A challenge to Statler Waldorf

[Zen Badger]

Again this is, a question for Dr. Smart and the anthropologists who use this system (which is most of them) not me. You are doing nothing to demonstrate how atheism is not a religion though.

And tell me SW, Do ANY of these anthropologists (including Smart) define Atheism as a religion using this system?

(I was going to refute your post point by point but then decided I can't be arsed)

[Shell B]

If atheism is really not a religion then why should atheists enjoy the same religious freedoms as actual religions? Can’t have your cake and eat it too, I am sorry.
Well I am sure you are aware that Secular Humanism was developed by atheists, so not really sure what your point is there. The fact of the matter is that the court in Wisconsin DID conclude atheism was a religion and the Supreme Court DID conclude that religions do not require a belief in a supreme being in order to be classified as religions. You can ignore these facts all you want, but it does not dimension the validity of my argument any.

Of course you will go on an off-topic tangent and fail to produce the quote that you obviously lied about.

Wrong, not all Christians agree on the Christian Narrative, some believe the Earth is old, some believe it is young, some believe God used Evolution, but most do not. I would challenge you to find any atheists who do not believe that life on earth evolved through natural means. Nice try.

You, of course, missed the point. All Christians are followers of the Bible. I have never met one atheist who thinks an atheist's book is the word of a supreme being.

Ahh but you have still read it? Not surprising at all, and unless you were raised by illiterate natives in the jungles of South America you were heavily indoctrinated with Darwinian Theory from grade school on. Try and be honest here.

Ugh. Your grammar. I hate it. Anyway, reading something and learning a theory are different from being indoctrinated.

The fact you are having difficulties keeping up is irrelevant to the validity of my argument.

You think I am having problems "keeping up?" Why don't you stay on topic and state your opinions and "facts" clearly?

Doesn’t matter, not all Christians are interested in evangelism, but most of their leaders are just like the atheistic leaders like Dawkins and Hitchens.

They are writers, not leaders.

He was attacked by individuals. There are a ton of those when it comes to atheism.

Ok, so you do what YOU think is right, that is moral relativism so thanks for proving that point for me. Now if we went through what you think is right I can guarantee it could be traced back to Judeo-Christian ethics. So thanks again.

Way to pretend you were making a different point than you were trying to make. I do what I think is right, not some douche you think is a leader.

Sure there were people who didn’t believe in God even before Christianity, but these people were not part of the atheist religion. The Atheist religion is very young as far as religions go.

There is no atheist religion. Stop being obtuse.

What are you? 13?

Oh, that old schtick. How cute.

Nope but scientists, the judicial system and historians would, and they are who decides what officially counts as a religion or not, try and keep up, I know it’s hard.

You still haven't proven that the judicial system thinks that atheism is a religion. You pulled a bullshit quote out of your ass. I read the findings of the judge in that matter and your bullshit quote was nowhere to be found. Try not to be dishonest and I will try to "keep up" with your obviously superior intellect.

I hold the positive believe that fairies do not exist, I affirm their non-existence. Just like you hold positive belief that God does not exist. Do you not read what I write?

As much as it pains me, I do read the drivel that you post.

Non- sequitur, just because Stalin didn’t define one thing correctly in no way means he defined everything incorrectly. Stalin defined atheism the exact same way you do, I am sorry if that makes your religion look bad but you will learn to live with it.

I do not have a religion, but I hope all the child rapists in yours make you look bad. Oh, and the murderers and those who force children to wage war against their own countrymen. I just love what your religion has done to Africa.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that we concede your proposition "atheism is a religion".

What's the point? What would that demonstrate?

---

Ok for the sake of argument. It would effectively demonstrate how inconsistent many atheist leaders are when they make statements like, "religion poisons everything" or "religion is a crutch for the weak" because they themselves are part of a religion.

