I am not religious. Can you please categorize Atheism into a "race"?

[Quantess]

[msongs]

1. does "race to the top" count? nt

[libdem4life]

2. Not sure but I think this may not be the place for that discussion.

[footinmouth]

3. Heathen

Same as me

[onehandle]

4. Atheism is a religion.

Agnostic is not religious.

[LiberalAndProud]

10. Kindly educate yourself.

[onehandle]

12. Atheism is an absolute.

Last edited Sat Nov 28, 2015, 04:29 PM - Edit history (3)

Agnostic is open minded in a scientific way.

Atheists preach their faith to others, gather to worship, and have churches. Agnostics look for answers or not.

[LiberalAndProud]

13. Your outlook is ridiculous.

Agnostics are weak kneed believers. As soon as evidence is presented, I'll believe that a deity is likely. There is better evidence for Santa Claus.

I don't worship. I do understand why some people seek out like minded community. That isn't worship. Don't bother to respond. I won't see it.

[Snobblevitch]

14. I agree. If atheists gather and talk about their

'nonbelief', then they are Aprwcticing a religion.

[beam me up scottie]

17. What an incredibly ignorant statement. What do atheists worship?

[MADem]

43. What do Shinto practicioners worship?

It's still a religion.

[beam me up scottie]

44. That's a right wing Christian myth, Consevapedia and FreeRepublic claim atheism is a religion too.

I just love seeing religious bigots' talking points on DU.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_is_a_religion

[hifiguy]

101. DU now seems to feature a reichwing meme of the day.

[beam me up scottie]

102. I noticed that too. Makes you wonder where else these people hang out.

[beam me up scottie]

45. What do we worship?

Atheists gather to worship

[MADem]

47. You'd have to ask those people at all those Sunday Assemblies.

I'll bet there are a lot of viewpoints in those Atheist Churches.

[beam me up scottie]

49. That poster said we worship and you argued the point so I'm asking you.

What do we worship?

[MADem]

50. I wasn't the one who said "They gather to worship."

I said to you "You'd have to ask those people in the Sunday Assemblies."

I think that's a pretty clear statement.

See, I don't presume to know what EVERY atheist thinks. All I know is that the atheists I know BELIEVE that there is no deity, and it doesn't bother them to couch their belief in lack of belief in those terms.

It's only here on DU that I see all the huffery and puffery over that language and that oft-repeated mantra about TV channel/off and bald/hair color (bald is listed as a hair color on many official documents--so that kinda blows that one out of the water, too).

Every atheist I know believes that if Thor or Zeus or Jesus or Muhamad appeared before them and said "Hey dude, you were wrong," they would change their beliefs. They wouldn't persist in holding the belief that there's no deity. It seems like a sensible attitude, to have an ability to be flexible in the face of evidence.

[beam me up scottie]

52. Then why did you answer for them?

bald is listed as a hair color on many official documents

I don't know anyone who thinks the lack of any hair is a hair colour.

Sounds like something a delusional person would say.

[MADem]

58. Well, take it up with the official forms people at varying governments, then!

I guess they're all delusional!


http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/103665.pdf

Check out item 13.

[beam me up scottie]

61. They're not here. Are you claiming bald is a hair colour now?

[MADem]

62. I am not going to argue with it as a way of identifying the characteristics of a person's

head, that's for sure. Governments use it as an identifier! If it's on licenses and passports and security clearance documents, maybe the people who are insisting it isn't are the ones who need to adjust.

If you don't 'believe' it is a hair color, and the government does, who wins when it comes to filling out that form?

[beam me up scottie]

63. Is bald a hair colour or not? Here's the dictionary definition if you need assistance:

bald:

1. having a scalp wholly or partly lacking hair.

2. not having any extra detail or explanation; plain or blunt.

[MADem]

65. It's a category used to identify hair color, just like brown, black and grey!

And it is accepted as an identifier by governments all over the world.

So. Who's out of step, now?

[beam me up scottie]

67. Is bald a hair colour or not? It's a simple question, yes or no?

[MADem]

70. How many times do I have to repeat what i said before you understand?

It is an identifier for hair color on government documents. Governments around the world accept the category "bald" to identify something they call "hair color."

You're going to have a tummy ache if you keep shovelling that popcorn, you know!

And you will still not prove to me that atheism isn't a belief system, because you don't have the ability to do that. Nor do I have the ability to dictate to you how you feel about this topic. Thing is, I'm not trying to convince you. You can think whatever you'd like.

There is no charif, no imam, no mullah, no priest, no minister, no Pope of Atheism, who can deliver unto you "The Word" and you will receive it and understand.

These atheists can do whatever they want when it comes to their belief system--to include going to atheist church on Sunday, if they'd like.

[beam me up scottie]

72. It's a yes or no question, why won't you answer it?

That hole you dug just keeps getting deeper and deeper.

Yes or no, is bald a hair colour?

Pick one.

[MADem]

73. Apparently--and this angers you because you keep asking the question--it is NOT a "yes or no"

thing at all, as I've just shown you.

Government documents list it (quite commonly, too) as an identifier for a category called "hair color."

The hole you've dug is the one that keeps getting deeper. I don't even have a shovel--I simply keep standing on this simple point I've made. You keep demanding a different response.

Hint--you're not going to get one.

There is more than one view on this topic, you see. Just like atheism and "belief systems." Some people--like the government--find the term useful to describe hair color. You don't like that because it doesn't fit with YOUR belief system about how you believe hair color should be categorized.

Oh well--they're not going to change all those forms to suit you! Their belief in baldness as an identifier of haircolor is unshaken.

[beam me up scottie]

74. Actually I knew you couldn't prove it, I just wanted to watch you try.

this angers you

Not at all, this has been extremely entertaining.

It's exactly like watching the freepers when they try to prove atheism is a religion.

Always amusing to see what passes for logic in some circles.

[MADem]

151. Dropping the ball, pulling out the hat tip emoticon, running away from the argument, and

declaring victory, eh?

Oh, after calling me an illogical freeper because you can't make your argument work!!



I will agree that you've been VERY entertaining, albeit perhaps unintentionally.

Don't let it get you down. No one cares what you believe these days. It's a much more tolerant society than it was in years past. If you want to believe there are no deities, if you want to believe there are deities, no one cares save those freepers you rather intolerantly accuse others of being.

right back at ya!

[Yorktown]

140. Do you worship fairies?

Atheists 'believe' there is no god in the same way you 'believe' there are no fairies.

Or unicorns. Or gremlins. The word 'believe' in that sense is not a belief.

It is absence of evidence: no evidence for leprechauns, no evidence for gods.

[MADem]

142. It wouldn't matter if I believed in ghosts or imps or

reincarnation or time travel.


I use the dictionary definition of "believe" and "belief." I don't have a "special sense" of the word or a super-secret definition that only applies in one way to one circumstance.

believe
[bih-leev]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
verb (used without object), believed, believing.
1.
to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so:
Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.
verb (used with object), believed, believing.
2.
to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.
3.
to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).
4.
to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation:
The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border.
5.
to suppose or assume; understand (usually followed by a noun clause):
I believe that he has left town.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/believe

belief
[bih-leef]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
something believed; an opinion or conviction:
a belief that the earth is flat.
2.
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof:
a statement unworthy of belief.
3.
confidence; faith; trust:
a child's belief in his parents.
4.
a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith:
the Christian belief.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief

If you are confident and you trust that there are no deities, then you believe that.

[Yorktown]

147. And?

I am confident and trust that there are no fairies, and I believe that.

Show me proof of fairies, and I will accept their existence, believe (2) if you will.

But religious belief (1) is belief without evidence.

Hence the difference of the meaning of the word belief in 1 vs 2.

[MADem]

148. One person's evidence is another person's tall tale.

Far be it from me to tell someone that they didn't have a spiritual interaction with a deity. I'd have to follow them around 24/7 to be able to make that claim, and never sleep.

Just because you or I are not present to see the 'evidence' doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't exist. For all we know, Thor could be running around smiting people with his big old hammer even as we have this exchange. Just because he's not smiting me, or you, that doesn't mean he's not smiting Sam Kabobnik down the street.

Your 'evidence' standard seems to be that if it doesn't happen to you, or it can't happen to you (perhaps those deities are picky), then it doesn't exist. That's rather like those romantic comedies where the poor schmuck insists that love does not exist because he has never experienced it. Usually within the two hour span of the film he learns otherwise, but life isn't always like that, is it?

Belief is a funny thing. In as much as you believe their is no deity, people like Ayatullah Rouhani and the Pope think the opposite and wouldn't accept any of the stuff you call 'evidence' as valid or real. They'd tell you that you lack understanding, or something. You wouldn't convince them and they probably wouldn't convince you, either. It's an impasse and not something that can be sorted out with arm wrestling or a cage match, either. At some point there just has to be a Live and Let Live accord because no minds will be changed.

[Yorktown]

152. In that respect, I believe equally in god and fairies

To paraphrase: Just because you or I are not present to see the 'evidence' doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't exist. For all we know, fairies could be dancing around in Stonehenge to the tune played by Puck as we have this exchange. Just because we are not present at Stonehenge on the nights they dance doesn't mean they do not dance.

