Atheism is the punk rock of religion

[fr0d0]

So let me see if I can't make this clear enough for even you to understand Raphael

Given this:

"re·li·gion
noun /riˈlijən/ 
religions, plural

A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance
- consumerism is the new religion

Something that someone ascribes supreme importance to, ie consumerism, = religion

You agreed that atheism can be something that someone could ascribe supreme importance to. (see post #72)

You have therefore said that atheism is a religion.

1. You quoted some dictionary that a definition of religion is: "A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance
- consumerism is the new religion"

We both agree that consumerism isn't a religion per se. But nonetheless, according to the dictionary you quoted, religion does actually mean in one sense, that "a persuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance to", ie atheism, would actually constitute a religion using your own example.

YOU HAVE THEREFORE SAID THAT ATHEISM IS A RELIGION

---

All you've just told me is some religions have atheistic views toward other religions and certain matters.

Let me remind you what you said again
From post #61 above:

Someone who has no Gods and no belief system is someone we cannot class as being part of any religion. So we call them Atheists, period. A religious person can display atheist views toward another religion but not of their own so they would not be called an Atheist.

and what Wikipedia says about Atheism:

Atheism is accepted within some religious and spiritual belief systems, including Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Neopagan movements[17] such as Wicca,[18] and nontheistic religions. Jainism and some forms of Buddhism do not advocate belief in gods

Therefore, Wikipedia, and I state that: "Some religions" do not "have atheistic views toward other religions". Some religious people are atheist.

Theists of a particular religion can be atheist towards any other deity than their own. So they are not atheists. But theists with limited deities. Theism is defined as only necessarily having a belief in one or more deity. Just one deity is allowed. Your Dorkins dogma is tripping you up, you individual and unique thinker you.

Now on the separate and ACTUAL point, that atheists can be religious, Wikipedia furnishes us with examples of religions where belief in deity is not needed. ie Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Neopagan movements such as Wicca.

I SAY: SOME ATHEISTS ARE RELIGIOUS, IN THE STRICT MEANING OF THE WORD: IE FOLLOW RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE AS ATHEISTS

---

To be honest I'm just adding this so people don't forget at this point: "Atheism = lack of belief in God." Fr0d0, 2012.

You didn't say that here:

We [atheists] don't have a unique position on each individual deity. We just have a position on things that haven't been proven to exist, in that unless it is proven to exist we don't have any reason to act like it does.

(repeated on post #53)

Exhibit one.

You said: Atheism = lack of belief in a god/ gods. Nothing else.
vs
YOU SAY: NO!, ATHEISM IS A POSITION ON THINGS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN PROVEN TO EXIST

Like black holes, aliens, dark matter.

Also 'Scientific proof' is an oxymoron. Science proves nothing, it simply provides a way to logically evaluate evidence based on certain assumptions and arrive at the most plausible conclusion.

So your atheism seems very different to the definition I provided you with: lack of belief in god/ gods

And then you went further to define atheism thus:

Atheists don't believe in anything supernatural without proof.

To follow what you claim is the case you'd have to call every single refusal to acknowledge a deity a religious position.

Is it a religious position to not believe in theism as a whole or simply no position for lack of proof?

Based on this I would say Atheism is not a religious position, it is simply a position demanding of concrete evidence regardless of the claim.

Rhythm kindly corrected you:

Atheists can and do believe in all manner of supernatural things while simultaneously remaining atheists. They probably didn't get your memo.

To which you responded with this nonsense:

If you seriously want to use this kind of reasoning then fine. I'm game.
By that same definition Christians are atheists because they don't believe in Allah and Muslims are atheists because they don't believe in Yahweh. The same reasoning can be applied to every single religion in the world.
Well I guess we'd better call everyone an atheist now.
Anyone else get the feeling this is going to get confusing?

Exhibit 2

You said: Atheism = lack of belief in a god/ gods. Nothing else.
vs
YOU SAID: NO! "ATHEISTS DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING SUPERNATURAL WITHOUT PROOF"

Your defense: Quote the Dork.

