Atheism is the punk rock of religion

[Reforged]

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

Don't look at me, I haven't changed the font size once.

[jonb]

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

I doff my cap to you, at last somebody has found something about this thread that is in some way related to punk, its too loud. But this endless nit picking on this word means this no that word means that is not punk, but the sort of banal nonsense of progressive rock and the double album. Where the tracks go on and on forever.

[fr0d0]

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.

Ah but you didn't, and thus falls your pack of cards.
If you look at the post of mine you quoted from, you'll see that I qualified my statement as the popular position here, and that atheists exist who argue for a wider definition.
I'm very happy to explain the populist position to you. But for you to misquote me and then try and put the concocted statement in my mouth is a bit rich.
Thank you for the retraction. Atheism, according to Raphael, isn't only about the lack of belief in God. All those other things are too. I shall remember to bring that up whenever it gets trotted out. That's usually about one a day at least, so this should be fun.

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.

OM F'in G.
Please try to comprehend rather than replying without addressing the subject.
You said, in your quote from the dictionary, that atheism COULD BE described as a religion. You said that.
No, atheism isn't a religion that has deity or any of the other trappings of conventional religions. Atheism is a religion because according to the YOUR OWN WORDS: atheism can be "A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. IE consumerism is the new religion"
Now please either deny or confirm that this is what you said. Stop squirming around trying to dodge the subject. Misquoting and making accusations of dishonesty. Deny the plain text quote of your own words.

"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.

Yes.

If you want to address my point accurately, you won't go and find examples of all of those that actually include deities. But address examples of those that don't. If there are examples of all of those, those religions that have fully paid up atheists as legisitmate and full members, them you have lost your point. Atheists can be religious, because those religions don't have to have deities. Bhuddhism: Bhudda said he wasn't a deity. Paganism: is animistic. Pagans can talk to trees as spiritual entities. No deities involved.

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.

You cherry picked my quote. Go look at my original statement and see if you can see the difference. Where I expanded, knowing that you would bring this up as a smokescreen. I have no problem reitterating what all of the other atheists on here preach to any newcomer. Like I said to you, you're not on plan. But I'll leave that for your fellow atheists to correct you on.
I'm not saying it's not a religious position. You did. Look at my bolded statements. Do you see me coming up with that, or you? I have agreed with your irrefutable proof from a dictionary that according to you and it, atheism is religion.

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.

Says he who can't be assed to quote without ripping most of the relevant content out. And when asked to fix it whines that it's me who has to go do the work. Unlike your quotes, my quote there had a link back to where you actually said it. The work is done for you. Now you're too lazy to click?

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.

So now you've changed position and don't state that atheism is only a lack of belief in god/s. Nice. I'll be sure to quote you on this when all the atheists try to use this in arguments from now on. I hope you have some points ready to defend this.

If my quote is someone else's opinion. How can that be an argument against me? Yet another impossible conundrum you erected there.

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.

I presented quotes of you saying it. You say your words don't account to proof. Your standards for proof seem very fragile.

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.

Another retraction. Great.

So is God a theory too? Please show me the peer reviewed scientific papers backing up your assertion that aliens are a theory.

[jonb]

.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyMXYE_50Ts

---

Now they seemed to have moved on (thank you guys)

How about some girls that are facing prison because the orthodox church is gaining power and wants to flex its muscles.
Go girls!
Pussy Riot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZKaBh9pX64

[jonb]

I know its not that interesting a few silly girls singing in a church.
But when the church is in the pay of the state, and the church, backs one party implying it is a christian duty to support those in power, and those in power encourage everyone to be part of that church, and there is virtually no free press. . ..
Maybe whether you have any freedom or not is down to a few brave girls in a punk band.
Do you know the price for this little protest the church wants them to pay?

[Reforged]

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.

Ah but you didn't, and thus falls your pack of cards.
If you look at the post of mine you quoted from, you'll see that I qualified my statement as the popular position here, and that atheists exist who argue for a wider definition.
I'm very happy to explain the populist position to you. But for you to misquote me and then try and put the concocted statement in my mouth is a bit rich.
Thank you for the retraction. Atheism, according to Raphael, isn't only about the lack of belief in God. All those other things are too. I shall remember to bring that up whenever it gets trotted out. That's usually about one a day at least, so this should be fun.

