Yes, Atheism is a Religion

[Cyberman]

"some atheists do emulate their religious brethren" - therefore atheism is a religion.

Ok. Some xtians are killing and maiming children in Africa as witches - therefore xtianity is all about killing children. Fair?

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Not at all.

First of all, atheism is not a "religious belief". It is the lack of religious beliefs.

Atheism has no doctrine, dogma, common text, leader. It is not even a worldview. Which are all reasons why theists do congregate in churches, mosques and temples. 

Personally, I think the idea of "atheists churches" is ridiculous, but I also understand some people, fresh from the mental shackles that is theism, may miss some of what their religion provided. A community of a bunch of like minded people congregating once a week. 

There is also something called "Sunday Assembly"

Ridiculous or not, some atheists do emulate their religious brethren.

No doctrine? No dogma? No common text? No leader or worldview? We seem to be living in different worlds. It's special pleading if you don't count Darwin's Origin of Species as a common text. No leaders? What about Dawkins and his ilk? They don't count? They're the high priests of vocal atheism. To say atheism has no worldview is like a fish saying there is no water: it's so pervasive it's invisible. Society never tires of using and abusing the media as a weapon of propaganda to get its religiously anti-religion across. It teaches us that atheists are open-minded and reasonable people who believe in the scientific method and who reject superstition. They are writers, scholars and experts who never misrepresent the facts or misuse words, while religionists are retarded Neanderthals who refuse to be persuaded by the brilliance of atheistic arguments, which of course only reinforces how stupid those knuckle-dragging religious types are.

This narrative is repeated ad nauseam in our popular culture: atheists are smart, theists are stupid; atheists love science; theists hate science; atheism is clever, superstitious religion is foolish; atheism is open-minded and tolerant; religion is dogmatic and intolerant; atheism does not seek to impose its views on others; religion seeks to impose its views on others. Four legs good, two legs bad.

There is no technology atheists will not pervert to their cause. The lessons are pumped into our children in government classrooms (for that is what “public schools” are – government indoctrination camps where reading and math have been supplanted by cultural indoctrination to secular humanist ideology). Those lessons are repeated in our television programs. Those lessons are recited dutifully by our news anchors. The goal, apparently, is to bludgeon religionists, and Christians in particular, into silence with the supremacy of  their “science” and “reason.”  

Technically, one is quite correct to say atheism is not a religion, but it certainly has all the hallmarks  of one.

No special pleading here at all, but there's a buttload of whining coming from your end.

What did I just say in my last post on infallible ideas? The Origin of Species isn't infallible either, and the more which modern scientists learn, the more imperfect it becomes. The content didn't even follow what its title suggested, for one! But it was good for a first attempt to publicly address and explain the idea that life evolved from simple to more complex forms,  and it formed a solid basis for a theory which is unlikely to be written off by future scientists. Scientists accept natural selection as an explanation which answers in large part how we came to exist, not because of who told them of it, and not for fear of not believing it, but simply because they see enough good sense in it and seen enough supporting evidence to convince them!

There is no technology atheists will not pervert to their cause. The lessons are pumped into our children in government classrooms (for that is what “public schools” are – government indoctrination camps where reading and math have been supplanted by cultural indoctrination to secular humanist ideology). Those lessons are repeated in our television programs. Those lessons are recited dutifully by our news anchors. The goal, apparently, is to bludgeon religionists, and Christians in particular, into silence with the supremacy of  their “science” and “reason.”

Science is the search for truth, so no scientist would teach what isn't believed true according to analysis of culturally empirical evidence without vile shitheads like you pointing a gun at their heads to force your lies down children's throats - go find yourself another courthouse to go and fuck yourself on the steps of! You know it's a game you will ultimately lose, but just like the Islamic terrorists you are trying to take everyone who you can touch down with you.

You who would enslave the American people by force-feeding them lies don't deserve to live in any sort of free society, which you hate so much that you will destroy, and will be satisfied only while there's more freedom for others that you can destroy, until finally that oppression which you helped create turns it's ugly snout toward yourselves. Now that's an arena event worthy of the Romans, but I would enjoy the justice of seeing you in that position!

[Simon Moon]

Not at all.

First of all, atheism is not a "religious belief". It is the lack of religious beliefs.

Atheism has no doctrine, dogma, common text, leader. It is not even a worldview. Which are all reasons why theists do congregate in churches, mosques and temples. 

Personally, I think the idea of "atheists churches" is ridiculous, but I also understand some people, fresh from the mental shackles that is theism, may miss some of what their religion provided. A community of a bunch of like minded people congregating once a week. 

There is also something called "Sunday Assembly"

Ridiculous or not, some atheists do emulate their religious brethren.

No doctrine? No dogma? No common text? No leader or worldview? We seem to be living in different worlds. It's special pleading if you don't count Darwin's Origin of Species as a common text.

First of all, evolution has come a long way since Darwin's day. He didn't even know about DNA.