But as long as fairies will keep their existence a secret which can not be witnessed,
as long as 'gods' will keep their existence a secret which can attested by material proof,
I feel to be within the boundaries of reason to consider neither might exist.

Or, as you offered to rephrase it, I 'believe' they do not,
in the sense that I have no empirical reason to believe in them.

[beam me up scottie]

159. Because not believing in fairies is the same thing believing in fairies, amirite?

Oh my dog, there is no belief so far out there that you won't try to defend it against skeptics.

[MADem]

164. You keep trying so darn hard to get personal with me. It isn't working.

The fairy thing has already been beaten to death in this thread--you're a bit late to the fair.


Why don't you try reading some of the links I offered in post 162? Maybe you'll start to realize that the Atheist movement has moved beyond rigid and angry ideas and structures. Those Sunday Assemblies are all about thankfulness, wonder, appreciation and helping society--not scolding, rigid rules about what Atheists are, and are not.

Rather than yell at me, why don't you find one near you and check it out?

[beam me up scottie]

169. Now that you finally admitted that atheism isn't a religion we're all done!

And you keep confusing amusement with anger and laughter with yelling, maybe you should go check out one of those churches!

[MADem]

172. It's kind of sad how you always try to play that "Now that you've finally admitted" game when

there's been no "admitting" at all.

You do realize that people can read the full conversation, here, and they, too can see what you're doing and the arc of the conversation to this point?

It's not like you're shouting into a telephone so that people nearby can hear you and think you're having a different conversation than the one you're actually having!

Read the links at Post 162, especially the VICE one. You will start to realize that you've been left behind. The movement is surging forward without you, in fact, I don't think they've much use for negativity and anger and scolding and mocking--which, despite your protestations, are very much on display by you here in this very thread.

It's obvious that these churches are as far from your angry, mocking, snide version of atheism as they could possibly be. As I said to you earlier, I think you could do with a visit to one of these Assemblies. Maybe you'll be successful in improving your attitude and fostering some of that wonder and thankfulness that these congregations espouse.

[beam me up scottie]

173. Tl, dr! :)

[MADem]

176. Ha ha ha....of COURSE you didn't! Can't have those paradigms challenged, can we?

Why am I not surprised?


Post 162, do some reading--maybe you'll realize I did you a favor, one day...!

[beam me up scottie]

178. *yawn*

[MADem]

181. Declare victory/TLDR/yawn--you'd be better off just buckling down and learning something.

Links at post 162 are a good starting point.

[beam me up scottie]

183. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...........

[MADem]

185. So much effort to try to suggest you don't care!

Which tells me you do!

Post 162.

[Warren DeMontague]

242. These are the same folks who will bleat about pastafarianism not being "a real religion"

And how it is ludicrous (and bigoted!!!ZOMG) to extend the same sorts of special pleading bullshit that is regularly granted to "legitimate faiths" to "a joke religion"' whose "only intent is to mock"

[beam me up scottie]

244. The hypocrisy is unbelievable. Stereotyping, intolerance, redefining words, just like Conservapedia.

Those mean ole atheists are trying to take my binkie away!

[Funtatlaguy]

76. Is this semantics?

Wouldn't Atheists gather more to discuss than worship?
I could be wrong, never having been, but I would think topics might be infringement on church and state, religion affecting public policy, religion in the workplace.

[beam me up scottie]

78. I've never been either but that sounds exactly like what they do.

If anything it sounds like they celebrate life without religion.

Right wing conservatives also accuse us of worshiping science.

[Warren Stupidity]

84. So any group that gets together on a regular basis is a religion?

[MADem]

162. No. But a group that gets together, has ministers, gets an IRS tax exemption in USA, and

has a congregation that makes contributions at their gatherings, like the Atheist Churches do with their Sunday Assemblies, are.

These are all worth a read. The face and style of Atheism are changing, and I think some of the Old Guard are having a hard time adjusting to a new paradigm.

http://www.vice.com/read/no-god-no-problem-0000206-v21n1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/01/sunday-assembly-atheist_n_5915830.html

http://www.ffrfmcc.org/education/freethought-corner/atheist-churches-a-good-idea-but-a-better-name-might-be-in-order/

http://www.smh.com.au/good-weekend/sunday-assembly-a-congregation-without-god-20141128-11w491.html

[beam me up scottie]

166. "No." So atheism is not a religion? Good! Glad you finally figured that out!

Boy it took long enough to get you to admit it but you came through in the end!

[MADem]

190. Noooooo, post 162. The IRS has recognized atheists as a faith group.

See, if you'd read that long ago, you'd KNOW.

[Yorktown]

139. Where are those Atheist Churches?

Atheist Churches..

[MADem]

195. All over the world. Go to Youtube, punch in Sunday Assembly, and watch what pops up.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sunday+assembly

Boston, Atlanta, LA, San Diego, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, etc. etc.

Germany, Australia, UK, The Netherlands, Belgium, Hungary, etc.

Here's a list--maybe there's one near you! New ones are starting up all the time.

https://www.sundayassembly.com/assemblies

[Yorktown]

199. Yeah, right, and you accept the term 'Church' at face value, surely?

I've got good news, you and I can become priests at no cost, without those pesky 'divinity' diplomas.

Get legally ordained for free

As a legally ordained minister, you're able to perform weddings, funerals, commitment ceremonies, and other functions that are reserved for members of clergy. You can also start a local FCA Chapter in your city!
With the First Church of Atheism you can become ordained quickly, easily, and at no cost.

Since its inception, the First Church of Atheism has amassed quite a following around the world. FCA ministers come from all walks of life. They are every race, ethnicity, age, and creed. The one thing binding every FCA minister is his or her belief in science, reason, and reality. The First Church of Atheism wants you to pursue and cherish your realistic beliefs without interference from any outside agency, including government or church authority. We provide our service for free, as we believe it is every atheists right to perform these clergy functions. You may become a legally ordained minister for life, without cost, and without question.

[MADem]

207. Well, if these congregations aren't screeching and whining about it, why should I?

This "doctrinaire" attitude is being left behind, you see. These people are the future--those who whine about bald guys and what constitutes belief are increasingly seen as irrelevant to this movement--which is gaining adherents day by day.

The IRS has accepted this term at "face value," so what's wrong with you?

FWIW, FCA is a different thing than the Sunday Assembly movement. And, like many new movements, there's a schism within the Assembly adherents as well. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/04/after-a-schism-a-question-can-atheist-churches-last/

Still, it's not affecting their ability to grow and create new venues, in new cities.

http://mg.co.za/article/2014-12-30-the-gospel-of-sunday-assembly-joy-without-the-lord

“Atheist” church’s 10 commandments:

A 100% celebration of life. We are born from nothing and go to nothing. Let’s enjoy it together.
No doctrine. We have no set texts so we can make use of wisdom from all sources.
No deity. We don’t do supernatural, but we also won’t tell you you’re wrong if you do.
Radically inclusive. Everyone is welcome, regardless of their beliefs – this is a place of love that is open and accepting.
Free to attend, not for profit and volunteer run. We ask for donations to cover our costs and support our community work.
A community mission. Through our Action Heroes (you), we will be a force for good.
Independent. We do not accept sponsorship or promote outside businesses, organisations or services.
Here to stay. With your involvement, the Sunday Assembly will make the world a better place.
We won’t tell you how to live, but will try to help you to do it as well as you can.
And remember, the point of the Sunday Assembly is a celebration of the one life we know we have. (Source: sundayassembly.com)

I guess it's all that "radical inclusion" that is bothersome? "A place of love that is open and accepting" kind of ruins the exclusivity and the whole "You're stupid if you don't buy the doctrine that I impart to you" thing?

This is the reform church of atheism, in essence, and the reason it attracts members is because it doesn't yell at people for "believing" there is no deity, or mock people for not agreeing with some old scold who writes dry screeds that are repetitively quoted by adherents, who can't answer the challenges to their views and merely declare victory and run away.

Those orthodox views are falling by the wayside, and the crowds attending these assemblies are a measure of the enthusiasm for a different, more open, less snarky, snide and superior, approach to the question of what one believes in, be it "no deities" or "no doctrine." The latter, I think, is more scary than the BELIEF in the former!

The newer, bigger Sunday Assembly now markets itself as a kind of atheist version of Unitarian Univeralism: irreligious, but still eager to include everyone.

In a way, this is a smart move. According to the 2012 Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 20% of Americans have no religious affiliation, but just a fraction of those identify as atheists.

A godless congregation is likely to draw crowds if it appeals to what Herb Silverman, founder of the Secular Coalition for America, calls “big-tent” atheism, which includes “agnostics, humanists, secular humanists, freethinkers, nontheists, anti-theists, skeptics, rationalists, naturalists, materialists, ignostics, apatheists, and more.”

But atheists who wanted a firmly atheist church—a Sunday Assembly where categorical disbelief is discussed and celebrated—will not be satisfied.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/04/after-a-schism-a-question-can-atheist-churches-last/

They're winning.

[Yorktown]

209. You raised a straw man

Your use of aggressive atheism as a repellent isn't demonstrating something called 'Churches' of atheism makes sense. I am amazed anyone needs to go to a certain location at a certain time to not believe in something.

Why not Churches of unbelief in fairies?

But I can understand it as a deconditioning stage in a society where 'going to church' was so ingrained for so long. Happy recovery to all those in need. And happy support group to all those in need. Even though I think support groups would fare better with trained professionals. Something 'churches' have always been a distraction from.