Its not a retraction, I made no statement. I used your quote, I did not misquote. If you disagree provide the whole quote to prove me wrong. Otherwise, you've got nothing.

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.

OM F'in G.
Please try to comprehend rather than replying without addressing the subject.
You said, in your quote from the dictionary, that atheism COULD BE described as a religion. You said that.
No, atheism isn't a religion that has deity or any of the other trappings of conventional religions. Atheism is a religion because according to the YOUR OWN WORDS: atheism can be "A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. IE consumerism is the new religion"
Now please either deny or confirm that this is what you said. Stop squirming around trying to dodge the subject. Misquoting and making accusations of dishonesty. Deny the plain text quote of your own words.

Yes and you could be described as being over the top. You're not *literally* over the top of something, you're just screeching and hysterical.
Your entire argument in this case rests on taking things literally that obviously aren't meant to be taken literally. Consumerism is *not* a religion and neither is Atheism. Deal with it.

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.

Yes.
If you want to address my point accurately, you won't go and find examples of all of those that actually include deities. But address examples of those that don't. If there are examples of all of those, those religions that have fully paid up atheists as legisitmate and full members, them you have lost your point. Atheists can be religious, because those religions don't have to have deities. Bhuddhism: Bhudda said he wasn't a deity. Paganism: is animistic. Pagans can talk to trees as spiritual entities. No deities involved.

I will address all of them. You will not be let off your mistakes and you are wrong on at least one account.
"pa·gan (pgn)
n.
1. An adherent of a polytheistic religion in antiquity, especially when viewed in contrast to an adherent of a monotheistic religion.
2. A Neopagan.
3. Offensive
a. One who has no religion.
b. An adherent of a religion other than Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.
4. A hedonist."
Polytheism counts as theism.

http://www.religionfacts.com/hinduism/be...theism.htm
"Hinduism is a decidedly theistic religion; the difficulty lies in determining whether it is a polytheistic, pantheistic, or perhaps even monotheistic religion."

Janism has multiple Gods, qualifies as polytheism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Jainism

Buddhism used to have multiple deities, most Buddhists now only buy into the Buddha. Alot only buy into the philosophy.
Depending on the type of Buddhist you're looking at they could be polytheist, theist or simply a follower of philosophy.

Wicca has multiple Gods so it qualifies as poly-theism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca#The_G...he_Goddess

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.

You cherry picked my quote. Go look at my original statement and see if you can see the difference. Where I expanded, knowing that you would bring this up as a smokescreen. I have no problem reitterating what all of the other atheists on here preach to any newcomer. Like I said to you, you're not on plan. But I'll leave that for your fellow atheists to correct you on.
I'm not saying it's not a religious position. You did. Look at my bolded statements. Do you see me coming up with that, or you? I have agreed with your irrefutable proof from a dictionary that according to you and it, atheism is religion.

Seen as you just took my quote out of context and was sent into retreat that translates as "er... well... so did you!" when I proved this was the case I can't help but laugh alittle.
I will not fetch your quote, I went to the trouble of getting a full quote from my post. You can stop being so fucking lazy and do the same.
I am not going to look for things that you think prove your side of the arguement. Thats *your* job in this debate. My job is to provide things that back up my side. William Craig did not stop mid-debate and ask Christopher Hitchens to go on google and find evidence of the metaphysical because even he knew thats not how it works.
I am not your mother.

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

Says he who can't be assed to quote without ripping most of the relevant content out. And when asked to fix it whines that it's me who has to go do the work. Unlike your quotes, my quote there had a link back to where you actually said it. The work is done for you. Now you're too lazy to click?

I go to the trouble of finding my quotes and pasting them here for *all*, not just you, to see. I make an effort to back my claims for all the forum readers to clearly see. If you cannot do the same then you have no-one else but yourself to blame.
I await your quote.

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.

So now you've changed position and don't state that atheism is only a lack of belief in god/s. Nice. I'll be sure to quote you on this when all the atheists try to use this in arguments from now on. I hope you have some points ready to defend this.

If my quote is someone else's opinion. How can that be an argument against me? Yet another impossible conundrum you erected there.