Almost 80% of Christians in Western Europe fully accept evolution. So, how can Origin of Species be a common atheist text, if plenty of theists accept evolution?

My atheism is not dependent on evolution being true. If evolution was disproved tomorrow, that would not mean a god exists by default.

No leaders? What about Dawkins and his ilk? They don't count? They're the high priests of vocal atheism. To say atheism has no worldview is like a fish saying there is no water: it's so pervasive it's invisible.

Dawkins or his ilk are not leaders in the sense you mean. It is the words they say that brings them a following. I disagree with them on many occasions. If Dawkinis became a theist tomorrow, I would give it about 15 minutes of my time, shrug, then move on. Unless he actually had demonstrable evidence for his new belief. 

Society never tires of using and abusing the media as a weapon of propaganda to get its religiously anti-religion across. It teaches us that atheists are open-minded and reasonable people who believe in the scientific method and who reject superstition. They are writers, scholars and experts who never misrepresent the facts or misuse words, while religionists are retarded Neanderthals who refuse to be persuaded by the brilliance of atheistic arguments, which of course only reinforces how stupid those knuckle-dragging religious types are.

This narrative is repeated ad nauseam in our popular culture: atheists are smart, theists are stupid; atheists love science; theists hate science; atheism is clever, superstitious religion is foolish; atheism is open-minded and tolerant; religion is dogmatic and intolerant; atheism does not seek to impose its views on others; religion seeks to impose its views on others. Four legs good, two legs bad.

I'm not sure what culture you live in, but does not represent the one I live in.

There is no technology atheists will not pervert to their cause. The lessons are pumped into our children in government classrooms (for that is what “public schools” are – government indoctrination camps where reading and math have been supplanted by cultural indoctrination to secular humanist ideology). Those lessons are repeated in our television programs. Those lessons are recited dutifully by our news anchors. The goal, apparently, is to bludgeon religionists, and Christians in particular, into silence with the supremacy of  their “science” and “reason.”

I guess you must not like the 'technology' of critical thinking. 

Technically, one is quite correct to say atheism is not a religion, but it certainly has all the hallmarks  of one.

Still, no.

[Whateverist]

Not at all.

First of all, atheism is not a "religious belief". It is the lack of religious beliefs.

Atheism has no doctrine, dogma, common text, leader. It is not even a worldview. Which are all reasons why theists do congregate in churches, mosques and temples. 

Personally, I think the idea of "atheists churches" is ridiculous, but I also understand some people, fresh from the mental shackles that is theism, may miss some of what their religion provided. A community of a bunch of like minded people congregating once a week. 

There is also something called "Sunday Assembly"

Ridiculous or not, some atheists do emulate their religious brethren.

No doctrine? No dogma? No common text? No leader or worldview? We seem to be living in different worlds. It's special pleading if you don't count Darwin's Origin of Species as a common text. No leaders? What about Dawkins and his ilk? They don't count? They're the high priests of vocal atheism. To say atheism has no worldview is like a fish saying there is no water: it's so pervasive it's invisible. Society never tires of using and abusing the media as a weapon of propaganda to get its religiously anti-religion across. It teaches us that atheists are open-minded and reasonable people who believe in the scientific method and who reject superstition. They are writers, scholars and experts who never misrepresent the facts or misuse words, while religionists are retarded Neanderthals who refuse to be persuaded by the brilliance of atheistic arguments, which of course only reinforces how stupid those knuckle-dragging religious types are.

This narrative is repeated ad nauseam in our popular culture: atheists are smart, theists are stupid; atheists love science; theists hate science; atheism is clever, superstitious religion is foolish; atheism is open-minded and tolerant; religion is dogmatic and intolerant; atheism does not seek to impose its views on others; religion seeks to impose its views on others. Four legs good, two legs bad.

There is no technology atheists will not pervert to their cause. The lessons are pumped into our children in government classrooms (for that is what “public schools” are – government indoctrination camps where reading and math have been supplanted by cultural indoctrination to secular humanist ideology). Those lessons are repeated in our television programs. Those lessons are recited dutifully by our news anchors. The goal, apparently, is to bludgeon religionists, and Christians in particular, into silence with the supremacy of  their “science” and “reason.”  

You kind of sound like a nut job. The echo chamber you are attempting to set up is only working for you. Nuts.

[Nay_Sayer]

Well op that was the incorrect answer, However you get a consolation prize

[GUBU]

Are you afraid that your source can't withstand scrutiny?

Not really. Go ahead and scrutinize!

Fine then, please provide some credible sources who have used the evidence available. Providing creatards like Plantinga is not providing evidence.

[Cecelia]

There is no technology atheists will not pervert to their cause. The lessons are pumped into our children in government classrooms (for that is what “public schools” are – government indoctrination camps where reading and math have been supplanted by cultural indoctrination to secular humanist ideology). Those lessons are repeated in our television programs. Those lessons are recited dutifully by our news anchors. The goal, apparently, is to bludgeon religionists, and Christians in particular, into silence with the supremacy of  their “science” and “reason.” 