[MADem]

210. No, I did not. And that game-playing just ain't cutting it anymore.

What I raised is the future.

People who scold and carp and demand adherence to "doctrine," like they're the Pope of Atheists, are on the ropes with these new guys. It's really pissing some people off, clearly. It's not stopping the movement, though--and you can take all your bald fairies and commune with them, if you'd like--it won't make a fig's worth of difference.

This paradigm is growing. The "Waaaah, we're not BELIEVERS" paradigm is shrinking before your eyes. And this is not "deconditioning." It's NEW. It's a sense of community. No one "has to" go anywhere or do anything--they WANT to. That seems to bug you, but oh well. Not sure why you want to paint that as a crime, but you're the one left out--not the rest of the group.

I think the concept of inclusive atheism is a fascinating one. Your model prefers to keep people out if they don't BELIEVE exactly what you believe. See the problem, there? It's starts with that whole pesky line that little kids use: You aren't the boss of me! You have no standing to tell these thousands of people all over the world what they are allowed to believe or think. You just don't.

And they're all over the internet, in cities all over the globe. You're not.

Who am I gonna .... BELIEVE?

[Yorktown]

211. Wow. Atheist churches are all over the net. And they are the future?

Good for them, good for you, enjoy.

I will remain a non-proselytizer making use of Church time for long walks.

[MADem]

212. They're also all over "Real Life." Which works even when the power goes out.

And yes, they are the future--particularly as an entree to political power.

Enjoy your long walks--let those millennials take this movement to the next level while they learn a little something, have a little fun, and help out humanity, as well.

Here, I'll let someone else leave you with a bit of perspective on this issue; it's not about "I'm right/you're wrong." It's simply a philosophy, and it is growing.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/31/opinion/sunday/molly-worthen-wanted-a-theology-of-atheism.html?_r=0

Humanist fellowships have often imitated the practices of traditional worship. Sunday Assembly’s close relative, the Society for Ethical Culture, has featured rousing music and a lecture at Sunday meetings since 1876. Yet it is a mistake to think of secular humanism as a pale, materialist substitute for religious communion. Some activists call it a movement — and if it is, then it’s a movement grounded in ideas, despite what Ms. Reed says....The average nonbeliever may know even less about his tradition’s intellectual debates than the average Christian does — because its institutions, like Sunday Assembly, tend to be tiny, relatively new and allergic to anything that resembles dogma. But nonbelievers should pay attention. Atheism, like any ideological position, has political and moral consequences. As nonbelievers become a more self-conscious subculture, as they seek to elect their own to high office and refute the fear that a post-Christian America will slide into moral anarchy, they will need every idea their tradition offers them.

Yet modern secular humanism is also a species of 21st-century liberalism, and many of its adherents have absorbed the modern liberal tendency to shy away from ideology in favor of a message of nonjudgmental inclusion. Mr. Harris worries about any secular humanist who upholds “tolerance, above all, as the master value,” he told me. “What that person doesn’t see is that these irrational beliefs he’s refusing to criticize are of huge consequence geopolitically and personally — and are themselves sources of intolerance.”

Today, nonbelievers often seem inclined to describe atheism and secular humanism as an “identity” whose claimants should focus on winning cultural acceptance rather than intellectual debates. Here, they are taking their cues from the civil rights movement, particularly the rhetoric of gay liberation. Some organizations, for example, declared April 23 the first “Openly Secular Day,” “a celebration of secular people opening up about their secular worldview, and an opportunity for theistic allies to show their support for secular friends and family.”

“Many atheists are still in the closet,” said Nichelle Reed of Sunday Assembly. Nonbelievers like her hope that if they emphasize good works over grand argument, they can convince the bigots that atheists are decent human beings. Kelly Damerow, the interim executive director of the Secular Coalition for America, said that there is little discussion of moral philosophy among the activists she works with. “We get it. We know we’re good to each other,” she told me. “We would rather show people that we’re good.”

In the short term, this is a smart strategy. The language of tolerance and personal identity has particular appeal to millennials, who account for 40 percent of the atheist and agnostic population, according to the Pew Research Center’s latest study. August E. Brunsman IV, who directs the Secular Student Alliance, said that “nowadays you’re seeing a whole lot of people for whom it’s more important that they’re understood and valued by fellow citizens, not seen as being too weird.”

[mountain grammy]

104. why, our "nonbeliefs" of course..

This has to be up there with the silliest threads ever.

[beam me up scottie]

105. Right? I love how people expose their prejudices in threads like this.

It's like flypaper for anti-atheist bigots.

[Warren DeMontague]

235. Some people are really threatened by unbelievers.

Jeez, they shouldnt move to Oregon. We're EVERYWHERE, here!

[beam me up scottie]

239. Maybe they'll evolve. It just takes some people longer to learn to be tolerant.

We should have faith that they will recognize their intolerance and find a way to get past it.

[Warren DeMontague]

240. Atheism is a religion, derp!

Im gonna be stuck on maximum derp all day thanks to that derpilicious pile of derp.

[beam me up scottie]

241. Bald is a hair colour, derp! Because the government said so!

I love watching these "water isn't really wet" posters twist themselves into knots.

[Warren DeMontague]

243. Critical thinking is just another exercise in pursuing unsubstantiated bullshit!

Any and all assertions being inherently equally valid, yakno.

[beam me up scottie]

245. Believing in fairies is just as rational as not believing in them!

It's true, I read it here!

[hifiguy]

247. There's a cat for that feeling.

[cemaphonic]

196. Foxholes, obviously (nt)

[beam me up scottie]

205. And science. That's my favourite. :)

[FrodosPet]

371. Some atheists seem to worship their smug sense of superiority

Not that they really do, but it sure seems like it.

[beam me up scottie]

372. Sure, many outspoken minorities seem uppity to certain kinds of people.

They'll just have to get over it.

[FrodosPet]

373. Everyone has the right to be an obnoxious asshole.

No one has the obligation to respect them for it.

I am agnostic. I don't believe in the Abrahamic diety, Jehova. I doubt that he exists as a singular sentient humanoid yet supernatural being.

I believe and hope that people should evolve past religion. But I am not about to approach them sneering and mocking, full of self righteousness.

[beam me up scottie]

374. Well I'll just have to take your word for that, my sneering, self-righteous friend.

[AlbertCat]

375. their smug sense of superiority

Which is smug and superior?

A) My ancient text written in a time and place I cannot understand, and translated and revised for many reasons over the millennia is the ONE TRUE WAY. I know it because it feels right, and there are a lot of people who agree with me.

B) I trust the current, tho' changing, consensus, on the nature of things that arrive thru observation, skepticism and reason using the amazing tools we have today thru this very process, and know it applies to everyone.... even when it seems counter intuitive, because there is evidence to support such conclusions.

[mr blur]

376. Some religionistas seem to worship their smug sense of superiority

Not that they really do, but it sure seems like it.

[FrodosPet]

377. This is truth.

Too many people in this world are in a race to the bottom.

[Act_of_Reparation]

379. I'm sorry, but weren't you just complaining about a smug sense of superiority?

Too many people in this world are in a race to the bottom.

Heh. Nice.

[cleanhippie]

383. And the irony is lost on you as you say this with your own smug sense of superiority.

Do you feel better about yourself now that you've denigrated an entire demographic?

[skepticscott]

385. Funny, that's exactly what I've observed

about most "agnostics".

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

85. Atheists may not worship anything, but ...

... if you're cornered in a party by a proselytizing evangelical atheist, you just KNOW it's a religion. They can be harder to shake than someone pushing a Watchtower magazine.

[madokie]

115. Thats why I most times

refer to myself as NON Religious. I don't believe in any of that. I feel I'm no different than that bug that last hit my windshield, when I die I'll be dead, period

There is no sky guy in madokie's world, none whatsoever. Yes I've been in the Ol proverbial fox hole and I still felt the same way so theres that.

[beam me up scottie]

117. Years ago I used to refer to myself as agnostic because the label 'atheist' makes you a target.

But I got sick and tired of anti-atheist bigotry and I now wear my atheism proudly.

Unfortunately where I live and work I mostly have to stay in the closet.

[madokie]

118. I do know the feeling

I'm a proud Atheist and when faced with certain death I didn't waver so I know its for real.

[beam me up scottie]

120. Me too, had a couple of close calls and never prayed. Never even thought about it.

That no atheists in foxhole myth is more anti-atheist propaganda.

[mr blur]

79. What laughable nonsense.

I can't take your statements seriously enough to bother to refute them.

[MillennialDem]

215. The terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive

I don't know for sure if there is a god or not - but I think its absolutely foolish to give the same weight to god in the sense of most of the world's rreligions as it is to give no god.

I am both atheist and agnostic.

[lapislzi]

227. Sarcasm tag missing?

What are you on about?

[Mr Dixon]

354. come on dude.

Really? i must have missed that part, the are not churches and no preaching......SMH

[AlbertCat]

378. Atheists preach their faith to others

No they don't.

Writing a book? Is that what you mean? That's "preaching"? And there's no "faith" in a religious sense involved.

Gather to worship? Where? Science lectures? Or is a convention now 'worshipping"?