We've had plenty atheists on here who believe in the supernatural. And how could they call themselves atheist, when to you they were clearly not atheist, because they 'believe in the unprovable'?

YES AGAIN, YOU SAY THAT ATHEISM IS SOMETHING OTHER THAN LACK OF BELIEF IN GOD/ GODS



Raphael makes the following points:

1. Atheism is a religion (correct by his own research)
2. Atheistic religions don't exist (despite proof of such presented)
3. Atheism is the lack of belief in god/ gods, "thats simply what it is, a lack of belief and nothing else" (widelyt agreed) except that...
4. Atheism is the lack of belief in anything proven
5. Atheists don't believe anything supernatural without proof (clearly disproven)


Raphael also states that he has said nothing at all contradictory, and that it's all in my imagination, and he'd like me to just quote where he has contradicted himself.

I have "lied" and that I have not shown these contradictions that I quote above from a previous post in this thread. I am bullshitting about what I've just presented again.

And you, dear reader, like himself, will be able to see Raphael vindicated by that lack of evidence above.

---

God has a definition, which you have to be aware of to be able to make any decision about it. Do you understand?!

Ok then ...Define god.

Sorry DBP, missed this.

God is love.

But it's your deinition of god that you lack belief in. My definition is irrelevant to your position.

You might be interested in my definition, but you're going to disagree with it because it contradicts your own understanding. Your understanding is your position.

[Reforged]

So let me see if I can't make this clear enough for even you to understand Raphael

Given this:

Something that someone ascribes supreme importance to, ie consumerism, = religion

You agreed that atheism can be something that someone could ascribe supreme importance to. (see post #72)

You have therefore said that atheism is a religion.

1. You quoted some dictionary that a definition of religion is: "A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance
- consumerism is the new religion"

We both agree that consumerism isn't a religion per se. But nonetheless, according to the dictionary you quoted, religion does actually mean in one sense, that "a persuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance to", ie atheism, would actually constitute a religion using your own example.

YOU HAVE THEREFORE SAID THAT ATHEISM IS A RELIGION

---

Let me remind you what you said again
From post #61 above:

and what Wikipedia says about Atheism:

Therefore, Wikipedia, and I state that: "Some religions" do not "have atheistic views toward other religions". Some religious people are atheist.

Theists of a particular religion can be atheist towards any other deity than their own. So they are not atheists. But theists with limited deities. Theism is defined as only necessarily having a belief in one or more deity. Just one deity is allowed. Your Dorkins dogma is tripping you up, you individual and unique thinker you.

Now on the separate and ACTUAL point, that atheists can be religious, Wikipedia furnishes us with examples of religions where belief in deity is not needed. ie Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Neopagan movements such as Wicca.

I SAY: SOME ATHEISTS ARE RELIGIOUS, IN THE STRICT MEANING OF THE WORD: IE FOLLOW RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE AS ATHEISTS

---

You didn't say that here:
(repeated on post #53)

Exhibit one.

You said: Atheism = lack of belief in a god/ gods. Nothing else.
vs
YOU SAY: NO!, ATHEISM IS A POSITION ON THINGS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN PROVEN TO EXIST

Like black holes, aliens, dark matter.

Also 'Scientific proof' is an oxymoron. Science proves nothing, it simply provides a way to logically evaluate evidence based on certain assumptions and arrive at the most plausible conclusion.

So your atheism seems very different to the definition I provided you with: lack of belief in god/ gods

And then you went further to define atheism thus:

Rhythm kindly corrected you:

To which you responded with this nonsense:

Exhibit 2

You said: Atheism = lack of belief in a god/ gods. Nothing else.
vs
YOU SAID: NO! "ATHEISTS DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING SUPERNATURAL WITHOUT PROOF"

Your defense: Quote the Dork.

We've had plenty atheists on here who believe in the supernatural. And how could they call themselves atheist, when to you they were clearly not atheist, because they 'believe in the unprovable'?