---

Everyone should read these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

http://www.atheistrev.com/2010/02/atheis...igion.html

This last one, in particular

One of the most puzzling things about the sort of right-wing Christians currently afflicting the U.S. is that many of them are determined to debase atheism by bringing it down to their level, the level of religion. This has to baffle international observers because it seems that these Christians are defending their religion by arguing that atheism is "just another religion." Indeed, they are trying to have it both ways by simultaneously claiming that religion/faith are wonderful but that atheism is merely another religion/faith.

And this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and...a_religion

In the United States, atheism is considered equivalent to religion under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. In August 2005 the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed previous Supreme Court precedent[12] by ruling atheism was equivalent to a religion for 1st amendment purposes.[13][14] The plaintiff in the case was a prison inmate who was blocked by prison officials from creating an inmate group to study and discuss atheism. The court ruled this violated the inmate's rights under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause.

There are also online churches that have been created by atheists for purposes ranging from parody, advocacy, education, securing legal rights, to ordaining atheist clergy for atheist weddings.

---

I am not trying to have it both ways because I never said that Religion and Faith are good things in themselves, I said Christianity is a good thing. Atheism, even though it is a religion, is not a good thing at all.
Actually the court decided (in their own words) that atheism was the inmate’s religion, not just that it was equivalent from a rights perspective.

---

But that's just a guess and obviously not even an issue as Atheism is not a religion, not at any stretch of the imagination and just makes the people arguing that it is seem even more ignorant than they already are.

---

Good grief, here I spend all that time actually taking the “challenge” of this thread and all I get back are a bunch of posts like this that pretty much just say, “No it’s not because it is just not and you are a big poo-poo head Statler!” I guess I should have saved myself the time and stooped to that level and just answered the thread by saying, “Atheism is a religion because it is one!”

---

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that we concede your proposition "atheism is a religion".

What's the point? What would that demonstrate?

I'd imagine it would make the religious idiots feel better in the sense that as most Atheists are against religion (at the very least against what it is built on (a faith in a god)) they feel it would discredit our arguments against their religion if we were part of a religion ourselves.

But that's just a guess and obviously not even an issue as Atheism is not a religion, not at any stretch of the imagination and just makes the people arguing that it is seem even more ignorant than they already are.

Is it just me but does the whole "Atheism is a religion" accusations are coming from religious people who (generally) ARE religious and are totally incapable of thinking any other way???

Just a thought

---

I have never denied being a religious person, makes it that much easier to recognize other religious people when I see them (atheists).

---

Again this is, a question for Dr. Smart and the anthropologists who use this system (which is most of them) not me. You are doing nothing to demonstrate how atheism is not a religion though.

And tell me SW, Do ANY of these anthropologists (including Smart) define Atheism as a religion using this system?

(I was going to refute your post point by point but then decided I can't be arsed)

---

Anthropology is usually more concerned with the older religions, so I do not know whether they do or not. That would be another question for them, not me. Certainly would be a religion using their system though.
Oh so you were going to refute me but decided against it? Talk is cheap. I guess I should have responded to your challenge with, “I was going to demonstrate beyond a shadow of doubt that atheism is a religion but decided not to waste my time.”

---

---

If atheism is really not a religion then why should atheists enjoy the same religious freedoms as actual religions? Can’t have your cake and eat it too, I am sorry.
Well I am sure you are aware that Secular Humanism was developed by atheists, so not really sure what your point is there. The fact of the matter is that the court in Wisconsin DID conclude atheism was a religion and the Supreme Court DID conclude that religions do not require a belief in a supreme being in order to be classified as religions. You can ignore these facts all you want, but it does not dimension the validity of my argument any.

Of course you will go on an off-topic tangent and fail to produce the quote that you obviously lied about.

---

Everything I said was completely true and you have done nothing to demonstrate otherwise goober.

---

You, of course, missed the point. All Christians are followers of the Bible. I have never met one atheist who thinks an atheist's book is the word of a supreme being.

---

Belief in a supreme being is not a requirement of religion much less a book written by one. Jainism is a religion and believes in no supreme being and has no book. So maybe it is you who are missing the point, again.