Churches????? Like the "1st Church of Atheism"? Don't get subtlety much? It's a way of getting tax exempt!


"Agnostics look for answers or not." Ugh... wishy washy ....or not?

Agnostic just means one is scared of the word, and thought... or both.... of "atheism". Trying to have your cake and eat it too.

[beam me up scottie]

16. If atheism is a religion bald is a hair colour and barefoot is a shoe.

Why not educate yourself and leave the myths about atheism to right wing Christians?

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10][11]

The term "atheism" originated from the Greek ἄ???? (atheos), meaning "without god(s)", used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society.[12] With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to identify themselves using the word "atheist" lived in the 18th century during the Age of Enlightenment.[13] The French Revolution, noted for its "unprecedented atheism," witnessed the first major political movement in history to advocate for the supremacy of human reason.[14]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism.

[GoneFishin]

81. Yes. And vegetables are a type of meat eaten by vegetarians.

[beam me up scottie]

82. Yep, and abstinence is a sexual position.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

88. On my government loan application, under spouse, I was instructed to write "none" or "N/A" if single

Do I have to buy anniversary gifts or Valentines Day gifts for Mr or Mrs None? I wrote none in some places and n/a in others. Am I guilty of bigamy?

[beam me up scottie]

99. Lol! That bald being a hair colour canard because...driver's licences is the same thing.

When Dan Barker debated James White he pulled the same crap, I just love the pretzel logic of religious apologists.

[GoneFishin]

91. LOL. Not a very popular one though.

[beam me up scottie]

100. Well you can't get an std from abstinence. :)

[GoneFishin]

111. Except for disease-free which is actually a type of STD you get from abstinence.

[beam me up scottie]

112. Lol! Perfect!

Religion, like most stds is a curable disease!

[Lordquinton]

18. Um, no?

The vast majority of atheists are agnostic. Even Dawkins leaves the door open, so to speak.

[TipTok]

146. He is de facto atheist...

The question is on par with leprechauns and werewolves..

[LostOne4Ever]

22. What you think is agnosticism is also a type of atheism. nt

[MADem]

26. Now you've done it---you're in BIG TROUBLE!

Some don't like it when you say that--mostly people here, though. On other parts of the internet, people don't mind the reference to atheism as a religion~!

[AlbertCat]

30. On other parts of the internet, people don't mind the reference to atheism as a religion~!

On other parts if the internet, they think aliens built the pyramids too.

No, MOST atheist do not remotely think it is a religion. ... because it's nothing like a religion. This is some stupid crap theists made up so they could pretend atheists were as confused and small minded as they are. Those must be the "people" you are referring to. They just cannot conceive of someone without some kind of religion.

Agnostics are just atheists afraid to admit it. They think atheist is a "bad word", just like theists. But if you don't believe in god, as defined by most religions and some woo, then you are an atheist.... even if one cannot be 100% sure. Atheists ARE 100% sure the gods defined by the major remaining religions are simply not there.... just like today's they are sure Zeus and Baal don't exist.

And no one's in big trouble. That's for religion. Just because absurd notions are not entertained or "respected" doesn't mean anyone's in trouble.

[beam me up scottie]

31. I think they're referring to right wing conservative websites.

Because most liberals don't deliberately misrepresent minority groups.

Maybe they've been getting their information from all the wrong places.

Or should I say the Right places.

Free Republic, the Cave, Conservapedia, etc.

[MADem]

33. If not BIG TROUBLE, then a "put down scold!"

I'm a live and let live type, if someone doesn't hold the same views (or lack thereof) that I hold, it doesn't bother, threaten or anger me. The only time I get irritated with belief issues is if there's abuse associated with the POV.

I'll bet there's a few people out there who still like those gods--they sure like to make movies about 'em!!!

I think these guys are atheists:

http://firstchurchofatheism.com/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/atheist-church/

[beam me up scottie]

37. Where do they claim that atheism is a religion?

In one of the articles linked to from the huffpo piece I found this quote:

“We get called the ‘atheist church,’ but we are really all the best bits of church but with no religion,” he said, darting his lanky form up and down the aisle, arms flapping like some excitable exotic bird. “Our vision is to help people live the best life possible.”

people don't mind the reference to atheism as a religion~!

Looks like they do mind.


One definition of intolerance from religiousintolerance.org:

Spreading misinformation about a group's beliefs or practices even though the inaccuracy of that information could have been easily checked and corrected;

Atheism is the absence of religious belief, calling atheism a religion when it's not is intolerant.

[MADem]

46. Religions have congregations and services....

Atheists do, too! With singing and ceremony!

Go to YOUTUBE and punch in Sunday Assembly....they have 'em everywhere!

They're tax exempt, just like religious churches, too.

They have a symbol of their belief system, just like religions....the military recognizes this symbol and places it in their list of approved emblems of belief for grave markers.



The absence of belief is, to some of those who believe, to some of those who don't know, and even some who don't believe, a belief system. You can't speak for all atheists. Neither can I. But I know atheists who "believe" there's no deity or deities, so I'll "believe" them when they tell me what they "believe."

[beam me up scottie]

48. Nice gish gallop, but where do the people in the articles you cited claim atheism is a religion?

[MADem]

51. Gish gallop? You're telling me those people at those Sunday Assemblies are not atheists?

That the government doesn't recognize the atheist belief symbol?

Those aren't small things, they're pretty essential to the interested groups of atheists who attend these services and get buried in national military cemeteries.

I'm telling you that I don't know a single atheist who has a problem with the "B" word. It's only here on DU that I encounter this rabidly angry POV towards it.

[beam me up scottie]

53. Now you're trying to move the goalposts. The question is whether atheism is a religion.

And instead of listening to theists and religious apologists I defer to atheists:

From About Atheism:

Myth: Atheism is just another religion.

Response:

For some strange reason, many people keep getting the idea that atheism is itself some sort of religion. It's an assertion which I keep hearing in newsgroups, in private email, and in this site's chat room. Maybe it is because these people are so caught up in their own religious beliefs that they cannot imagine any person living without religion of some sort. Maybe it is due to some persistent misunderstanding of what atheism is. And maybe they just don't care that what they are saying really doesn't make any sense.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathm_rel_religion.htm

Skeptico:

Atheism is Not a Religion

This is a refrain I’m hearing a lot from religious apologists – atheism is a religion. Also its equally fallacious siblings, science is a religion and evolution is a religion. It’s a sign of their desperation that the best argument they have is not that atheism is wrong, or that god does exist (supported by evidence of course), but that atheism is a religion too. A strange argument for a religious person to make on the face of it. Is it supposed to strengthen the atheist’s position or weaken the theist’s one? In reality it’s a sign they have run out of arguments.

Still, this argument is widely made, and so it needs to be addressed. Atheism (and here I mean the so-called “weak atheism” that does not claim proof that god does not exist), is just the lack of god-belief – nothing more and nothing less. And as someone once said, if atheism is a religion, not collecting stamps is a hobby.

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/06/atheism-is-not-a-religion.html

American Atheists:

WHAT IS ATHEISM?

No one asks this question enough.

The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences or other sources.

Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."

Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."

The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.

https://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism

If you disagree it's up to you to prove your claim.

How is atheism a religion?

[MADem]

54. Even the courts--and the Washington Post--agree with my friends' POV:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/19/atheists-and-secular-humanists-are-protected-by-the-constitution-regardless-of-whether-their-belief-systems-should-be-considered-religions-or-not/


Atheists and Secular Humanists are protected by the First Amendment regardless of whether their belief systems are “religions” or not

You don't have to call it a religion, even though some atheists form groupings that look rather "religious" in structure, but it's pretty clear that it's a belief system, and the people who practice it believe there are no deities, in contrast to those who believe there is a deity or deities, and those who just don't know what to believe.

So, the thing that one atheist in your article says 'ties all atheists together' really doesn't. Like I said, I know a fair number of atheists who can manage that B word without any agita at all, and who say that if they were presented with evidence contravening their belief, they'd reassess and change their POV. It looks like a belief system to me, and in some circumstances it presents with religious elements on display at Sunday Assemblies, for the atheists who enjoy that sort of thing. Of course, there's no RULES for being an atheist, so it is impossible for one atheist to dictate to others what they're allowed to believe or how they're permitted to express themselves.

Bit of a conundrum for anyone trying to fit all those atheists into the same mold.

[beam me up scottie]

55. That doesn't prove it's a religion, try again.

How is atheism a religion?

[MADem]

57. I said it was a BELIEF SYSTEM. You keep throwing out the R word--and some atheists apparently

don't mind meeting in a religious style environment to celebrate their belief system...so there's that.

If some atheists want to call their belief system a religion, I have no problem with it. They can call it a Circus if they'd like.

Do you presume to dictate to other atheists how they are "allowed" to practice their belief system? I don't think you have standing to do that, any more than I do.

You can speak for yourself--and no one else, really.

[beam me up scottie]

60. Because that was the claim we objected to, that atheism is a religion:

Last edited Sat Nov 28, 2015, 05:46 AM - Edit history (1)

onehandle (46,469 posts)

4. Atheism is a religion.

Agnostic is not religious.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7388308

And it was made by a non-atheist, not an atheist.

So your attempt to make this about everything else under the kitchen sink is just you trying to move the goalposts.

Maybe you should think before you decide to jump in to defend something you can't prove.

