yes atheism is a religion now, and it seems that on this forum many atheist extreamists are trying to convert believers.


do you like it when a religioius person tries to convert you to become one of them? if you dont then i suggest not trying to convert them into one of you.


people are DIFFERENT not all the same. the religious people on this forum are hardly ever hostile towards atheists for not believing, but the atheists are very rude in general when talking about religion to believers,

if you dont believe thats fine if they do believe thats fine, let people have there own opinion, stop bieng so agressive its not needed, what happened to bieng nice to people? toleration obviously is not a factor is it.


to you its fantasy and a little fairy tale about god who created the universe, and god who is all powerful and you think its stupid, well thats fiine but dont expect everyone to think like you, because that stupid god makes some people happy just by believing in him and having faith in him,

if one religious person in your life has hurt you then that is down to that person not everyone who is religious, dont profile people and hate for one persons actions, i am a daoist myself and i have my own beliefs, and there not the same as a christians, but i still respect a christian the same as an atheist,

some scientists are christian and muslim, and they know alot more about science than many atheists do,


peace.

your all obsessed with religion even though you say you think its stupid, you cant stop talking about it, if its so stupid then why are you in the religion forum posting? if i thought something was that stupid then i wouldent pay much attention to it,


but it haunts you doesent it because deep down you want it all to be true and you seek proof that it is true,

you want a heaven and eternal life and are pissed that you think there isnt one, and you will say im full of BS i understand, and i am sorry that you feel this way.


may peace be with you,

your all obsessed with religion even though you say you think its stupid, you cant stop talking about it, if its so stupid then why are you in the religion forum posting?
Usually philosophical reasons or to gain a better understanding of what/why people believe the things they do.
if i thought something was that stupid then i wouldent pay much attention to it,
Personally I don't, that's why I don't post much here so I'll let someone else field this 'cause I'm just bored.:D

but it haunts you doesent it because deep down you want it all to be true and you seek proof that it is true,
This is confusing, you accused people of trying to convert others then suggest they want to be converted themselves. Does that mean they're all failing miserably? I think you have greatly misinterpreted people, most really don't care.
you want a heaven and eternal life and are pissed that you think there isnt one, and you will say im full of BS i understand, and i am sorry that you feel this way.
I think you'd find most people would like to live forever in some way, except the suicidal not many want to die, they have things to live for and do/see. Why would that make anyone angry? If it wasn't for religion we'd have no idea of these concepts anyway so we wouldn't care, which I think is mostly the case anyway as atheists consider death to mean a ceasing of brain function without awareness death has even occured. Hey maybe we're just pissed off now 'cause we can't be later?:p

yes atheism is a religion now,

Really? To what supernatural agent do atheists appeal? That, my friend, is a necessary component of "religion."

do you like it when a religioius person tries to convert you to become one of them? if you dont then i suggest not trying to convert them into one of you.

The only thing that atheists have attempted to convert the religious to in this forum is rationalism. They can keep whatever gods they wish, but they don't get to make bullshit claims about their superstitions and not get criticized for them.

if you dont believe thats fine if they do believe thats fine, let people have there own opinion, stop bieng so agressive its not needed, what happened to bieng nice to people? toleration obviously is not a factor is it.

Their "opinion" is getting pushed on me. All the time. I can't go to the supermarket without having some cashier try to proselytize me. The religiously deluded want their delusions codified in government and law. They want their superstitions to be taught in schools in place of science. Given the opportunity, they'd like to have it illegal to question their superstitions and criticize the behaviors and policies that result from their superstitions (I'm referring to a recent U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/30/news/UN-GEN-UN-Islam.php)).

The pages of SciForums are heavily googled and referenced by other search engines, thus, many people land here that never actually join as members who are curious about topics of religion and are wondering if religion is all its cracked up to be. They deserve to have reasoned and logical responses available to address the many religiously deluded that feel the need to post their delusions at a science website.

to you its fantasy and a little fairy tale about god who created the universe, and god who is all powerful and you think its stupid, well thats fiine but dont expect everyone to think like you, because that stupid god makes some people happy just by believing in him and having faith in him,

And the deluded are welcome to their delusions. Particularly if their delusions work for them. More power to them. But if they dare enter a public forum and make claims about their delusions and the superstitions that surround these delusions, they better be prepared for some criticism and downright ridicule. I'm yearning for the day when its the religious nutter that keeps his/her delusions private for fear of ridicule just as the UFO nutter does. Or the witchcraft nutter. Or the nutbar that gets his jollies wearing women's underwear. Such wild fantasies should be an embarrassment.