---

Ugh. Your grammar. I hate it. Anyway, reading something and learning a theory are different from being indoctrinated.

---

I write in the passive voice a lot, it’s because I am part of the scientific community and that’s how we write. My grammar is completely fine. After all, I am not the one who apparently thinks “Ugh.” is a complete sentence.
Wrong again, being taught only one view on a subject and being tested on that view is definitely a form of indoctrination.

---

You think I am having problems "keeping up?" Why don't you stay on topic and state your opinions and "facts" clearly?

---

No, I know you are having trouble keeping up.

---

They are writers, not leaders.

---

Wrong again…

In 2004, Sam Harris published The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason which became a major bestseller in the USA.[5] This marked the first of a series of bestsellers that took a harder line against religion than had been the custom among these authors. Motivated by the events of September 11, 2001, which he laid directly at the feet of Islam, Harris also directly criticized Christianity and Judaism. Harris also wrote another book in 2006, Letter to a Christian Nation, which was also a severe criticism of Christianity.[6] In 2006, Richard Dawkins published The God Delusion, which was on the New York Times bestseller list for fifty one weeks.[7] Soon after, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel C. Dennett (2006),[8] God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist by Victor J. Stenger (2007),[9] and God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (2007) by Christopher Hitchens[10] were published and became bestsellers. These authors have been recognized as the leaders of the New Atheism movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

---

Way to pretend you were making a different point than you were trying to make. I do what I think is right, not some douche you think is a leader.

---

The leaders of atheism preach moral relativism, you are a moral relativist. So you DO believe what they tell you to believe.

---

There is no atheist religion. Stop being obtuse.

---

Oh the old, “I am right and you are wrong because I said so!” argument. Then you pretend I am the one being obtuse? lol

---

You still haven't proven that the judicial system thinks that atheism is a religion. You pulled a bullshit quote out of your ass. I read the findings of the judge in that matter and your bullshit quote was nowhere to be found. Try not to be dishonest and I will try to "keep up" with your obviously superior intellect.

---

You just won’t ever admit you are wrong will you?

"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=31895
I hate having to go back and re-post things just for the people who have trouble keeping up.

---

I do not have a religion, but I hope all the child rapists in yours make you look bad. Oh, and the murderers and those who force children to wage war against their own countrymen. I just love what your religion has done to Africa.

---

Well you are probably more religious than me. Can you name one Reformed Christian who has raped, murdered, or forced a child to wage war? I doubt it. Yeah those poor people being murdered in the Sudan….wait….those are Christians! Can you really be that naïve?

[reverendjeremiah]

WOW Statler..you are right. Atheism is my religion!

What now? What does that mean for me according to you?

[Shell B]

If atheism is really not a religion then why should atheists enjoy the same religious freedoms as actual religions? Can’t have your cake and eat it too, I am sorry.

Why should religious people have rights that others do not?

the Supreme Court DID conclude that religions do not require a belief in a supreme being in order to be classified as religions. You can ignore these facts all you want, but it does not dimension the validity of my argument any.

You have failed to produce that finding. I'm not ignoring facts. I am requesting that you produce one that is verifiable and not made up.

Everything I said was completely true and you have done nothing to demonstrate otherwise goober.

Actually, I did. I stated that I read the findings of that case and the part that you "quoted" is not in there. Unless you produce that quote, I must assume that I did demonstrate that you were falsifying information, goober.

Can you name one Reformed Christian who has raped, murdered, or forced a child to wage war? I doubt it. Yeah those poor people being murdered in the Sudan….wait….those are Christians! Can you really be that naïve?

"Reformed" or not, you are a Christian, as is Joseph Kony. I'll wait for you to google it.

I did not mention Sudan. Oh, and the people being murdered in Darfur are not all Christians or all Muslims. Just google Shelly Barclay and Darfur. I am sure the number of articles that returns and their content will give you an idea of the amount of research I have done on that topic, just in case you sincerely think I am naive. You know what, I will make it easy for you. Click here.

[Rainydays]

If it's not too late, I'd like to comment. Don't worry it won't be long.