[MADem]

64. There are atheist ministers. If they want to call it a religion, I don't quibble.

I don't have a problem with "belief system," either.

I think the parameters here are pretty narrow, actually--not "everything else under the kitchen sink."

A religion might be regarded as a belief system, but surely not all belief systems are religions. Or are they? Who decides? Who gets to be the Label Boss, here?

If an atheist wants to say he or she subscribes to a belief system, or even a religion, I'm not going to tell them they're "wrong." That's not my charge. I don't think it's appropriate for anyone else to try to tell them, either. There is no "Head Atheist In Charge" so people can believe whatever the heck they'd like, and if other people calling themselves atheists don't like it, too doggone bad.

The only one you can speak for with any authority on this issue is yourself, and maybe a few pundits who repeat that sorry little TV off/bald head analogy that doesn't really do it for a lot of people discussing this topic, myself included.

That last sentence of yours cuts both ways--maybe you should take your OWN advice!

[beam me up scottie]

66. An atheist didn't make the claim, a non-atheist did.

And you still can't prove it so you're continuing to deflect.

Can you prove atheism is a religion or not?

[MADem]

68. I am not trying to "prove" anything--you are.

I can tell ya this--I can't prove it isn't....and neither can you! I can't prove it's not a "belief system," like the DOD graves folks aver, either.

I accept what an atheist (or a theist, or agnostic) tells me about their belief system(s). I don't feel a need to lecture people and tell them that they don't believe what they say they believe, that their religion is not a religion, or that hair color, television or baldness determines what someone on the internet tells them they are "allowed" to believe because they read and repeated what some loudmouth pundit wrote in a blog somewhere. Live and let live.

If those atheists want to call their belief system a religion, a faith, an amusing diversion, or what-have-you, who am I to judge? It's THEIR belief, they own it--it is not mine, nor yours.

[beam me up scottie]

69. It's not my job to disprove that poster's claim, and again they're not an atheist.

Since you failed to prove that atheism is a religion I guess we're done here.

[MADem]

71. Since you failed to prove to me that it's not, I guess we are!

And that, in a nutshell, is my point!

It's all down to the eye of the beholder--what the individual believes...

[LostOne4Ever]

137. Burden of Proof fallacy

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

[center][/center]

[MADem]

144. Sorry, not buying that lame argument.

We're at what is called an impasse, and all the cute pictures with 'meme print' on them aren't going to change the fact that no one coming down on a side, be they atheists or 'deity worshippers' can prove a gosh-darned thing. They can guess, assume, figure, use the best information they currently have available, but all they're doing is using those tools to firm up their belief that their view is the right one.


About the only one sitting pretty in this argument are the agnostics and the guys who say their religions are all about getting in touch with nature and remembering ancestors and things of that nature--they don't have anything to prove, because they are not claiming to decisively KNOW anything! The deity worshippers AND the atheists both claim to have all the answers.

[LostOne4Ever]

149. Whether you buy it or not your argument is still based on a fallacy.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]And atheists don't have to prove anything because we aren't making a claim.

BTW, what you call agnostics...are a type of atheist. That is implicit atheism. It is even defined that way in the Oxford English Dictionary.

See you even admit we are sitting pretty [/font]

[MADem]

150. Only if you are the center of the universe--and you're not.

To them, the argument they make in favor of their belief is entirely sound. You're the one with the fallacy problem, in their eyes.

Because I said so is not proof to you, and it's not proof to the person with whom you differ, either.

Most agnostics I know

a) Don't really give a crap either way;

b) Can go back and forth on the matter depending on their mood.

I wouldn't call them "implicit atheists," no matter how jazzy the graphic. You could just as easily, were you sitting on the other side of the debate, call them "implicit deity worshippers."

[LostOne4Ever]

153. There is no belief or claim in atheism

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Even the oxford english dictionary states as much:[/font]

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/atheism

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]This is not because I said so, this is because that is the definition of the word. Further, as an implicit atheist I know what I do or do not believe, so please quit theistsplaining to me what I think.

You are not god.

And your argument is still based on a fallacy. Not because the graphic says so, but because all of modern philosophy says so. I provided multiple links besides the graphic. [/font]

BTW: I could link several prominent atheist website further proving that we make no claims but You would handwave them away.

[beam me up scottie]

156. Another "jazzy" dictionary definition?

What are you a believer in the dictionary god now?

Obviously they don't know what they're talking about over there at Oxford.

[LostOne4Ever]

158. Ambrose Bierce is my Shepard

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]I shall not want.

He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.

He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for Lexicography sake.[/font]

[beam me up scottie]

160. Well there goes the theory that you believe you're the center of the universe.

But what do you know? It's just your brain. Obviously MADem is the supreme authority.

[MADem]

216. You're not God, either!

And I could counter with more websites.

Post 162....and the other links in this thread that discuss Sunday Assemblies...might wake you up to the notion that your "rules" aren't the only ones.

Sample: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/31/opinion/sunday/molly-worthen-wanted-a-theology-of-atheism.html?_r=0

See, not only are you NOT God, you're not the atheist pope, either. And your ideas (well, the ones you have culled from a few angry old men, some of whom are dead) are being rejected by a substantial number of people in the real world who seem to be doing much more with their atheism than yelling at people like they have any authority. Pro tip--you don't have any authority, nor any power to enforce your ...what's that word? Oh yeah--beliefs. You are an island unto yourself, and your words hold sway with you and you alone. You are not the "atheistsplainer" (you brought that shit in here, let's remember, without even knowing my views on the matter) to the masses. You have your own sad and angry opinions, and they are yours. There are no "rules" to atheism--that probably irritates the hell out of you, because you have repeated the "doctrine" you've learned from the crabby old school types over the years, and guess what? It no longer applies, and the people who have created a new paradigm actually are building a philosophical approach to atheism that involves community.

I "handwave" the old school stuff away because that's what is happening with this next generation of young adults. They're sick of the scolding, doctrinaire POV of old and dead atheists. They don't like it, they don't want it, they don't need it. The Sunday Assemblies are successful BECAUSE these younger people are not scolds or didacts. They're accepting, interested and confident in themselves. They also think that enjoying life and helping others are good traits. They aren't snarky, jaded or superior. They're real. They have some of that "wonder" that makes life worth living.

They're the future. You're the past.

[LostOne4Ever]

224. That whole reply to me was a fallacy

Last edited Mon Nov 30, 2015, 03:31 PM - Edit history (1)

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]I said you are not god because, you, were telling me, an implicit atheist, what I think.

No where have I done that to you or anyone else. So your "You're not god, either!" is nothing more than an ad hominem. Nor have I claimed to be an atheist pope (again with your OFFENSIVE attempts to connect religion to atheism.) Your strawman aside, you in fact have no clue what I believe and I would greatly appreciate it if you would quit trying to act like a god who does.

The Sunday assembly is just the Sunday Assembly. They represent no one but the Sunday Assembly and if they meet the criteria of a religion then that makes the Sunday Assembly a religion, not atheism. There are other examples of atheist religions as well. There are, for example, non-theistic buddhists. That said, what I know of the Sunday Assembly does not seem to meet the criteria of a religion.

Regardless, that is a spotlight fallacy, a relativist fallacy, and a guilt by association fallacy all rolled into one.

To demand to declare that all atheism a religion or state that we have a belief because of that is the same as saying that because some humans belong to the church of Satan all humans must be Satanist. It is, absurd to the point of being sophism.

I have many beliefs, just not one on the existence of gods. See, I know it is hard for someone as emotionally invested as you are in this to understand, but that is all atheism is....not having a belief in the existence of god. You even said agnostics are "sitting pretty" apparently not knowing that what you described as agnostics also describes implicit atheists. You contradict yourself.

And it is not that way because I Lost, said so. It is that way because that is the definition of the word. It is the definition of the word in the Oxford English dictionary (considered world wide the definitive dictionary of the English Language), it is the definition of the word used by American Atheists and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the two biggest atheist activist organizations in the English speaking world, and multiple encyclopedias, and by millions of atheists worldwide.

But YOU expect all of that to stop and bend backward BECAUSE YOU say so. Sorry, again you are not god. It is you whose words hold sway with you and you alone. I base my claims upon the history behind the word, multiple respected and authoritative sources and millions of other atheists. You are basing yours on your own opinion and an article about a social group who you think you know what they think. Sorry, you are not a god.

This sums up your argument:



Golf isn't baseball and atheism isn't a religion or belief.

You are right about one thing, there are no rules to atheism. That is what makes you and your fallacious argument wrong...because if it was a religion there would be rules. What I have repeated is not a docterine, it is a definition. All words have definitions and they are not based upon what you want them to be

You handwave the "old school" stuff away because it proves you wrong, and you can't stand the fact that you have NOTHING to stand on but your own opinion. Further, you have no clue what the next generation of young atheists think. I am a millennial atheist, I am a part of those young adults you are trying to speak for, and as one of that said group let me tell you that you have no place speaking for us anymore than me or anyone else.

Besides, what docterine of what old and dead atheists are you speaking of? Robert Ingersoll? The great AGNOSTIC? Wait, didn't you say agnostics were sitting pretty? Clarence Darrow? What docterines did he set down?