I didn't ever adopt your position. I just noted the stark contrast between your previous quotes and the one that described atheism as simply a lack of belief. I don't know about everyone else but I laughed my ass off when I found it.

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.

I presented quotes of you saying it. You say your words don't account to proof. Your standards for proof seem very fragile.

Again, I countered your explanations of each and every contradiction. If you have no further contradictions or counter-arguments available I can't see how you can hold me responsible for your distinct lack of weight in this "debate".

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

Another retraction. Great.

That black holes aren't absolutely, 100% proven and thus still qualify as a theory? Yes, I admit that. That you would see that as a weakness shows that you're as interested in the truth as you are with convincing yourself your always right.

So is God a theory too? Please show me the peer reviewed scientific papers backing up your assertion that aliens are a theory.

It is a theory for those who do not claim it actually exists, yes. If I reason that I could possibly have an invisible man who created everything watching over me and protecting me then I have an ill-conceived and unbacked theory. If I claim this 100% absolutely the case and buy into this then it is a belief, albeit an insane one.
Why you didn't use a dictionary instead of asking me I'm not sure.

Your entire argument seems to rest on a lack of proof for your claims and begging others to go get it for you. Anyone else seeing similarities between fr0d0 and his religion?

[fr0d0]

Ah but you didn't, and thus falls your pack of cards.
If you look at the post of mine you quoted from, you'll see that I qualified my statement as the popular position here, and that atheists exist who argue for a wider definition.
I'm very happy to explain the populist position to you. But for you to misquote me and then try and put the concocted statement in my mouth is a bit rich.
Thank you for the retraction. Atheism, according to Raphael, isn't only about the lack of belief in God. All those other things are too. I shall remember to bring that up whenever it gets trotted out. That's usually about one a day at least, so this should be fun.

Its not a retraction, I made no statement. I used your quote, I did not misquote. If you disagree provide the whole quote to prove me wrong. Otherwise, you've got nothing.

Lets deal with this one fail at a time:

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?

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

<hide>There are atheists that disagree with this, but we chase them off with big sticks whenever they show their faces on AF. Hence the knee jerk reaction above to any suggestion that atheists might touch philosophy with a barge pole. You'd have to be thick skinned to carry off that as an atheist around here. Which I would respect.</hide>

So it looks like I've got something. I wrote more about the single definition of atheism than you keep claiming that I did. You were wrong.

Care to retract?

[Reforged]

Its not a retraction, I made no statement. I used your quote, I did not misquote. If you disagree provide the whole quote to prove me wrong. Otherwise, you've got nothing.

Lets deal with this one fail at a time:

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

<hide>There are atheists that disagree with this, but we chase them off with big sticks whenever they show their faces on AF. Hence the knee jerk reaction above to any suggestion that atheists might touch philosophy with a barge pole. You'd have to be thick skinned to carry off that as an atheist around here. Which I would respect.</hide>

So it looks like I've got something. I wrote more about the single definition of atheism than you keep claiming that I did. You were wrong.

Care to retract?

No, I would not. All that suggests is some atheists will disagree and some atheists will agree with the view you asserted and you'd be correct in that being the case.
So what? Thats still a statement you presented as being your view and you say nothing to counter-act that being the case.

Again, you seem to have a habit of blaming your failures on others. Maybe its just time to grow up at... how old are you again?

[Cinjin]

How about some girls that are facing prison because the orthodox church is gaining power and wants to flex its muscles.
Go girls!
Pussy Riot

I want them in prison ... for making such a horrible video and then slapping a punk rock label on it. Shitty bands slap a punk rock label on themselves because the shit they put out is so awful that its the only way the can get away with it. Sometimes crap is just crap and it doesn't deserve a label.

[Reforged]

How about some girls that are facing prison because the orthodox church is gaining power and wants to flex its muscles.
Go girls!
Pussy Riot

I want them in prison ... for making such a horrible video and then slapping a punk rock label on it. Shitty bands slap a punk rock label on themselves because the shit they put out is so awful that its the only way the can get away with it. Sometimes crap is just crap and it doesn't deserve a label.

So would you consider "Pink" to be in that category of talentless shit that gets labelled as punk rock?
Honestly? I'm not sure. Not my type of music, I've got no idea what constitutes good punk rock and shit punk rock.
Absolutely no expertise in that area.