if one religious person in your life has hurt you then that is down to that person not everyone who is religious, dont profile people and hate for one persons actions, i am a daoist myself and i have my own beliefs, and there not the same as a christians, but i still respect a christian the same as an atheist,

I have lots of respect for Christians. Enough that I'm willing to capitalize their moniker, in fact. Indeed, I've enough respect for you that I'm careful to mind my spelling and grammar. But I don't have to respect anyone's belief simply because its their belief. Particularly when this belief has a profound and lasting effect on me and mine as I mentioned above. Moreover, I don't buy into the silly taboo that its okay to criticize someone's politics, their economic beliefs, or even their clothing styles, but somehow their religious superstitions are off-limits. That's pure bollocks. Particularly if they're willing to come to a science forum and make poppycock claims about their superstition.

some scientists are christian and muslim, and they know alot more about science than many atheists do,

Too bad they don't post here. But your non sequitur aside (it doesn't follow that a delusion becomes valid simply because they posses knowledge about another topic), the nutbars that visit this site are doing so because they want to argue against atheists. If there were no atheists here, the nutbars wouldn't bother. But the atheists would still post. We would be discussing among ourselves the impact that religious delusion is having on science and politics and what might be done about it. Which is what we should be focused on here instead of the incessant bickering back and forth between the reasoned and the deluded. Which, thus, brings us to the likely reason for religious nutbars posting her to begin with: to filibuster criticism of their superstitions.

Lastly, if you dislike reading the posts of atheists, agnostics, and other secular people, go to freethoughts or the cesspool, or one of the other many forums on this board.

Its very important to have 90% of human population converted into Atheist if we want to unite the world.

If humans dont unite the world then Singularity will take over.

i suggest not trying to convert them into one of you.

When religions stop being missionary kind, atheists will stop trying to convert others too.

I think it is a fair deal. So you go first... :)

Really? To what supernatural agent do atheists appeal? That, my friend, is a necessary component of "religion." Most definitions do involve 'supernatural agents'. However, I think EFoC is legitimately using "religion" in the wider sense of (quote from Lindbeck cited in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#Definition_of_religion))

"...a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought….” According to this definition, religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions.."

There's another good definition of the word in it's wider (and etymologically more correct) sense from http://www.nmhschool.org/ (http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/world_religions_working_definiti.htm)

RELIGION (Latin: religio, ligo, "to bind together") A way of seeing, thinking, and acting inspired by questions about what things mean: i.e. Where did we come from?, What is our destiny?, What is true?, What is false?, What is my duty or obligation?, What is the meaning of suffering?, What is the meaning of death?, How shall we live? (Ezekiel 33:10)

These are questions we are all trying to find answers to. Atheism is more parsimonious than many theistic religions, but may also therefore be over-simplistic. It's a question of taste in the end!

I'm yearning for the day when its the religious nutter that keeps his/her delusions private for fear of ridicule just as the UFO nutter does. Or the witchcraft nutter. Or the nutbar that gets his jollies wearing women's underwear. Such wild fantasies should be an embarrassment.

I have lots of respect for Christians. Enough that I'm willing to capitalize their moniker, in fact.

Don't you contradict yourself here SW - or are Christians not among the "religious nutters" who should be embarrassed by their wild fantasies? ;)

Usually philosophical reasons or to gain a better understanding of what/why people believe the things they do.

Personally I don't, that's why I don't post much here so I'll let someone else field this 'cause I'm just bored.:D


This is confusing, you accused people of trying to convert others then suggest they want to be converted themselves. Does that mean they're all failing miserably? I think you have greatly misinterpreted people, most really don't care.

I think you'd find most people would like to live forever in some way, except the suicidal not many want to die, they have things to live for and do/see. Why would that make anyone angry? If it wasn't for religion we'd have no idea of these concepts anyway so we wouldn't care, which I think is mostly the case anyway as atheists consider death to mean a ceasing of brain function without awareness death has even occured. Hey maybe we're just pissed off now 'cause we can't be later?:p


ok i accept that the first and second.


i did not say people want to be converted it is not contradictory, i said deep down atheists want there to be a god, and i believe this is true i think thats where alot of anger comes from "fear of death" religious people are more at ease with there own demise from this world than you atheists, and it makes them less hostile towards atheists,


yes i believe that alot of athiests are just "pissed off" and they take it out on religious folk. inner peace is easy to spot in somebody. and most atheists do not have it, believing in god/s makes one happyer this is the truth, and i think in a way the blissful so called ignorance and happyness of most religious people annoys atheists.


peace.

Really? To what supernatural agent do atheists appeal? That, my friend, is a necessary component of "religion."

[...]

