A challenge to Statler Waldorf

[Statler Waldorf]

---

This is why this is such a perplexing issue, because on paper atheism looks every bit as much of a religion as other world religions. I think the only thing that is unique about it is that its followers deny they are religious, but are they really the ones who make the final determination?

Oh no, absolutely not. Waldork is the one who determines who is religious and who isnt. Lets look at your definition of Atheism..shall we?

Atheism- The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.

see, we atheists must all be religious because waldork thinks we are.

Just wondering..what "paper" about atheism made you think it was religious?

..not that I really give a shit about your fucked up opinions..you are dead wrong flat out ... but I am hoping I can get some entertainment out of you for the moment.

---

Well if you don't care about the answer, then I will not give you one. Sorry.

[Girlysprite]

Ok some points in general (esp for ShellB and reverendjeremiah ); I understand I thread on the toes of oldies on this forum (post count and all). I just...don't really mind postcounts, sorry. I know you people are more established here, but if this a free for all when it comes to being rude, I'll dip my toe in the rude-pool too. And yes, reverendjeremiah, I know you were full of sarcasm. But I thought 'why not?', maybe you could understand where i was coming from and why I felt the way I did from my post, my views on how debating should occur. Your style is different, that is clear. I get it. I think I'll just focus on Statler from this point and keep the discussion going between us two (and whoever else feels they have a valid point to make) because I find it interesting and feel I can learn something.

As for courts and rights, I don't know much of it. This plays out in the USA, and I don't live there. Such rights are not really an issue here. However, in my opinion an institution should not get special tax privileges because it is religious.

You seem to define religion by it's exterior traits. I judge it by the insides. To give an example; sometimes I still go to church because I just enjoy the whole ceremonial thing about it. I stand, kneel and sit at the right moments, I still know all the prayers, the songs, the rituals, and I eat a wafer. On the exterior, I appear Christian. But I am not, because I don't believe in god. In the spirit of your description, I am a Christian. In the spirit of mine, I sure am not.

Of course, the whole 'religious or not' debate is a huge grey ground, which plays out differently for each description that is chosen to start the debate with.

[reverendjeremiah]

Well if you don't care about the answer, then I will not give you one. Sorry.

There will surely be an empty spot in my life from your failure to answer.. how shall I ever function without your answer?

[Shell B]

Ok some points in general (esp for ShellB and reverendjeremiah ); I understand I thread on the toes of oldies on this forum (post count and all). I just...don't really mind postcounts, sorry.

So, you would walk into a party at the house of someone you never met and start telling their guests how to behave?

I know you people are more established here, but if this a free for all when it comes to being rude, I'll dip my toe in the rude-pool too.

Rude is subjective. In my honest opinion, your first post was rude and you have made several rude posts since. Of course, you can act however you want, but don't expect people to be receptive to your online parenting. You're talking to adults.

I think I'll just focus on Statler from this point and keep the discussion going between us two (and whoever else feels they have a valid point to make) because I find it interesting and feel I can learn something.

I'm not surprised. Your whole purpose here seems to be to cater to Waldorf and tell off people who have been conversing with him. Again, please post an introduction. That will help people get to know you and give them an idea of where you are coming from.

[Minimalist]

Your whole purpose here seems to be to cater to Waldorf

Shitheads attract.

[reverendjeremiah]

I dont mind you girlysprite.. you're new to the forum...you will catch on soon enough. Most of the members know I am 33% serious and 66% full of sarcasm..Ive even quoted my own asshole on occasions.

Dont believe a damn thing that egotisitical shit says about me!

Im not a Mr.Spock atheist. I let my emotions be known.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I'm not a Mr.Spock atheist. I let my emotions be known.

Nice line, think I'll steal it; so ME.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Not so much, I applied the dimensions the same exact way they are applied to other religions such as Islam, Christianity, Jainism, and Taoism.

All that tells me is that the seven dimensions fail as a measure for determining religion or not religion.
I easily applied the seven dimensions to prove that a fifty second popular internet video was a religion in my initial response post.

Even so, ease in which these dimensions can apply to a given anything is not a litmus test for whether or not something is a religion.

If atheism is not a religion then why should it be granted religious freedoms?

Same reason religions are protected -
To pretect people from other people who try to impose their beliefs upon them.
For example, legally speaking, the fact that I am an atheist by law must not be a factor in my ability to purchase a house or rent an apartment. That is a 'religion' clause in numerous similar laws but the fact that atheism is protected doesn't make it an actual religion.

It's even written in the US constitution as such.

I do not get granted religious freedoms for watching football. Why is this? Probably because footballism is not a religion. I think you guys are just trying to have your cake and eat it too, be honest and admit you are a religion or stop trying to play the legal system.

Your issues with atheism in the legal system is irrelevant.
Atheism either is or isn't a religion. The dictionary doesn't define it as such. The legal system protects it like how it protects religions but that doesn't mean it is recognized as such.
That means we are, in effect, having our cake and eating it to - because we dont' feel like persecuted for not following a religion.

[Girlysprite]

Hello,

as for my manners, you people are right and I'm sorry. I have jumped to some conclusions about how people are based on this thread only and been condencending based on those conclusions. I should not have done either of these things and just focussed on participating in the discussion itself. I think I'm not used to discussions where the gloves come off like that.

I guess that it was like I came in someone elses party and saw someone screaming at, or even slapping another guest. My first instrinct would be to step in too maybe, even though the screaming might have had a good reason.

I will make an introduction post later this day.

[Zen Badger]

I actually already answered your stupid question. I said I do not know either way, nor do I care because it's a silly question.

No, you have't answered the question, and I doubt you ever will.

Because the answer is "No".

No anthropologists have defined atheism as a religion using this system.

No-one has, apart from the cretinists.

Have they SW?

And to admit that destroys your argument completely.

But I have to ask, why this desperate attempt to claim that atheism is a religion?

What do you think you will achieve?