Atheist narrative:

I think this is an unfair conclusion. If an atheist makes a statement at all about origins, it will be what is generally accepted in science. What else are you supposed to do? Not accept science because it is on religious grounds? (Atheism?) Is a Christian who accepts scientific findings a pseudo-atheist? This makes no sense at all.

Experience:

I don't know where that comes from. I don't know people who had some ''atheist'' experience. As a child I was well aware of evolution, but I knew this itself does not disprove just any God. It only disproves some very specific God myths. If Darwinism was IT for you, you must already have been indoctrinated with Christianity. If so, you would only have to refute Christianity, since other beliefs do not matter in Christianity. This is not the same process as a religious experience. If there is such a thing, we will never know it. (How can you notice no God not speak to you?)

Social:

Of course people are going to talk to like minded people and of course they will react if people do not agree with them. How does that make it a religion? It's more a political movement than anything else. If religion was no dominant force in society you would never hear those atheists again. Take a look here. You almost never hear atheists, though there are many. I just think there is a lot of frustration with outspoken atheists.

Doctrine/relativism

There are no tenets in atheism, but you are of course right about secular humanism. The argumentation is weak, because every person on the planet has to get by in society and have some type of morals. Every human must therefore be religious, and every monkey as well. If your morals are not Christian, you must have an underlying reason to be moral. (Christians do have an underlying reason to be moral, they just pretend everything is from the Bible.) In the end, the moral judgements of people are pretty similar, no matter how they call their system. So this only means ''If you thought about it at all, you must be religious.''

Ethics

I pretty much said this above and I do not agree it is a useful measuring instrument.

Rituals

Another case of ''theft.'' Rituals regarding birth, death, and celebration are normal. These rituals are very old and are often social parties or have to do with the harvest or the equinox. Rituals are human. Religions claimed rituals for themselves is all. It is unfair to claim a ritual is religious, unless there are clear religious elements. (Sacrifice to the atheist God)

To conclude, your argumentation is really weak. Some of the things you said apply, but not in a religious manner. It is hard to pin down what religion is, I know. But if it isn't God, it must have something to do with purpose or spiritual life, asking the big questions of sorts. It's very subtle. All I know is this will not hold unless every human must be religious. So you should demonstrate which people are not religious at least, so we know the difference between a non religious human and an atheist.

I do not care what some US court ruled, btw. Politics are politics. People tried to make a smoking church too after the public smoke ban after all.

[lilphil1989]

Actually, I did. I stated that I read the findings of that case and the part that you "quoted" is not in there. Unless you produce that quote, I must assume that I did demonstrate that you were falsifying information, goober.

But the pastor assured him it was there, you didn't really expect he'd checked for himself did you?

[Zen Badger]

---

Again this is, a question for Dr. Smart and the anthropologists who use this system (which is most of them) not me. You are doing nothing to demonstrate how atheism is not a religion though.

And tell me SW, Do ANY of these anthropologists (including Smart) define Atheism as a religion using this system?

(I was going to refute your post point by point but then decided I can't be arsed)

---

Anthropology is usually more concerned with the older religions, so I do not know whether they do or not. That would be another question for them, not me. Certainly would be a religion using their system though.

So, in other words they don't. So much for your argument then.

Oh so you were going to refute me but decided against it? Talk is cheap. I guess I should have responded to your challenge with, “I was going to demonstrate beyond a shadow of doubt that atheism is a religion but decided not to waste my time.”

Since you have signally failed to do so, you have rather wasted your time after all.

[thesummerqueen]

Actually, I did. I stated that I read the findings of that case and the part that you "quoted" is not in there. Unless you produce that quote, I must assume that I did demonstrate that you were falsifying information, goober.

But the pastor assured him it was there, you didn't really expect he'd checked for himself did you?

Rather like that man in TN who knows Einstein supported Creationism, eh?

[lilphil1989]

But Einstein said that "god doesn't play dice".

There, see, he said god, that proves it huurrrr duuurrrr