YES AGAIN, YOU SAY THAT ATHEISM IS SOMETHING OTHER THAN LACK OF BELIEF IN GOD/ GODS



Raphael makes the following points:

1. Atheism is a religion (correct by his own research)
2. Atheistic religions don't exist (despite proof of such presented)
3. Atheism is the lack of belief in god/ gods, "thats simply what it is, a lack of belief and nothing else" (widelyt agreed) except that...
4. Atheism is the lack of belief in anything proven
5. Atheists don't believe anything supernatural without proof (clearly disproven)


Raphael also states that he has said nothing at all contradictory, and that it's all in my imagination, and he'd like me to just quote where he has contradicted himself.

I have "lied" and that I have not shown these contradictions that I quote above from a previous post in this thread. I am bullshitting about what I've just presented again.

And you, dear reader, like himself, will be able to see Raphael vindicated by that lack of evidence above.

"Atheism = lack of belief in a god" is a statement of yours, not of mine. I merely quoted you.

"1. Atheism is a religion (correct by his own research)"
You admitted consumerism is not actually a religion, it simply shares characteristics in that it has quite a following. How you can say Atheism is actually a religion through the same definition is beyond me as it shows incredible bias against Atheism in particular.

"2. Atheistic religions don't exist (despite proof of such presented)"
They don't. People within a religion can possess certain atheistic views but that does not make the religion itself atheistic. Also all of the religions you listed hold claims of the supernatural and have figures which posses powers on par with any deity and are worshipped as one, this means they could not be seen as being atheistic.

"3. Atheism is the lack of belief in god/ gods, "thats simply what it is, a lack of belief and nothing else" (widelyt agreed) except that..."
3., 4. and 5 should really be put in the same point.

"4. Atheism is the lack of belief in anything proven"
er... no... no it isn't. I'm not sure where you got that from.

"5. Atheists don't believe anything supernatural without proof (clearly disproven)"
Someone who believes in ghosts or psychics or any mystic mumbo jumbo like that we would call a spiritualist. Yes they have atheistic views but they are defined by what they *do* believe rather than what they do not.

I said you had lied about giving examples of contradictions I had not already proven were not contradictions.
All of the points raised I had already countered but as all can see I countered them once again without resorting to four pages of deflection, evasion, bold/coloured text and insults that you deem necessary in almost all of your retorts.
Your move. :-)

P.S. "black holes, aliens, dark matter" all of these are theories except for black holes as we can see the physical effects exerted on anything that crosses one.

[fr0d0]

Oh and there seemed to be some confusion as to why these statements contradict:

Atheism is a position on God [deity].

1. This claims Atheism is a position on God and as a result implies that it is more than a simple lack of belief.

a. Get with the plan Raphael. Atheism = lack of belief in God. That's it. It's not confusing.

A lack of belief in God, in that there is no belief he exists. This, as you so adequately put, is all Atheism is.

1. If you had a situation where a totally isolated person had no definition of god/s available to them, then for them to be defined as atheist would have to be by someone who understood what atheism was.

To class that person as 'atheist' would be to categorise them in relation to a belief in god/s. So the only way we can graft 'atheist' onto that person is by assigning a position on god/s.

That would never have to violate the law of atheism equalling a lack of belief in god/s. Therefore 1. isn't a contradiction with a.

[Reforged]

Oh and there seemed to be some confusion as to why these statements contradict:

1. This claims Atheism is a position on God and as a result implies that it is more than a simple lack of belief.

A lack of belief in God, in that there is no belief he exists. This, as you so adequately put, is all Atheism is.

1. If you had a situation where a totally isolated person had no definition of god/s available to them, then for them to be defined as atheist would have to be by someone who understood what atheism was.

To class that person as 'atheist' would be to categorise them in relation to a belief in god/s. So the only way we can graft 'atheist' onto that person is by assigning a position on god/s.

That would never have to violate the law of atheism equalling a lack of belief in god/s. Therefore 1. isn't a contradiction with a.

If someone has no concept of Gods or the supernatural then they hold no belief in either.
True or false?

[fr0d0]

"Atheism = lack of belief in a god" is a statement of yours, not of mine. I merely quoted you.