Lastly, if you dislike reading the posts of atheists, agnostics, and other secular people, go to freethoughts or the cesspool, or one of the other many forums on this board.

why does a supernatural agenda have to be affiliated with a religious mindset and group mentality of following?



and i suppose rationalism as you put it, consists of verbaly attacking belief systems, bieng rude and throwing a little online tantrum cursing people for what they believe in because its different to your system? i dont believe in the big bang theory and its entire premise, i hink its a crock of shit, but i am not personaly insulting you for believing in it am i, because bieng polite and calm in my eyes is "rational" bieng a jerk isnt,


you said

"The religiously deluded want their delusions codified in government and law. They want their superstitions to be taught in schools"

and i suppose you want it different for your atheist beliefs yes? i think not my friend you are a hypocrite. your big bang theory was taught to me at school and i got in trouble and bad test scores for saying i think it might not be true, scientific theory is not solid fact yet it is taught as if it was sometimes,


why do you have to ridicule and mock people though? you said they should be ready for it, think they should be ready for a debate and clash of polite opinions, not a bombardment of assualts. do you really think to a neautral onlooker you look any different to those that you mock? i dont reside in camp religion or camp atheist, and i watch you both with interest, your not that different in spirit, you just think different things,


a wise man is polite and shows respect.

you said if i dislike reading the posts of atheists i should go to the cesspool and free thoughts section. you again are bieng a hypocrite. firstly i am expressing my opinion in a calm way not trying to bully anybody. secondly you are the one posting in a religious forum, you say you dont like this but you are here telling me to go away?

peace.

yes atheism is a religion now...
In the sense that "I don't play football" is a football team, I suppose.


but it haunts you doesent it because deep down you want it all to be true and you seek proof that it is true,

you want a heaven and eternal life and are pissed that you think there isnt one, and you will say im full of BS i understand, and i am sorry that you feel this way.

Do you believe that what I want to be true has any bearing whatsoever on what is true? Demosthenes said it back in 300 B.C.: "Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true."

That's the thing about most religious people that I just can't respect - they don't really seem to care about truth. If they want something to be true because they find it appealing, they simply throw any concern for truth out the window and start believing it. I think truth is very important, and sacrificing truth simply to make yourself happy is the coward's way out.

You see it all the time when you talk to religious people. When they find out you're an atheist, they always (in my experience, anyway) act shocked and say things like "But don't you want eternal life???" As if they expect me to respond "Why yes, I do. Since I want it, I suppose I'll start believing I'll get it."

If you consider "inner peace" to be more important than truth, then I suppose believing in religion would be a very good bargain, but personally I don't think that inner peace is worth it if you have to surrender truth to obtain it.

i said deep down atheists want there to be a god

Which one? Or do you just mean some impersonal higher power that zapped the universe into existence? If it's the former: not at all, if it's the latter: who cares?

inner peace is easy to spot in somebody. and most atheists do not have it,

What are qualities of "inner peace" and how do you quantify the claim that "most atheists do not have it." Please elucidate. I'm curious how a self-described "Daoist" who also admits to violating the law by keeping illegal firearms qualifies and quantifies "inner peace."

why does a supernatural agenda have to be affiliated with a religious mindset and group mentality of following?

Simple. I'm an anthropologist. In order to make the term "religion" useful as a descriptor, it needs to have a useful definition. By assigning the colloquial and distinctly non-academic description of "religion" to any human activity that is done repetitively or diligently, you end up with a useless definition that can be made to fit any human activity that involves at least one person. Baseball, poker, housecleaning, reading the newspaper, and picking one's nose can, thus, be qualified as religions under your loose and un-informed definition.

I agree, wholeheartedly, that the trope of religion can be given to any human activity in order to demonstrate the participant's diligence and passion exceeds that of other, more general participants. "He person with a religious devotion in picking his nose," is a useful description in that it separates the subject from the rest of us. We know that such a person will regularly and routinely pick his nose and perhaps with great care and attention to detail. But it would be absurd to refer to his activity as an actual "religion." The term, in this case is a trope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trope).

It may also be useful (I will readily admit) to refer to some atheists as religious in their willingness to share their opinions with others. I can accept that description as adequate and accurate of myself. But it is folly to suggest that because such tropes are useful and accurate, that they equate to actually being able to define atheism as a religion in the true sense.

The most accurate and useful definition of religion is the one that includes the perception that the participant is appeasing or appealing to a supernatural agent or agency.

and i suppose rationalism as you put it, consists of verbaly attacking belief systems, bieng rude and throwing a little online tantrum cursing people for what they believe in because its different to your system?