No what you mean, is to tell us to quit correcting you on your RIGHT WING slurs and mis-information used against atheists. Some of which could be taken straight from the conservapedia as was shown above. Sorry not going to happen.

Further, I don't give two shits about the Sunday Assembly. If they are successful, power to them. Atheism is still neither a belief nor a religion. If they are not successful, atheism is still neither a belief nor a religion.

You don't know what we think, what we believe, what is or is not the future of atheism.

You are not a god, and you need to get over yourself and your ego and quit telling us what we do or do not believe and think. You do not have that Privilege though you obviously think so.

You are not god.[/font]

[MADem]

230. After all that, my reply to you is this--NEITHER ARE YOU!

Sorry, you don't own this, and you don't make the rules.

You're rapidly becoming outnumbered, too.

Those young kids are having way more fun, and doing more good, than a few internet crabs talking about "we" are. I can see those kids, they put themselves out there, they do good works, they have a sense of community--all you are is pixels on a screen, telling me I can't have an opinion. These Sunday Assemblers don't do that. They win.

San Diego:

[LostOne4Ever]

232. I never claimed to own it, I am just using the actual definition instead of your fantasy nt

[MADem]

250. Ah, yes "The ACTUAL DEFINITION" ... was that transmitted to you by some deity?

Are these thousands of people who don't agree with your little definition "wrong" -- because Pope LostOne The First of the Atheist Not A Church says so?

[LostOne4Ever]

226. More links PROVING you wrong

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/atheism
http://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism?
http://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/18391-what-is-a-freethinker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/agnostic?q=agnosticism#agnostic__13
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/knowledge?q=knowledge
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/belief?q=belief
http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]A thread I created just to show how the atheists of the Atheist and Agnostic forum choose to define the word atheist:[/font]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1230&pid=22814

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]The fact that you have MULTIPLE atheists in this very thread telling you that you are wrong, just shows your own confirmation bias and how disdainful you are to ACTUAL ATHEISTS and what they ACTUALLY think.

It is offensive in the extreme.[/font]

[MADem]

229. See, they aren't God EITHER! And listen to you, with your "actual atheist" snobbery!

Are you telling me that these thousands and thousands of people all over the world in cities, who have taken the time to formulate congregations that get out in the community and do good works, are not "actual atheists?" They've got the guts to stand up and proclaim themselves--you sit in front of a keyboard handing me links from dead pundits and dictionaries!

You need to drop that "ownership" attitude. You don't own this.

Sorry, you haven't made your case, and the "Atheist and Agnostic Forum" doesn't make the rules for the thousands of Sunday Assembly adherents in nearly a hundred cities globally who don't go for your rigid application of "rules" of your own making.

I'll stick with the opinions about what atheism is all about from the atheists who know how to have fun, to live and love life, and who help their fellow humans--I trust them more.

Here's what you aren't "getting" -- "multiple atheists" -- all from DU, repeating the same insular talking points--don't make up for thousands of people from London, England to Sydney, Australia to Amsterdam, the Netherlands, to New York, Boston, Atlanta, San Diego, etc. etc. in the USA...atheists ALL OVER THE WORLD--whose faces I can see and voices I can hear--say something other than what a few scolds in this thread are saying. THEY do not agree with YOU. I think THEY have the better argument. You haven't said a thing to convince me of your correctness. Not a single word.

Here--why don't YOU have a look at some of those "actual atheists" who live in the real world...maybe you will "actually" learn something:

Two recent meetings, celebrating anniversaries:

Sunday Assembly NASHVILLE--2 year anniversary:

Sunday Assembly PHOENIX Anniversary:

[LostOne4Ever]

237. Did you not even bother to read my replies?

Last edited Tue Dec 1, 2015, 12:06 AM - Edit history (1)

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Here is what you dont get:

Even if the Sunday Assembly counts as a religion that just means that the sunday assembly is a religion, not atheism. You might as well say that because some people are satanist that all humans are satanist.

It is absurd.

BTW: American Atheist, and the FFRF foundation both have THOUSANDS of members. Probably more than the SA. In fact, assuming the website for the sunday assembly is correct and there is 68 chapters and assuming that they all draw 300 people (which is a idiotic overestimation at best) that would put them at 1800 members. That is less members than EITHER AA or FFRF; both of which are purely american associations while your SA is global...

I made my case. The very fact that I, BMUS, and all the other atheist here saying you are wrong even exist proves you wrong. We exist and prove that atheism is not a belief. Scream SA all you want, we still exist. QED.

I didn't claim to own it, again a strawman argument. Can you not argue with anything other than fabrication and fallacies? No, I made my case and backed it up with actual proof. You ignore it because...the facts don't support a single word you say.

YOU ARE WRONG.

You ignore us ACTUAL SELF IDENTIFYING ATHEISTS. WHO LIVE IN THE REAL WORD TOO. We are atheists because we identify as such, and we meet the definition. You don't get to invalidate us.

And we do know how to have fun, to live and love life, and who help their fellow humans. Again you don't know us, you are not god. That is a baseless ad hominem because you have no case and have to resort to insults.

Further, there are atheists from London, England to Sydney, Australia to Amsterdam, the Netherlands, to New York, Boston, Atlanta, San Diego, etc. etc. in the USA...atheists ALL OVER THE WORLD--saying the same thing we are. But you ignore them because they prove you wrong.

And for all those people attending the Sunday Assembly...you have no freaking clue if they think atheism is a religion or belief or not. Really, unless you interview every single one of them...you have no clue. In fact, not a single one of those people in those videos said atheism is a religion or belief.

Quit using them as your pawns.

If all you have are fallacies and asserting your right while ignoring everything to the contrary then I am done with you. I addressed everything you said, pointed out the fallacies and why they are wrong and backed myself up multiple authoritative sources and facts and logic that you ignored and resort to ad hominems.

TO purposely ignore the statements of actual atheists about what atheism is, is anti-athiest bigotry. No different than to telling a gay person what being homosexual mean.

I won't waste any more time on you.[/font]

[beam me up scottie]

246. But but but 162!

Sorry, I figured I'd beat them to it.





Seriously it's best to ignore any further replies, I think they're trying to goad you into a hide.

[MADem]

251. You keep trying to insist that there are "rules" to atheism, and you're trying to act like the

arbiter and gatekeeper of those rules you and a few old racist white guys have invented.

Here's the thing--there are no rules. There is no "Atheist Overlord" who tells people who is allowed to be atheist or agnostic. There are people who have OPINIONS. You have an opinion. So do I.

And these Sunday Assembly people think that you've got it all wrong. I think they've got it right.

There are lots of 'em. And they're growing.

Being "atheist" is not like being homosexual, and you insult the LGBT community by trying to play that card. People can change their mind about their atheism, and they can change it back again if they'd like -- the SA people get this, even though they don't "do" deities.

What a ghastly comparison that was.

Wow--the loss of control is an issue, I'm seeing! You're not handling this well at all...dragging the gay people in to try and support your point was really a bridge too far, I'm afraid.

[LostOne4Ever]

256. Wow, you really have no freaking clue about anything you are talking about in this thread do you?

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]From the SUNDAY ASSEMBLY WEBSITE:[/font]

https://www.sundayassembly.com/faq

What is Sunday Assembly?
Sunday Assembly is a secular community that meet regularly to celebrate life. Our motto is “Live better, help often and wonder more” and our mission is to help everyone live life as fully as possible.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/secular

Denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis:

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]The very people of the Sunday assembly say they are not a religion. Nothing supports a single thing you said. The so called Sunday Assembly themselves say they are not a religion.

Congrats you completely misrepresented a group you knew nothing about and couldn't even do a simple search of their website to find out your wrong.

Or are you going to attack them now and accuse the people you been praising of being gatekeepers (pro-tip you are the one being a gatekeeper my definition of atheism is Broader and more inclusive than yours), or athiest pope.

I have not attempted to enforce any rules, just correct you in misrepresenting what atheism is during your anti-atheist rant.

Again, you are right about there are no rules...which is why it is not a religion. Religions have rules, atheism does not. Atheism is not a religion. It is just not believing in god. Nothing else.

And no I didn't insult the LGBTQ+ community (which I am a part of), that is your thing and why you are banned from the LGBT group. Comparison was perfectly apt. But deflection and projection is common from people with no argument.[/font]

[MADem]

257. You should watch the videos, and listen to what the PEOPLE are saying. It would help you understand

where they are coming from.

I was banned from the LGBT group for refusing to throw Jimmy Carter under the bus, and you know it. Let's not play games on that score--anyone can look at the archives and see exactly what I said about a man in his nineties who was raised as a southern Baptist. Telling tales doesn't help you win your argument. In fact, it makes you look like you're short a point or two. Turns out, his point (and mine) was right--the Supreme Court did reach that tipping point, without Texas, and it didn't matter what the "states righters" said about the topic of marriage equality. Funny how Jimmy Carter had the EXACT same POV on this issue as Bernie Sanders, but Carter got tossed under the bus, and Sanders did not.

There may be no rules to generic atheism, but the SA community has guidelines. The fact that they have no doctrine or dogma is in their Ten Commandments, which I listed elsewhere in this thread. But they are 'radically inclusive,' they are open and accepting, they believe in celebrating the one life we know we have and they believe in community outreach. These are good beliefs, IMO--not something to scold or carp about.