You wen't further than that. You agreed with it, and I've quoted you agreeing with it.

"1. Atheism is a religion (correct by his own research)"
You admitted consumerism is not actually a religion, it simply shares characteristics in that it has quite a following. How you can say Atheism is actually a religion through the same definition is beyond me as it shows incredible bias against Atheism in particular.

I said as much (that consumerism doesn't come under the main definition of religion) above. No need to keep saying it.
How I can say that atheism is actually a religion is THAT YOU ACTUALLY SAID IT!!! I'm quoting your post where you quote the dictionary. You agreed with me that consumerism was to religion was what atheism is to religion. I therefore established with you that both consumerism AND atheism WOULD be defined as religion using your own quote.

I wasn't of this position until you enlightened me. I state nothing about it. You did. And I quote you doing it.

"2. Atheistic religions don't exist (despite proof of such presented)"
They don't. People within a religion can possess certain atheistic views but that does not make the religion itself atheistic. Also all of the religions you listed hold claims of the supernatural and have figures which posses powers on par with any deity and are worshipped as one, this means they could not be seen as being atheistic.

"On a par with a deity" =/= a deity. If it isn't a deity. If it isn't a god/s to believe in, then it isn't theism.

If a person can be a fully accepted member of a religion and also an atheist, then we have a religious atheist. It matters not if others of his faith are theists. The point that you contested is that there could not be religious atheists. And clearly there can.

"3. Atheism is the lack of belief in god/ gods, "thats simply what it is, a lack of belief and nothing else" (widelyt agreed) except that..."
3., 4. and 5 should really be put in the same point.

You don't get out of it that easily, sorry. I have quoted you saing that lack of belief in god/s is the only qualification of an atheist. I have shown by quoting you directly that you have said that other things define atheists. Some of which are actually factually wrong.

"4. Atheism is the lack of belief in anything proven"
er... no... no it isn't. I'm not sure where you got that from.

I quoted you. Follow the link.

"5. Atheists don't believe anything supernatural without proof (clearly disproven)"
Someone who believes in ghosts or psychics or any mystic mumbo jumbo like that we would call a spiritualist. Yes they have atheistic views but they are defined by what they *do* believe rather than what they do not.

No, they are atheists if that's what they claim. Remember what you've agreed: "atheism is merely a lack of belief in god/s. Nothing more".

I said you had lied about giving examples of contradictions I had not already proven were not contradictions.
All of the points raised I had already countered but as all can see I countered them once again

You have countered nothing. All of the points raised against you stand unscathed.

P.S. "black holes, aliens, dark matter" all of these are theories except for black holes as we can see the physical effects exerted on anything that crosses one.

Aliens are theories? We see the effect but is it a black hole that we see or some other phenomenon. That isn't proven.

[Faith No More]

You guys bicker like an old married couple. Perhaps it is time to agree to disagree?

That's my $0.02. Carry on...

[fr0d0]

* fr0d0 slaps Faith No More

[The Grand Nudger]

What, and starve our pet Troll? He'll wander of to some other forum and troll them there. I like having Frods around. Raph is doing us all a service..lol.

[Reforged]

What, and starve our pet Troll? He'll wander of to some other forum and troll them there. I like having Frods around. Raph is doing us all a service..lol.

It is a pleasure mi'lord. *bows gracefully*

---

* fr0d0 slaps Faith No More

A fundamentalist who resorts to violence?
Well thats just crazy.

---

"Atheism = lack of belief in a god" is a statement of yours, not of mine. I merely quoted you.

You wen't further than that. You agreed with it, and I've quoted you agreeing with it.

Agreed that Atheism is a lack of belief in a god, not that was the only definition. I try to stay away from sweeping statements like that. I used your sweeping and rather careless statement against you knowing that you'd never openly say you thought it was wrong and you made a mistake. You're too arrogant for that.

"1. Atheism is a religion (correct by his own research)"
You admitted consumerism is not actually a religion, it simply shares characteristics in that it has quite a following. How you can say Atheism is actually a religion through the same definition is beyond me as it shows incredible bias against Atheism in particular.

