RE: Atheism is a religion.
July 16, 2014 at 11:57 pm
(May 19, 2014 at 5:14 am)Cato Wrote: (May 19, 2014 at 12:58 am)Zidneya Wrote: I can already see the headlines Bryan Fischer saved by an atheist….although I still don't know if it will be seen as a good thing or a bad thing
You have issues.
And now the one who lectured me about that comes up with:
(July 16, 2014 at 10:03 pm)Cato Wrote: (July 16, 2014 at 9:22 pm)Zidneya Wrote: What the hell do they do there?
Fuck and make little atheists?
Yeah.
I think I'll never let you lecture me about issues after that statement. Like forever.
(July 16, 2014 at 10:04 pm)whateverist Wrote: Some atheists have told me they miss the 'community' of church going.
I can understand that however the reason why we atheist stop going to church I think is more important, meaningful and relevant don't you agree?
(July 16, 2014 at 10:04 pm)whateverist Wrote: Then there is the obvious tax break angle.
Which only applies to religious, therefore it either turns atheism into a religion or makes those atheists hypocrites. I'm inclined to the second.
(July 16, 2014 at 10:04 pm)whateverist Wrote: Even if one were to go this route, it would hardly make atheism a religion.
I alway ask the theist who claim atheism is a religion that:
Do we kneel? Because theists kneel.
Do we gather on Sunday? Because theists do.
Do we seek comfort in a church instead of knowledge? Because theists do that as well.
Do we have to pay penitence for breaking our convictions? Because theists pay penitence for breaking their religious convictions, or a promise of penitence.
Do we confess? Because theists confess.
Do our good deeds are done to fulfill the promise of a future reward? Because theists say their good deeds will give them a future reward.
Do we get our morals from hearing strangers reading lectures? Because theists use their sermons and texts as a sources of moral dogmas.
Apparently I can't never use that statement again do I?
(July 16, 2014 at 10:04 pm)whateverist Wrote: (I personally would never attend one.)
I hope you don't mind if I sum myself to that statement.
(July 16, 2014 at 9:45 pm)Polaris Wrote: Atheism in certain forms can be viewed as religion
By whom?....
(July 16, 2014 at 9:45 pm)Polaris Wrote: as can many other ideas per the definition "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance."
Could you define supreme importance please?
(July 16, 2014 at 9:55 pm)ignoramus Wrote: What is the definition of a "church"
The Freemasons gather in their "church"
I think of them as a club.
Mind you, with most clubs, moola needs to swap hands....
So technically that doesn’t makes us a religion but a…cult?
A lodge?
(July 16, 2014 at 9:55 pm)ignoramus Wrote: Do religious people have more respect (or a divine bond) with a believer from another eg, non Christian faith, or with an atheist?
Or do they oppose all others equally?
Interesting.
Considering that atheist receive more critics and attacks from theists I would say that religious people have more respect with a believer from another religion.
We are still considered very mistrusted among the general population.
(July 16, 2014 at 9:55 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Whatever it is that forms the basis of their so-called church must be something other than atheism.
I think that only makes things worse isn't it?
(July 16, 2014 at 9:55 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: My guess is anti-theism. Attaching the name church to it is a bit odd but not equal to religion in the sense anti-theism is typically concerned with.
Then why they did attached the name church? I mean do you think that’s the kind of atheism that we should pass to our future generations?
(July 16, 2014 at 9:55 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Add a value system that includes political action and unfettered devotion to unsubstantiated claims and now you're in religion's domain.
Oh great….
(July 16, 2014 at 9:34 pm)Umberto Wrote: I would agree that the use of the term 'church' to describe the places where these atheists, humanists, naturalists, etc. gather is ill conceived. In most circumstances they are similar to UU churches where they hold lectures on secular topics, sing encouraging songs, report on issues of mutual concern like the separation of church and state, and carry out social networking that would otherwise have been conducted at a religious church. In many cases this satisfies the desire of those atheist families, who can remember positive social experiences that revolved around church functions, without the cloud of theism. They could call them something else but most other terms which might be more appropriate usually have negative political connotations. In any case, having a church in the social sense is not a circumstance of being a religion which requires a doctrine. In all the cases that I'm familiar with, these churches do not profess a common doctrine other than the shared acknowledgement that they perceive no evidence of God.
Yeah….we are gonna have one hell of a ride trying to explain that and defend us against theists aren't we?
(July 16, 2014 at 10:54 pm)ignoramus Wrote: It could be the official establishment for "swingers".
Who knows?
Yea I don't think we may be that lucky.