Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're wasting everybody's time trying to convince everybody that your new definition is the way the world is. Give it up. You are still wrong. Atheism: Belief in zero gods. Nothing to add to the definition, such as "state they know" or anything else.
I see your point, but there are other Atheists that give you and others a bad name because they treat atheism as a religion.
Its standard-bearers swarm across oceans and mountains, propagating a vitriolic doctrine of bigotry and intolerance like a biblical plague. It inculcates its devotees with a fanatical certainty in the verity of its dogma and the simultaneous disdain for all alternative dogma. Of the great religions, only Christianity and Islam can rival the enthusiasm of its proselytizing efforts.
The name of this creed is evangelical atheism. Now, atheism is certainly not a religion, and the phrase “evangelical atheism” certainly appears oxymoronic. But we have witnessed in our time the rise of a virulent strain of atheism championed by Bill Maher.
I see your point, but there are other Atheists that give you and others a bad name because they treat atheism as a religion.
I have never, and will never, post my own religious views on a public forum. I suppose there are a few that try to make atheism something it isn't, but I would guess it is a very small minority.
I agree, it is not religion. It is pseudo-religion.
BTW, it is possible to be religious about un-Godly movements.
Perhaps, but there was no religion or pseudo-religion in that video at all. It's a political statement about the people involved in a particular organization who are a minority and want a voice in changing their world.
Making a joke during a debate is a very good tactic.
It's a great way to respond to a post written with an obvious agenda in order to try to incite or goad others into angry responses. Others may take that bait. I see through it.
It's a great way to respond to a post written with an obvious agenda in order to try to incite or goad others into angry responses. Others may take that bait. I see through it.
Only to you and those who for some reason want to make atheism into something it isn't. Even if it was cult of some kind it would be preaching rationality rather than faith in the unverified. I don't know what you are trying to prove here, but you are on a loser.
And so is that ranter in the Harvard crimson. It is an increasing tide of dissent from the religious con - trick. What it preaches is reason, not delusion, so the attempts to discredit it as a religion (what an insult! ) are futile. Its spokesmen speak reason, not faith - based dogma, so accusations of being 'Popes' are ineffective. The speaking out is needful and justified, so whether the stridency of 'New Atheism' offend or not is beside the point. The religious scam has offended us since the 1700's. Time for us to speak up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
I agree, it is not religion. It is pseudo-religion.
BTW, it is possible to be religious about un-Godly movements.
Only in your own mind and those at pains to smear it. Not in ours. It is no more religion - like than the votes for women or civil rights movement. Even if religious it not a Faith - based religion. It has truth on its side. Religion has only myth. Your argument falls flat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
There are only three options to explain our existence, one is to believe in God, another is agnosticism which states their may be a God but I haven't found proof. The last is atheism where one will state they know God does not exist.
This is not just a non- belief in God but a willful denial of his existence. Agnosticism is where one admits that they do not know if God exists, not having the proof or that there is a personal God who has always existed.
Wrong. Atheism is based on not knowing. Don't know how many times we have said. You can only make your case by making false claims about what atheism says under the 'Well it looks like it to me' act and then proceeds to demolish the false strawman you have set up. It's dishonest and demeaning and does you no credit, even with other theists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
I see your point, but there are other Atheists that give you and others a bad name because they treat atheism as a religion.
Even if that was true, why does it give us a bad name? What have you got against religion? As for us, we can see through the presentation to the message which is not a religion, so it doesn't look bad to us. Just to whom, other than yourself, do you think you are making atheism look bad? (p.s liked the music!)
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-12-2012 at 11:28 AM..
It's a great way to respond to a post written with an obvious agenda in order to try to incite or goad others into angry responses. Others may take that bait. I see through it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) are futile. Its spokesmen speak reason, not faith - based dogma, so accusations of being 'Popes' are ineffective. The speaking out is needful and justified, so whether the stridency of 'New Atheism' offend or not is beside the point. The religious scam has offended us since the 1700's. Time for us to speak up.