Tantrums? Cursing? Please click the "report post" button on these so I can moderate these. Of course, its more likely that you're referring to those posts that dare question and criticize those deluded by various religious superstitions. If so, then, yes, rationalism does include criticism. Those that are offended by their beliefs being questioned call it "verbally attacking" and "being rude." The rational, however, consider it to be valid criticism and inquiry. The former is offended because the rational bring up salient points to which they have difficulty rationalizing. Indeed, they have only tautology, circular reasoning and complete and utter devotion to delusion to offer in their defense.

i dont believe in the big bang theory and its entire premise, i hink its a crock of shit, but i am not personaly insulting you for believing in it am i, because bieng polite and calm in my eyes is "rational" bieng a jerk isnt,

I don't believe in continually misspelling words and violating grammatical conventions just because I'm on the internet. But I'm no more "personally insulting you" about it than you did me in the preceding paragraph. Indeed, I'm quite calm about it. Moreover, what evidence do you have that I "believe in the big bang theory?" Could it be that you are making a logical fallacy by creating a strawman and an assumption that isn't relevant to the discussion?


you said

"The religiously deluded want their delusions codified in government and law. They want their superstitions to be taught in schools"

and i suppose you want it different for your atheist beliefs yes? i think not my friend you are a hypocrite. your big bang theory was taught to me at school and i got in trouble and bad test scores for saying i think it might not be true, scientific theory is not solid fact yet it is taught as if it was sometimes,

I suspect it was other considerations and the way you said it "might not be true" that earned you bad marks in school (but then I've said I'd not insult you about your grammar and spelling, so I'll abstain from going there). But your logical fallacy continues in the belief that acceptance of the big bang as a theory for the beginning of the universe is an atheistic belief; that big bang=atheism and vice versa. Interestingly enough, the difference between those deluded by religious superstition and those who accept the big bang as the best explanation for the beginning of the universe as we currently understand it is this: those deluded by superstition admit that their doctrine cannot change -ever; those that accept the big bang admit that it might not be true and are open to new, better explanations. Indeed, the latter are even looking for them!


why do you have to ridicule and mock people though? you said they should be ready for it, think they should be ready for a debate and clash of polite opinions, not a bombardment of assualts.

Ridicule and satire are valid and well-accepted forms of social critique and commentary. Look through any daily newspaper and you'll see political cartoons that satirize political decisions and failures. This is ridicule. And it is very effective. I think the problem is that you confuse my comment about 'ridicule' to include out-right "bashing" of the innocent. I'm not advocating that people approach someone with a "Jesus Saves" bumpersticker next to their silly fish and shout "ha, ha! You're a Dummy for believing that nonsense!"

I am, however, advocating strongly that it is completely appropriate to apply a Darwin Fish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_fish) to the back of their car. And I find the FSM to be a fine example of parody and satire, another form of ridicule.

a wise man is polite and shows respect.

A wiser man still understands how to effectively use parody and satire, forms of ridicule, to illustrate the silliness of the fool.

you said if i dislike reading the posts of atheists i should go to the cesspool and free thoughts section. you again are bieng a hypocrite. firstly i am expressing my opinion in a calm way not trying to bully anybody. secondly you are the one posting in a religious forum, you say you dont like this but you are here telling me to go away?

I'm merely pointing you in directions that you might find less conflict for your "inner peace." Your baseless and inaccurate assessments that I'm a hypocrite notwithstanding, I rather hope you stay and discuss. The discussions, however, will likely be those which you claim to dislike to read.

Tough, if someone you know converts to atheism - too damn bad. Conversely, if someone "finds" Jesus, too damn bad.

The right for me to extend my fist ends at you're nose.

i did not say people want to be converted it is not contradictory, i said deep down atheists want there to be a god, and i believe this is true i think thats where alot of anger comes from "fear of death" religious people are more at ease with there own demise from this world than you atheists, and it makes them less hostile towards atheists,
Why would they want there to be a god? Someone to blame for the misfortune? I don't know many atheists that fear death as such, for they don't believe they will feel anything, they will cease to be, how can that bring fear except fear of the unexpected, a state of being that cannot be experienced or imagined until you reach it at which point you won't even know you're in that state. Religious people feel the same fear of the unexpected. As for hostility I think you need to take another look around, most religions are very hostile towards non-believers.

yes i believe that alot of athiests are just "pissed off" and they take it out on religious folk. inner peace is easy to spot in somebody. and most atheists do not have it, believing in god/s makes one happyer this is the truth, and i think in a way the blissful so called ignorance and happyness of most religious people annoys atheists.


peace.
They take it out on anyone who wishes to get in their way, much like everyone else would. I think you're far too general to seperate emotions using religion as a base. You might well however be right about the correlation between ignorance and happiness. I for one would rather not be more stupid in exchange for happiness. A persons happiness is unlikely to annoy me, their stupidity might.

people are DIFFERENT not all the same. the religious people on this forum are hardly ever hostile towards atheists for not believing, but the atheists are very rude in general when talking about religion to believers,
A collection of science forums hardly seems like a good place to find tactful atheists who respect people's belief in what is, from a scientific standpoint, pure fantasy.

