based on imagined positions you think we hold?

there are no prejudices. Growing up I had two good friends who were "agnostic" and "atheist" respectively. Religion or atheism was never discussed. They just weren't interested. Just curious about the attraction to discuss something you're not interested in.

You must have me confused with another poster. I've made no inclining as to my feelings on topics to which I enjoy discussing evident on this thread.

If you're referring to the level of discussion on religion on this forum,then you are either being intentionally obtuse, ignorant, or both. It is self-evident that the beliefs and ideas of others affect ones position/life in society, being the social creatures we'd have evolved to be. That your friends didn't want to discuss religion with you is entirely up to them, and also incidentally entirely besides the point.

Hence the discussions of secularism and parody earlier. Interest and investment are not the same thing, and if you don't no know what I'm talking about, then I suggest you lurk more on the forum before commenting. But of course, you're free to believe whatever you want so long as it doesn't impact on me.

Which, of course, is entirely the point, which everyone here seems to get. Apart from you, of course.

(March 31, 2014 at 5:19 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Get off your high horses already, I thought "atheist" meant having no belief in God? So why would my example of what I would do if i didn't believe in a God, reflect upon atheists as a whole? Wouldn't I just be some guy who just happens not to believe in God?

I officially don't think you even understand the conversation you were having anymore.You were saying that you don't understand why atheists would protest or "waste their time", as you say, when they could be doing other things, like orgies. When called on the fact that this is a selfish outlook that doesn't reflect on atheists who actually care about moral things, you proceed to claim that it was a joke. Does this not then mean that you understand that atheists can protest for moral reasons?

Quote:also you seem to use the word "we" quite liberally, are you sure you're not a religious organization?

re·li·gion [ri-lij-uhn]
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:

Yes, because the only groups in the world, for which one might use a group pronoun, are religious. "We" is a religious word, used only by religions.

Stop grasping at straws, dude. It's pathetic.

(April 1, 2014 at 1:00 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 31, 2014 at 5:19 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Get off your high horses already, I thought "atheist" meant having no belief in God? So why would my example of what I would do if i didn't believe in a God, reflect upon atheists as a whole? Wouldn't I just be some guy who just happens not to believe in God?

I officially don't think you even understand the conversation you were having anymore.You were saying that you don't understand why atheists would protest or "waste their time", as you say, when they could be doing other things, like orgies. you proceed to claim that it was a joke.

This is a bald faced lie. This is my exact quote.

(March 31, 2014 at 2:49 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: As an "atheist", Christmas nativity scene would be the least of my worries..I'd be too busy trying to find the nearest orgy.

As you can see, I'm talking about me personally. The fact that you projected it on to all atheists really says something.

(April 1, 2014 at 1:00 am)Esquilax Wrote: Does this not then mean that you understand that atheists can protest for moral reasons?

According to "atheism" (since you used the word moral to imply that orgies are immoral) why would consenting adults having an orgy be wrong? If it's not wrong, then why do you have an issue with what I said.

(April 1, 2014 at 1:00 am)Esquilax Wrote: Yes, because the only groups in the world, for which one might use a group pronoun, are religious. "We" is a religious word, used only by religions.

Stop grasping at straws, dude. It's pathetic.

Apparently you ignored the definition.

re·li·gion [ri-lij-uhn]
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:

First of all, you took a joke I made about myself being an "atheist" and protected it onto all atheists.

Organization√

Second you claim you protest for "moral" reasons.

mor·al môrəl,ˈmär-/
a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do

Beliefs√

You don't have to believe in a God to have a religion.
Welcome to the club.

(April 1, 2014 at 12:48 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: You don't have to believe in a God to have a religion.

False. There are certain criteria that must be met in order for a set of beliefs to be considered derivative of a religion. One of the criteria for religion is that a higher being must be acknowledged.

(April 1, 2014 at 12:54 pm)Kitanetos Wrote:

(April 1, 2014 at 12:48 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: You don't have to believe in a God to have a religion.

False. There are certain criteria that must be met in order for a set of beliefs to be considered derivative of a religion. One of the criteria for religion is that a higher being must be acknowledged.

How do you explain Scientology then?

And apparently atheism is listed on the The Big Religion Chart

(April 1, 2014 at 1:07 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(April 1, 2014 at 12:54 pm)Kitanetos Wrote: False. There are certain criteria that must be met in order for a set of beliefs to be considered derivative of a religion. One of the criteria for religion is that a higher being must be acknowledged.

How do you explain Scientology then?

And apparently atheism is listed on the The Big Religion Chart

Quote:Practices: None.

Adherents: 1.1 billion (this figure includes agnostic and non-religious, which tend to be grouped on surveys)

Didn't bother reading the chart, did we?

(April 1, 2014 at 1:07 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: How do you explain Scientology then?

Scientology is a religion in the sense that it allows each of its adherents to believe as they wish, which includes religious believers.

Also, it stating God(s) not specified does not mean that there are no higher powers recognized in Scientology.

(April 1, 2014 at 1:12 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

(April 1, 2014 at 1:07 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: How do you explain Scientology then?

And apparently atheism is listed on the The Big Religion Chart

Quote:Practices: None.

Adherents: 1.1 billion (this figure includes agnostic and non-religious, which tend to be grouped on surveys)

Didn't bother reading the chart, did we?

LOL, the fact that atheism is included on the religion chart is all the information I need.