Yes, Atheism is a Religion

[Catholic_Lady]

LOL you and your turtles. Good stuff!

[Cyberman]

And thus another of Delicate's threads turns to shit.

Yeah... turns to shit...

[Fidel_Castronaut]

OP needs moar poon.

[Reforged]

Good recovery Mr. Hanky. Now noone will know the truth.
You're safe.

HUH?!

Not denying I'm not in a great mood today, but the inane gets annoying after awhile. This is completely different from the people who have no defense for their position, they demonize any source of sensible truth which challenges that, and respond with insulting nonsense which they believe vindicates their wrong ideas because the only people they ever listen to are each other. Sorry, but getting sucked into an echo chamber by trolls can give one a nasty headache after awhile.

Uh-huh. (Totally thought it was serious.)

[Whateverist]

Oh yes, yes it is. Goes really well with mayo.

Mmm. Mayo.

God is dead and I wanna eat Him? Friedrich Nietzsche + Cannibalism = Yummy mayo in a turtely mouth? Turtle, turtle, turtle?

As for the poop, I'll pass.

Are you sure?  I hear her poop is the shit.

[Edwardo Piet]

Mmm. Mayo.

God is dead and I wanna eat Him? Friedrich Nietzsche + Cannibalism = Yummy mayo in a turtely mouth? Turtle, turtle, turtle?

As for the poop, I'll pass.

Are you sure?  I hear her poop is the shit.

Ass is fine, just not poop

[Delicate]

[Nay_Sayer]

[Delicate]

Thanks for making a post with some substance. It warrants a response.

Unfortunately, I see no evidence for the claim that "Atheism (and theism) don't have forms, meaningful or not. They are states of being."

I see evidence, however, that epistemic attitudes (believing, knowing, doubting, being ignorant of, disbelieving, etc) can be rational or irrational. Thus, disbelief, just like belief, can be rational or irrational.

What would the rationality of atheism consist in? I argue it would consist in showing atheism to be more plausible than theism. And to do this, you have to provide arguments against theism, arguments for atheism, or a combination of both. You would also have to refute theistic arguments.

All of this, atheists here are incapable of. This is why atheism is irrational.

As for the definition of religion you invoke, I don't think it's a good enough definition, because there are plenty of beliefs, cultural systems and worldviews that relate humanity to an order of existence that are not religious. Not sure where your argument goes once you acknowledge this.


Another thing that's worth noticing is that atheists in general, and you in this post, love to move the goalposts to suit your argument. Whether you are doing this intentionally or unintentionally is an open question, but it's worth exposing. You use the narrow dictionary definition of atheism when you want atheism to be a small target, more difficult to object to. But you ignore the broader definition which is often in use, which refers not to the view, or beliefs that atheists bear an epistemic attitude to, but the sociological definition of atheists as a group of people.

This goalpost-moving represents a failure on your part to understand the argument. Many if not all of the criticisms I levied weren't against the dictionary definition of atheism, but the practice of atheism as espoused by the fairly homogenous, predominantly white sociological community that is far from diverse on viewpoints beside atheism. It is to this group that religiosity was ascribed. 

Once you fix the errors in your post, we can see what's left of your criticism.

well that was completely wrong...like...all of it...every sentence.....damn.

Funny, I thought the same about your post too.

[Excited Penguin]

Delicate, could I maybe ask you, and please respond as simply as you can for now, why do you believe in God and what does the word God even describe in your opinion? Thanks.