If I were to post on some fundie evangelistic Christian forum about my atheistic beliefs I wouldn't expect people there to just say "Nice to meet you, and I completely respect your beliefs.", I expect they'd try to convert me and treat me like a poor lost soul while rattling off Bible verses about how I'll find God if I just open my eyes to "the truth".
but it haunts you doesent it because deep down you want it all to be true and you seek proof that it is true,
Don't pretend to have some deep insight into the atheist mind, because chances are you'll be completely wrong. What you just said is no different than me saying the only reason you believe in God is because you're scared and can't cope with life without an imaginary friend helping you along.

Einstein's Equation of Christian Salvation (on Faith Alone)
by Christenstein
Not only is that one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read, but it makes absolutely no sense at all. You're gonna have to do a LOT better than that to have any hope of peaking people's interest.

If I were to post on some fundie evangelistic Christian forum about my atheistic beliefs I wouldn't expect people there to just say "Nice to meet you, and I completely respect your beliefs.", I expect they'd try to convert me and treat me like a poor lost soul while rattling off Bible verses about how I'll find God if I just open my eyes to "the truth".

I actually went to one for a laugh and got banned after my first post which said; "Hi, I'm an atheist". Makes you wonder.

Atheists try to convert others by any means possible, they've even written their own books and came up with their own propaganda.....like FSM and the Invisible Pink Unicorn...they'll try anything to convert others....

Atheists try to convert others by any means possible, they've even written their own books and came up with their own propaganda.....like FSM and the Invisible Pink Unicorn...they'll try anything to convert others....

*************
M*W: I don't know if you have a reading comprehension problem or if you just can't read. Once again, atheists don't aim to convert anyone. Converting one to atheism is not something we do to others. Becoming an atheist can only be done by oneself when the time is right. We do, however, point out bible contradictions, compare christianity with ancient myths, show where the bible has more than 3000 errors and mistakes. We don't invite you to join atheist groups unless you show an interest. We can't make you believe anything, and we don't try. We will make sure that we provide you with the truth about religion, but what you do with that information is up to you. It took me a lot of years to go from being christian to being an atheist. I fought it as hard as you all do. Then one day, like a lightbulb went on in my head, I realized that there was no god, no Jesus, no salvation and no true religion. Then everything fell into place for me. That block that I had blinding me from the truth finally disappeared. But other than that, it is not up to us to convert anyone. It was hard and long enough to see the light for ourselves. So, I don't want to hear anymore bullshit from christians saying that atheists try to convert them. It's just not true.

Atheists try to convert others by any means possible, they've even written their own books and came up with their own propaganda.....like FSM and the Invisible Pink Unicorn...they'll try anything to convert others....

You're mistaking criticism and ridicule for proselytizing. Do you really think that any of the deluded masses who buy into religious superstition are in the least bit swayed by Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, the FSM or the IPU? Did you find yourself doubting your faith, VO?

I don't want to get off topic, but an off topic consequence took place.

I.E. Big Bang=Atheist...

This is not so EmptyForceOfChi. here's a thread started by an atheist, and battled for several pages against the BB theory!
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51188

Atheists try to convert others by any means possible, they've even written their own books and came up with their own propaganda.....like FSM and the Invisible Pink Unicorn...they'll try anything to convert others....

I tell you what, although you'll find the majority of atheists will disagree with you and indeed explain why, I shall take a different stance for the sake of this discussion.

Here it comes..

I agree with you 100%. We're all out to convert people. Now.. could you please explain the problem with that and then go about explaining that very same problem to all the christians that have a duty to try and convert others?

What exactly is your beef with people trying to convert you?

P.S I shall be knocking on your door next week.

.... Now.. could you please explain the problem with that and then go about explaining that very same problem to all the christians that have a duty to try and convert others?....


I agree with this , there r many religion that also force people to get converted.

Any bad words for such people are not enough.

Atheists try to convert others by any means possible, they've even written their own books and came up with their own propaganda.....like FSM and the Invisible Pink Unicorn...they'll try anything to convert others....