Maybe you should check them out, and report back as to how "awful" they are for the "Atheist Not-a-Religion" set.

[LostOne4Ever]

262. No you were banned for telling people what to think just like you are trying to do now

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]as well as supporting a bigoted stance. And you are right about anyone can look it up. Let me help them:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1137&pid=41091

Oh looky now everyone can see.[/font]

There may be no rules to generic atheism, but the SA community has guidelines. The fact that they have no doctrine or dogma is in their Ten Commandments, which I listed elsewhere in this thread. But they are 'radically inclusive,' they are open and accepting, they believe in celebrating the one life we know we have and they believe in community outreach. These are good beliefs, IMO--not something to scold or carp about.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Guess what? I haven't scolded them or carped about them. I specifically said I didn't give a crap about them one way or the other. Also, guess what? I have no problem with those goals! Not at all. And Guess what? None of that makes them or atheism a religion!!!

Further, the fact that they have no doctrine or dogma makes it even clearer they are not a religion!!!

There is one and only one thing that makes one an atheist...not beliving in god(s). One can be a total antimoral straw nihilist or they can be an anti-nihilist (which while being a TV trope and not an actual type of nihilist is more the way i see things) or a real nihilist of some sort. They can be an Objectivist or a Secular humanist. We can be an agnostic/implicit atheist, or an explicit atheist. We can be fathers, mothers, democrats, libertarians, anarchist, socialists, lawyers, students, all sorts of things. We can even be a religionist (ie Non-theistic buddhist) or an anti-theist.

The only thing we have in common is lack of believing in gods. That is because....all atheism is, is lack of believing in gods. It is not a religion nor a belief!!!

Where have I claimed they were awful? LINK AND QUOTE ME!!! I DARE YOU!!!

Throughout this entire thread you have attributed attitudes and beliefs to me that I never said or claimed. Over and over. Repeatedly you told me what I think and who I support when you have no clue. All you know is that I have been correcting you on the definition of atheism.

No, I have not said one thing about rules. I have not said one thing about anything other than 1) that atheism is a lack of belief in gods and nothing else and 2) that your arguments are based on fallacies. Neither of which you disproved and THE VERY GROUP YOU WERE TOUTING SAY ON THEIR OFFICIAL WEBSITE THEY ARE NOT A RELIGION!!!

For the love of everyone else's sanity, just admit you are wrong.

You only have the Oxford English Dictionary, American Atheists, DU Atheists, Freedom from Religion Foundation, numerous Encyclopedias, The religious tolerance website, and the Sunday Assembly telling you that you are wrong....[/font]

[MADem]

263. 'The linked source is spinning his words, it's a right wing rag run by the Heritage Foundation.'

That, and everything else I had to say--even with links--was ignored, because I wasn't expressing the appropriate amount of poutrage on the issue at hand.


Thanks for providing the link--everyone CAN see exactly what I--and Carter--said.

All caps doesn't make your point any clearer. You need to listen to the congregants at the Sunday Assemblies, and see what they say about their church. They call it a religion without the deities, they take the baby Jesus in the bathwater and toss the baby and keep the bathwater. They have no problem with the terms that are driving you bazonkas. They also don't do doctrine or dogma, and that probably upsets you, too. And listing a lousy dictionary and a bunch of websites organized by the very haters who want to practice genocide against religious people is hardly recommending of anything but bias. See--if those particular atheists you prefer don't HAVE a religion, then they can't make any rules about an atheist religion that another group chooses to fire up. Those guys are not the boss of the Sunday Assemblies, and good thing--they are all about Hate and No, these SA guys are all about Love and Yes.

I'm not wrong. It walks like a duck. It's a religion, without the deities. Looks like a fascinating one, too--open, accepting, interested, joyful, community oriented....certainly not a "Kill All The Muslims" genocidal sit-at-home-alone hate-fest, a la Hitchens!

Anyone who celebrates living life and helping their fellow humans is a-OK with me!

[LostOne4Ever]

270. Yes they can see what you said.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]As well as what the others were telling you that you ignored. Where you told posters what they should think and defended the bigotry views of Carter (even he is not perfect).

I am listening to the Congregation, it is on their website[/font]

https://www.sundayassembly.com/faq

What is Sunday Assembly?
Sunday Assembly is a secular community that meet regularly to celebrate life. Our motto is “Live better, help often and wonder more” and our mission is to help everyone live life as fully as possible.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Can they be any clearer?

S
E
C
U
L
A
R

Without religion or spirituality.

On their OFFICIAL WEBSITE.[/font]

They also don't do doctrine or dogma, and that probably upsets you, too.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]No it doesn't. It makes me happy in fact. You see, that means they are not a religion...the very thing they say on their own website.[/font]

And listing a lousy dictionary and a bunch of websites organized by the very haters who want to practice genocide against religious people is hardly recommending of anything but bias.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Lousy dictionary? The Oxford English Dictionary is considered THE MOST AUTHORITATIVE DICTIONARY ON THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IN THE WORLD. Or maybe you need it in a different language?

[font style="font-family:'kaiti','MS Mincho','Fangsong',fantasy;" size=5 color=teal]日本語を話しますか。これはいいですか。[/font][/font] *Do you speak Japanese? Is this good?*

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]That is not a lousy dictionary MADem. It is the standard.

Haters of religion? Genocide? GENOCIDE?

Oxford university? Wikipedia? The FFRF? The RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE WEBSITE?

You just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into the hole, don't you? The fact that you claim that these organizations support "GENOCIDE" just because they disagree with you doesn't speak to my bias, it speaks to yours.

POST ME A LINK AND QUOTE ME ONE PLACE THE RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE WEBSITE CALLS FOR GENOCIDE OF RELIGIOUS PEOPLE!!! I DARE YOU!!!

But we both know you won't. Just like my last dare, you won't do it because you are making stuff up and can't do it.[/font]

See--if those particular atheists you prefer don't HAVE a religion, then they can't make any rules about an atheist religion that another group chooses to fire up. Those guys are not the boss of the Sunday Assemblies, and good thing--they are all about Hate and No, these SA guys are all about Love and Yes.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]For starters, the Sunday Assembly themselves say they are not a religion. So you have no point.

Further, yes atheists can join a religion. They could even create a religion that is atheistic. But that still doesn't make ATHEISM itself a religion. All atheism entails is not believing in gods. You can most definitely have a religion that is atheistic. But again, it does not follow that atheism itself is a religion or belief; because it is not either. [/font]

I'm not wrong. It walks like a duck. It's a religion, without the deities. Looks like a fascinating one, too--open, accepting, interested, joyful, community oriented....certainly not a "Kill All The Muslims" genocidal sit-at-home-alone hate-fest, a la Hitchens!

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Well, for one, they aren't a religion and say so on their website. Or is the word of the OFFICIAL WEBSITE of the group you are trying to bludgeon the rest of us with not good enough for you? You know better than all those THOUSANDS of members you were talking about earlier?

Again, you are telling people what they think. You really shouldn't do that. You are not god, and the Sunday Assembly knows themselves better than you.

FURTHER, you straight up say they have no doctrines or dogmas (something I greatly support and like actually). Guess what? That means they are not a religion. No gods, no doctrines, no dogma.

It follows that if the statement "if it walks/talks and quacks like a duck then it is a duck" then the statement "if its not a duck then it will not walk/talk/and quack like a duck." Guess what? It is not walking, talking, or quacking like a duck. It not a religion.

Also, please quote and link for me where Hitchens called for the Genocide of all Religious people or said we should kill ALL MUSLIMS? Or is your anti-atheist hate fest over?

No one supports you. Even the Sunday Assembly says your wrong. Give up, you lost.

You only make yourself look more and more ridiculous....though there might not be a lower low than calling the religious tolerance website a hate group dedicated to the "genocide" of all religious people.
[hr]

Now quit telling others what they think and for once listen to what the real living people from the group you are talking about are freaking telling you ABOUT THEMSELVES....you know, the thing you refused to do in the LGBT group and got you banned.

Atheism is just not having a belief in god(s). It is not a religion or belief.

Further, one can be a part of a religion and still be an atheist. So long as they don't believing in any gods they are still an atheist. Or they could choice to have no religion at all and still be an atheist. It also follows from this that just because some belong to a religion doesn't make atheism a religion.

Because it is not a religion but rather it is solely a lack of belief in gods. That is it.[/font]

*for those who don't want to use google translate

[MADem]

279. The Sunday Assembly is not a borg. And unlike you, they have no doctrine or dogma.

They are a secular church, they call their gatherings a congregation, and the people who attend are congregants. That's a religion to me, and it is to plenty of other people, too. Many of whom ATTEND the SA meetings. So sorry, "that's it"--to quote you.

It is a shame you are having a tough time processing this. You seem to think that the Sunday Assembly has a lot of authoritarian "rules" about what they're allowed to think of themselves. You're wrong about that, you see. They've got "freethinkers" among their number, along with skeptics, agnostics, seekers, etc. They "allow" a wide range of thought. They aren't narrow, they aren't close-minded, and their goal is to do good, enjoy life, and experience wonder. Seems like a plan to me!


This was written over two years ago...and here they are surviving, and THRIVING...300 and counting...
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/22/atheism_starts_its_megachurch_is_it_a_religion_now/


Atheism starts its megachurch: Is it a religion now?