I'm guessing you weren't 'indoctrinated' as you call it, because you sound uneducated and uninformed.

The goal of theists is apparently to try to sound oppressed as possible, when they're not being oppressed or silenced at all.  How hard it must be for Christians to have "in God We Trust" on money, or to have their ten commandment monuments standing alone.  How hard it must be when there's more Churches than schools.  Yes, so very hard. 

I bet it's frustrating that only more than 90% of our past Presidents were openly Christian, and that if someone ran as an atheist today they wouldn't be able to make it anywhere.

No, it's the Atheists who are indoctrinating people.  Teaching things like Evolution!  Which is only a theory!  Just like you know, Gravity and relativity.  Obviously we should be teaching BOTH sides of the controversy.  Just like we should be teaching alchemy, that there's only five elements, that the world is just on the back of a giant turtle, that the pyramids were constructed by aliens, and that the world is flat. 

Theists have silenced Atheists for so long.  What's really frustrating for you, I'm sure, is that atheists have stopped doing what you want them to.

[Esquilax]

Ridiculous or not, some atheists do emulate their religious brethren.

So why are you attempting to conflate "some," where "some" is a vague and ill defined number with no attempt at justification on your part, with "all"?

No doctrine? No dogma? No common text? No leader or worldview? We seem to be living in different worlds.

Judging from what you wrote next, I have no trouble believing that you do not live in my world, yes.

 It's special pleading if you don't count Darwin's Origin of Species as a common text.

How is that special pleading? No, seriously: how is that the logical fallacy special pleading? Do you even know what special pleading is?

Regarding Darwin's book being a common text, I've spoken to a few atheists who do not accept the theory of evolution, so... no, it isn't, by definition, being that it's not held in common by all atheists. Moreover, while Origin of Species is an important work in the accumulation of human knowledge, allow me as an atheist to point out that it's also incredibly out of date and wrong on quite a number of issues that got cleared up in the following century or so by a wide variety of other studies. I suspect that this won't be a controversial position to my peeps here either, so attempting to equate Origin of Species, being that it isn't held as valid by all atheists nor currently valid even by those who recognize the reality of evolution, with a holy book held to be infallible by the practitioners of its corresponding religion is simple equivocation. If you can't see the difference between recognizing that a book contains true observations and worshiping the contents of it, then there's no hope for you.

No leaders? What about Dawkins and his ilk? They don't count? They're the high priests of vocal atheism. 

And yet many of us don't care one whit about what Dawkins thinks. I don't, really. I've enjoyed some of his books, and rolled my eyes quite dramatically at a number of his public statements. He's just a man, something anyone here will tell you, again making what you're saying an equivocation, considering the myriad differences between how we view Dawkins and how religious adherents view a high priest: do you have any points to make here that aren't absurd reaching?

To say atheism has no worldview is like a fish saying there is no water: it's so pervasive it's invisible. Society never tires of using and abusing the media as a weapon of propaganda to get its religiously anti-religion across. It teaches us that atheists are open-minded and reasonable people who believe in the scientific method and who reject superstition. They are writers, scholars and experts who never misrepresent the facts or misuse words, while religionists are retarded Neanderthals who refuse to be persuaded by the brilliance of atheistic arguments, which of course only reinforces how stupid those knuckle-dragging religious types are.

So now you're positing some grand media conspiracy, in the face of the fact that at least some of the people working in the media are themselves religious? Seriously?

This narrative is repeated ad nauseam in our popular culture: atheists are smart, theists are stupid; atheists love science; theists hate science; atheism is clever, superstitious religion is foolish; atheism is open-minded and tolerant; religion is dogmatic and intolerant; atheism does not seek to impose its views on others; religion seeks to impose its views on others. Four legs good, two legs bad.

Perhaps you should turn your ire to the ignorance worshiping fundamentalists that cause this bad image to exist in the first place through their bad behavior, rather than having a go at us for some bizarre, unevidenced conspiracy you think there is to grant us favor?

There is no technology atheists will not pervert to their cause. The lessons are pumped into our children in government classrooms (for that is what “public schools” are – government indoctrination camps where reading and math have been supplanted by cultural indoctrination to secular humanist ideology). Those lessons are repeated in our television programs. Those lessons are recited dutifully by our news anchors. The goal, apparently, is to bludgeon religionists, and Christians in particular, into silence with the supremacy of  their “science” and “reason.”  

Technically, one is quite correct to say atheism is not a religion, but it certainly has all the hallmarks  of one.

Okay wow, you're just kind of crazy or a poe, then. What a waste of effort rebutting you.

[Reflex]

Ever hear the saying, "Nothing is harder for the fish to see than the water in which it swims"?

[Esquilax]

Ever hear the saying, "Nothing is harder for the fish to see than the water in which it swims"?

Ah yes, the time honored intellectual rebuttal: "If you don't agree with me, you're dumb!"