You will be assimiliated! You WILL join the collective...:rolleyes:

How dare anyone question faith, religious texts and dogma! How dare anyone write those questions down! How dare anyone actually think for themselves instead of being a sheep and following what they are told to follow! Only religious books must ever be published...:rolleyes:

No one is trying to convert anyone to atheism. Atheism cannot be converted to as one would convert to a religion.

An atheist is something each person becomes as an individual. No one can be forced to no longer believe, nor can they be convinced to do so. Just as an atheist cannot be forced or convinced that there is a God.

I can't go up to a believer and tell them they must now stop believing. Kind of pathetic if you think it so.

Atheism is not a religion. We do not send out missionaries to knock on people's doors to discuss atheism and why it is 'for you'. You're all clutching at straws.

Atheism is not a religion. We do not send out missionaries to knock on people's doors to discuss atheism and why it is 'for you'. You're all clutching at straws.

Wrong there you are lady.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV-a1vmZ6y8

I, personally believe in not believing…it’s my faith of non-faith.
Reason be damned!!!!

I once met someone who did not believe in Ghosts.
I labeled him the believer in not believing in ghosts.
This made me feel better and it also made it seem like his skepticism, derived through critical thought and reason, was no different than my lack of skepticism derived through emotional reasoning and stupidity.

I once went to buy a car and told the salesman that I sent the money in the mail.
The guy did not trust me and so showed little faith in my words.

I told him to prove that I did not send the money in the mail…he could not.

I left with a brand new car.
I don’t know what happened to the money. It’s being metaphysically withheld because the guy was, obviously, a doubter and a sinner - serves him right to place his trust on man’s words.

Wrong there you are lady.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV-a1vmZ6y8

if she is wrong , then can u tell me about the customs traditions and books to be followed in Atheism ?




BTW, i wonder whats in that link.

The whole point was for you to look at the video on the link! This way you can understand the SARCASM!! DUH

What are qualities of "inner peace" and how do you quantify the claim that "most atheists do not have it." Please elucidate. I'm curious how a self-described "Daoist" who also admits to violating the law by keeping illegal firearms qualifies and quantifies "inner peace."



Simple. I'm an anthropologist. In order to make the term "religion" useful as a descriptor, it needs to have a useful definition. By assigning the colloquial and distinctly non-academic description of "religion" to any human activity that is done repetitively or diligently, you end up with a useless definition that can be made to fit any human activity that involves at least one person. Baseball, poker, housecleaning, reading the newspaper, and picking one's nose can, thus, be qualified as religions under your loose and un-informed definition.

I agree, wholeheartedly, that the trope of religion can be given to any human activity in order to demonstrate the participant's diligence and passion exceeds that of other, more general participants. "He person with a religious devotion in picking his nose," is a useful description in that it separates the subject from the rest of us. We know that such a person will regularly and routinely pick his nose and perhaps with great care and attention to detail. But it would be absurd to refer to his activity as an actual "religion." The term, in this case is a trope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trope).

It may also be useful (I will readily admit) to refer to some atheists as religious in their willingness to share their opinions with others. I can accept that description as adequate and accurate of myself. But it is folly to suggest that because such tropes are useful and accurate, that they equate to actually being able to define atheism as a religion in the true sense.

The most accurate and useful definition of religion is the one that includes the perception that the participant is appeasing or appealing to a supernatural agent or agency.



Tantrums? Cursing? Please click the "report post" button on these so I can moderate these. Of course, its more likely that you're referring to those posts that dare question and criticize those deluded by various religious superstitions. If so, then, yes, rationalism does include criticism. Those that are offended by their beliefs being questioned call it "verbally attacking" and "being rude." The rational, however, consider it to be valid criticism and inquiry. The former is offended because the rational bring up salient points to which they have difficulty rationalizing. Indeed, they have only tautology, circular reasoning and complete and utter devotion to delusion to offer in their defense.



I don't believe in continually misspelling words and violating grammatical conventions just because I'm on the internet. But I'm no more "personally insulting you" about it than you did me in the preceding paragraph. Indeed, I'm quite calm about it. Moreover, what evidence do you have that I "believe in the big bang theory?" Could it be that you are making a logical fallacy by creating a strawman and an assumption that isn't relevant to the discussion?




I suspect it was other considerations and the way you said it "might not be true" that earned you bad marks in school (but then I've said I'd not insult you about your grammar and spelling, so I'll abstain from going there). But your logical fallacy continues in the belief that acceptance of the big bang as a theory for the beginning of the universe is an atheistic belief; that big bang=atheism and vice versa. Interestingly enough, the difference between those deluded by religious superstition and those who accept the big bang as the best explanation for the beginning of the universe as we currently understand it is this: those deluded by superstition admit that their doctrine cannot change -ever; those that accept the big bang admit that it might not be true and are open to new, better explanations. Indeed, the latter are even looking for them!