I said as much (that consumerism doesn't come under the main definition of religion) above. No need to keep saying it.
How I can say that atheism is actually a religion is THAT YOU ACTUALLY SAID IT!!! I'm quoting your post where you quote the dictionary. You agreed with me that consumerism was to religion was what atheism is to religion. I therefore established with you that both consumerism AND atheism WOULD be defined as religion using your own quote.
I wasn't of this position until you enlightened me. I state nothing about it. You did. And I quote you doing it.

Yes but consumerism isn't actually a religion, you can compare it to one but it isn't. I only admit you could compare atheism to religion but it isn't one. Thats all. Stop trying to take my words out of context or at least do it more subtly so the readers aren't concussed by your total lack of honesty.

"2. Atheistic religions don't exist (despite proof of such presented)"
They don't. People within a religion can possess certain atheistic views but that does not make the religion itself atheistic. Also all of the religions you listed hold claims of the supernatural and have figures which posses powers on par with any deity and are worshipped as one, this means they could not be seen as being atheistic.

"On a par with a deity" =/= a deity. If it isn't a deity. If it isn't a god/s to believe in, then it isn't theism.

If a person can be a fully accepted member of a religion and also an atheist, then we have a religious atheist. It matters not if others of his faith are theists. The point that you contested is that there could not be religious atheists. And clearly there can.

Sorry, are you saying Buddhism, Paganism and all the other examples you use aren't theism? Think *very* carefully before you answer this one fr0d0.

"3. Atheism is the lack of belief in god/ gods, "thats simply what it is, a lack of belief and nothing else" (widelyt agreed) except that..."
3., 4. and 5 should really be put in the same point.

You don't get out of it that easily, sorry. I have quoted you saing that lack of belief in god/s is the only qualification of an atheist. I have shown by quoting you directly that you have said that other things define atheists. Some of which are actually factually wrong.

Actually, I'll think you'll find that was the content of your quote I was describing. I don't think I ever claimed it was the only attribute of an atheist, you did.
This is the whole quote for anyone whos interested;

"And now the grandest victory of all! I knew you couldn't resist but respond to this fr0d0 and I have been waiting for this inevitable response with great anticipation. I will now quote you directly:
"Atheism = lack of belief in God."
In your own words thats simply what it is, a lack of belief and nothing else.
Ergo; *NOT* a religious position.
Thank you and goodnight... at least until you decide you can see my post despite having blocked me, again. :-)"

Rather different from what fr0d0 suggested isn't it?

"4. Atheism is the lack of belief in anything proven"
er... no... no it isn't. I'm not sure where you got that from.

I quoted you. Follow the link.

Or you could stop being so fucking lazy and post the whole quote for all to see so it can be discussed openly.

"5. Atheists don't believe anything supernatural without proof (clearly disproven)"
Someone who believes in ghosts or psychics or any mystic mumbo jumbo like that we would call a spiritualist. Yes they have atheistic views but they are defined by what they *do* believe rather than what they do not.

No, they are atheists if that's what they claim. Remember what you've agreed: "atheism is merely a lack of belief in god/s. Nothing more".

Again, thats your statement I quoted. Not mine. I'm fairly certain I never attributed that as the sole definition. I merely used your own quote, which conflicted with the basis of your entire argument, against you.

I said you had lied about giving examples of contradictions I had not already proven were not contradictions.
All of the points raised I had already countered but as all can see I countered them once again

You have countered nothing. All of the points raised against you stand unscathed.

Just because thats what you say doesn't make it so. I'm sure the intelligent readers will come to their own conclusions based on the evidence presented as is their right.

P.S. "black holes, aliens, dark matter" all of these are theories except for black holes as we can see the physical effects exerted on anything that crosses one.

Aliens are theories? We see the effect but is it a black hole that we see or some other phenomenon. That isn't proven.

Then it is still a theory but a partially backed one. The existence of aliens is very much a theory, obviously.

[Whateverist]

Hey, can you guys keep down the capitalizing a tad? We can hear you two threads over.