Ridicule and satire are valid and well-accepted forms of social critique and commentary. Look through any daily newspaper and you'll see political cartoons that satirize political decisions and failures. This is ridicule. And it is very effective. I think the problem is that you confuse my comment about 'ridicule' to include out-right "bashing" of the innocent. I'm not advocating that people approach someone with a "Jesus Saves" bumpersticker next to their silly fish and shout "ha, ha! You're a Dummy for believing that nonsense!"

I am, however, advocating strongly that it is completely appropriate to apply a Darwin Fish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_fish) to the back of their car. And I find the FSM to be a fine example of parody and satire, another form of ridicule.



A wiser man still understands how to effectively use parody and satire, forms of ridicule, to illustrate the silliness of the fool.



I'm merely pointing you in directions that you might find less conflict for your "inner peace." Your baseless and inaccurate assessments that I'm a hypocrite notwithstanding, I rather hope you stay and discuss. The discussions, however, will likely be those which you claim to dislike to read.

firstly dont take everything personal, this thread is not directed at you so you cannot take it personaly. i have never said "all" atheists, i said "many".
inner peace has nothing to do with guns :). personal protection gives me inner peace sometimes .


maybe religion is a broad term and we are not seeing eye to eye on the definition. as a group of people with the same belief system and way of life, following the same rule and faith that when you die there is no heaven and afterlife, and there is no god, to me is a type of religious mindset, i would call pagonism a religion also, maybe you wouldent and fair enough i respect that, and maybe it cannot describe atheism as a whole, this is true and i can agree, but i am also if you read my OP not putting all atheists in the same basket.



and i was not accusing you personaly of throwing tantrums, but i am accusing many atheists of throwing them, i could quote and paste some if you dont believe it? but i think we both know that is not needed and have seen it many times on the forum. as i said before do not take every sentance personaly, because this is not directed at a single person, you may be very polite in debate but many who share your beliefs are unfortunatly not the same,


and insulting me through polite coyness is fine with me, as you might notice i do not pride myself in grammer punctuation or spelling errors as i do not read through my own posts to correct myself, i do not use correct grammer in some situations on purpose, as shocking as it may sound i do know how to produce capital letters use periods/full stops hyphenate and use apostrophies, but all i do is use the odd dot to break down sentances so peole can read it, but i do admit to not bieng the best at spelling :).



finaly i am not treading down your use of ridicule, although parody and ridicule are not the only way to win a debate,


you seem to be taking everything a bit personal when i am addressing atheists in mass not individuals, read my original post for conformation if you have forgotten.


ps, i get the impression some people think i believe in god and am religious. well my retort is sorry i am not, i keep an open mind and am not that quick to think i know the mystery of the universe, i am neutral in the god camp. maybe maybe not who am i to say about such matters?


peace.

maybe religion is a broad term and we are not seeing eye to eye on the definition. as a group of people with the same belief system and way of life, following the same rule and faith that when you die there is no heaven and afterlife, and there is no god, to me is a type of religious mindset,There is no BELIEF SYSTEM for atheism.
Atheism is just "I do not have a belief in God".
It covers a vast array of people WITH and WITHOUT differing belief systems. The only common thing is a lack of belief in God.

i would call pagonism a religion alsoAs would pagans. :rolleyes:

ps, i get the impression some people think i believe in god and am religious. well my retort is sorry i am not, i keep an open mind and am not that quick to think i know the mystery of the universe, i am neutral in the god camp. maybe maybe not who am i to say about such matters?Which would make you an atheist. Congratulations on admitting it.

i am neutral in the god camp.

Hate to disagree with you Sarkus, the above would make him agnostic wouldn't it?

An agnostic is a intellectual coward, the decision of god is not only one of knowledge but also of acceptance, does one accept the assumptions of theist or does one deny them, do to lack of any credible evidence that such an entity exists, the agnostic is afraid to make a choice, one either accepts an assertion or does not, one can't just claim, (I don't know) when one is simply asking do you or don't you believe in X. Taking the middle ground is a cowardly move so others don't judge as "atheist" nor completely theistic, just an unsure, confused, individual or that the truth may never be known.

At the time Huxley coined the word "agnostic" it was a way to separate himself from religious rhetoric, and yet make himself appear to not discredit religious assertions, thus he apparently doubts god exists, but cowardly to admit it, for being prosecuted by religious nuts of his day!

Hate to disagree with you Sarkus, the above would make him agnostic wouldn't it? Undoubtedly also an agnostic, yes.

Theism / Atheism is a different aspect to religion than Agnosticism, and the two can be combined. They are not just differing points on the same line.
One is about belief (and only about belief) and the other is about knowledge.

I am an Agnostic Atheist.
My atheism is reached primarily through my agnosticism.


I appreciate that many consider Agnosticism the "middle ground" between theism and atheism - but it really isn't - especially when you accept that Atheism is "an absence of positive belief in God".

If Atheism only meant "I believe that God does not exist" then okay - I'd be happy to take Agnosticism as the middle ground.

But Atheism doesn't just mean that.
Atheism is merely an absence of the positive belief in God - whether you have a positive belief in God's non-existence or not.


My point in considering him an Atheist was in part to try and demonstrate how the term ATHEISM should not automatically be associated with the "strong atheism" of the "belief in non-existence" camp.
The majority of atheists are "weak atheists" - the "non-belief in existence" camp.
And the majority of these weak atheists are also agnostics.


I guess we could argue about what "Atheism" really means (strong .v. weak etc) and thus where Agnosticism fits, but that's a different thread entirely. :)

I guess we could argue about what "Atheism" really means (strong .v. weak etc) and thus where Agnosticism fits, but that's a different thread entirely.

Surely and I think we've done that here a few times already. I've said it before, we are all unaware of the existence of such entity or not, thus atheism on my part is not about knowledge it's about denying theist's assumptions. All else breaks down to merely semantics and what new meanings we have given to the word. I've never had heard of "weak/strong atheist" till I came here to Sciforums, however for reasons that make sense to me, I'm with you on being a 'weak atheist' cause the strong atheist stance leaves him/her exactly where the theist stance is, an assumption that such asupreme entity is knowable and that it does exists, while the strong atheist not only denies it's existence but by claiming so, it's asserting he/she knows what god is!

My belief in unbelieving is versatile.

When told to believe in what I do not see or another can provide no rational evidence, my skepticism becomes my faith.

Hate to disagree with you Sarkus, the above would make him agnostic wouldn't it?

An agnostic is a intellectual coward, the decision of god is not only one of knowledge but also of acceptance,
At the time Huxley coined the word "agnostic" it was a way to separate himself from religious rhetoric, and yet make himself appear to not discredit religious assertions, thus he apparently doubts god exists, but cowardly to admit it, for being prosecuted by religious nuts of his day!

Hold on a second there, Cochese. I'm agnostic. I doubt that God exists too but I have no problem letting anyone know my beliefs. If a theist tries to give me shit about it, he/she can go f-him/herself.
I think religion is a big crock of shit, but on the flipside, who's to say that a supernatural deity of some sort doesn't exist? It's possible, albeit unlikely. I do think we were intelligently designed (even if it was by an advanced race of extraterrestrials (like the plot in 'Mission to Mars')). We are too complex and intelligent to not have been. I sternly believe in evolution as well, but that had to start somewhere too. I find it wierd that life would just sprout up out of nothing.

There is no BELIEF SYSTEM for atheism.
Atheism is just "I do not have a belief in God".
It covers a vast array of people WITH and WITHOUT differing belief systems. The only common thing is a lack of belief in God.

As would pagans. :rolleyes:

Which would make you an atheist. Congratulations on admitting it.

implicit or explicit atheism is the only difference between atheists, it kinda seems like it might be a new religion in the future to me, with collection plates preachers churches and all :).


seen that southpark episode "go god go"?

peace.

Hate to disagree with you Sarkus, the above would make him agnostic wouldn't it?

An agnostic is a intellectual coward, the decision of god is not only one of knowledge but also of acceptance, does one accept the assumptions of theist or does one deny them, do to lack of any credible evidence that such an entity exists, the agnostic is afraid to make a choice, one either accepts an assertion or does not, one can't just claim, (I don't know) when one is simply asking do you or don't you believe in X. Taking the middle ground is a cowardly move so others don't judge as "atheist" nor completely theistic, just an unsure, confused, individual or that the truth may never be known.

At the time Huxley coined the word "agnostic" it was a way to separate himself from religious rhetoric, and yet make himself appear to not discredit religious assertions, thus he apparently doubts god exists, but cowardly to admit it, for being prosecuted by religious nuts of his day!




hey thats kinda harsh dont you think?. i wouldent call myself a coward for staying neutral. i am not an athiest i am not a theist, i am a daoist (well i try to be but sometimes i fail).

if i find true reason to one day say "hey i know there is no god," then i will be an athiest like you guys, and if one day i find a true reason to say "hey i know there is a god," then i will turn to religion, but for now in the words of cartman, screw you guys, im going home,


peace.