....There is a growing openness to viewing religion/irreligion as a spectrum, rather than a dichotomy—and to institutionalizing faithlessness. Look at Harvard University’s wildly successful Humanist Community. Or Florida’s first public monument to atheism. Or efforts to hire secular army chaplains.

Ronald Dworkin’s forthcoming (and posthumous) Religion Without God promises to be an erudite commentary on this trend. “The familiar divide between people of religion and without religion is too crude,” Dworkin wrote in an excerpt published in The New York Review of Books. Dworkin argues for a more religious irreligiosity, a “religious atheism.” To this end, he quotes Albert Einstein, a noted atheist:

“To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong in the ranks of devoutly religious men.”

********....There are lots of fun ways to play this out. Imagine that Sunday Assembly Everywhere does take of with rip-roaring success. Will London become secularism’s answer to Vatican City? ....Either way, Sanderson Jones is confident that the model will spread. “We have the most natural human urge to do this,” he insists: to organize ourselves around institutions of meaning. I am inclined to agree that “Live Better, Help Often, and Wonder More” is a lovely motto to build around.

And as for detractors? “I don’t expect much objection from religious communities. They are happy for us to use their church model,” Jones muses. “I think it’s more aggressive atheists who will have an issue with it.”

He wasn't wrong about that, was he? The anger and personal insult directed at me for bringing this topic to the fore in this thread proves the founder of this church 100 percent right on that score! So, who ya gonna believe, so long as you insist upon "sources" to tell you what to think? Wikipedia and the Oxford English Dictionary, or Dworkin and Einstein?

Still more on that general topic, here: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/ronald-dworkins-religious-atheism/?_r=0

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/apr/04/religion-without-god/?pagination=false

[LostOne4Ever]

280. And still you have nothing. nt

[MADem]

282. Einstein and Dworkin are "nothing" eh? OK!

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/apr/04/religion-without-god/?pagination=false

The familiar stark divide between people of religion and without religion is too crude. Many millions of people who count themselves atheists have convictions and experiences very like and just as profound as those that believers count as religious. They say that though they do not believe in a “personal” god, they nevertheless believe in a “force” in the universe “greater than we are.” They feel an inescapable responsibility to live their lives well, with due respect for the lives of others; they take pride in a life they think well lived and suffer sometimes inconsolable regret at a life they think, in retrospect, wasted. They find the Grand Canyon not just arresting but breathtakingly and eerily wonderful. They are not simply interested in the latest discoveries about the vast universe but enthralled by them. These are not, for them, just a matter of immediate sensuous and otherwise inexplicable response. They express a conviction that the force and wonder they sense are real, just as real as planets or pain, that moral truth and natural wonder do not simply evoke awe but call for it.

There are famous and poetic expressions of the same set of attitudes. Albert Einstein said that though an atheist he was a deeply religious man:

To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong in the ranks of devoutly religious men.1

Percy Bysshe Shelley declared himself an atheist who nevertheless felt that “The awful shadow of some unseen Power/Floats though unseen among us….”2 Philosophers, historians, and sociologists of religion have insisted on an account of religious experience that finds a place for religious atheism. William James said that one of the two essentials of religion is a sense of fundamentality: that there are “things in the universe,” as he put it, “that throw the last stone.”3 Theists have a god for that role, but an atheist can think that the importance of living well throws the last stone, that there is nothing more basic on which that responsibility rests or needs to rest.

Judges often have to decide what “religion” means for legal purposes. For example, the American Supreme Court had to decide whether, when Congress provided a “conscientious objection” exemption from military service for men whose religion would not allow them to serve, an atheist whose moral convictions also prohibited service qualified for the objection. It decided that he did qualify.4 The Court, called upon to interpret the Constitution’s guarantee of “free exercise of religion” in another case, declared that many religions flourish in the United States that do not recognize a god, including something the Court called “secular humanism.”5 Ordinary people, moreover, have come to use “religion” in contexts having nothing to do with either gods or ineffable forces. They say that Americans make a religion of their Constitution, and that for some people baseball is a religion. These latter uses of “religion” are only metaphorical, to be sure, but they seem parasitic not on beliefs about God but rather on deep commitments more generally.

So the phrase “religious atheism,” however surprising, is not an oxymoron; religion is not restricted to theism just as a matter of what words mean. But the phrase might still be thought confusing. Would it not be better, for the sake of clarity, to reserve “religion” for theism and then to say that Einstein, Shelley, and the others are “sensitive” or “spiritual” atheists? But on a second look, expanding the territory of religion improves clarity by making plain the importance of what is shared across that territory. Richard Dawkins says that Einstein’s language is “destructively misleading” because clarity demands a sharp distinction between a belief that the universe is governed by fundamental physical laws, which Dawkins thought Einstein meant, and a belief that it is governed by something “supernatural,”...But Einstein meant much more than that the universe is organized around fundamental physical laws; indeed his view I quoted is, in one important sense, an endorsement of the supernatural. The beauty and sublimity he said we could reach only as a feeble reflection are not part of nature; they are something beyond nature that cannot be grasped even by finally understanding the most fundamental of physical laws. It was Einstein’s faith that some transcendental and objective value permeates the universe, value that is neither a natural phenomenon nor a subjective reaction to natural phenomena. That is what led him to insist on his own religiosity.

[Lordquinton]

284. You discredit your own sources

Two dead, white atheists.

[MADem]

286. Who aren't racists. Reading is fundamental, you know....

You made a booboo, there!

[LostOne4Ever]

302. No, just your arguments are nothing. Because you don't even understand the basic argument.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]That fact that you link that just proves it.

No one here is saying that a person can not be both an atheist and also religious.

What we are telling you, and you refuse to freaking listen to, is that Atheism is not a religion.

One can be a chess player and also have religion. But that doesn't make chess a religion.

But you refuse to even attempt to understand that. Because YOU ARE INCAPABLE of LISTENING TO OTHER PEOPLE. EVEN WHEN THOSE PEOPLE ARE MEMBERS OF THE VERY GROUP YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF ADMITTING YOU WERE WRONG.

Your Links are about atheists who happen to be religious. NOT ONE FREAKING WORD from either Einstein nor Dworkin say atheism is a religion, or even indirectly implies it.

Here is what Eisenstein (a PANTHEIST and not an atheist so I don't see why his views on atheism matter) said from the source in your article:[/font]

http://www.amazon.com/Living-Philosophies-Albert-Einstein/dp/0404591280

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. This insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms-this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong in the ranks of devoutly religious men.

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purpose are modeled after our own--a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble soouls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism. It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in nature.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]He specifically said that standing in awe of realizition that what can not be seen by human faculties is real is the one aspect of what is considered religion to which he adheres. That is NOT saying that atheism is religion.

Now onto Dworkinson, his entire piece is about RELIGION WITHOUT GOD. It is not a book about atheism being a religion, and no where does he make that claim. What he is talking about are religious people who are atheists. For crying out loud.

He even has to use the word religious with the word atheism specifically because they are unrelated to each other. He even acknowledges nonreligious atheists and naturalists exist:[/font]

The religious attitude rejects naturalism, which is one name for the very popular metaphysical theory that nothing is real except what can be studied by the natural sciences, including psychology. That is, nothing exists that is neither matter nor mind; there is really, fundamentally, no such thing as a good life or justice or cruelty or beauty. Richard Dawkins spoke for naturalists when he suggested the scientists’ proper reply to people who, criticizing naturalism, endlessly quote Hamlet: “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” “Yes,” Dawkins replied, “but we’re working on it.”

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]No where in the Dworkin article you provided me, and no where in the Eistien blurb does it say in any form or fashion atheism is a religion. Once again, you are making stuff up and hope we don't look into it further. Or did you not even bother to read and just bolded some random stuff that you thought supported you?

Either way, it is you resort to applying beliefs to me that I don't have.[/font]

And unlike you, they have no doctrine or dogma.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Here for instance. I don't have doctrine or dogma. Because I don't have religion. [/font]

They are a secular church, they call their gatherings a congregation, and the people who attend are congregants. That's a religion to me, and it is to plenty of other people, too. Many of whom ATTEND the SA meetings. So sorry, "that's it"--to quote you.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]"To you." Well guess what? "To you" doesn't matter. That not the definition of the word by any standard. Not a one. Yet by all the AUTHORITATIVE SOURCES i have given you, and by the THOUSANDS of members of the Sunday Assembly you brought up, they are not in any sense a religion.

This is not because Lost said so, it not because you said. IT IS BECAUSE THEY SAY SO! IT IS BECAUSE THEY DON'T MEET THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD! You are not the boss of them, nor are you a member, and they laid it out in their official website just so that people like you would read it and see it.

Get it through your head. YOU ARE NOT GOD!!!

I want to think you are still going at this because you really can't understand how atheism is not a religion and yet there can be religious people who are also atheists...but I suspect that is not the case. I suspect you honestly know you are wrong and just arguing because you think this is a contest.

It is not.

You are not a god and you have nothing. [/font]

[Lordquinton]

303. Beautiful

They should have sent a poet.

[beam me up scottie]

305. *LO4E drops mic and walks offstage*

[MADem]

308. I provided links that stated otherwise. Not sure where you get the authority to make that claim.

Are you the Pope of Atheists?

I provide links--you provide angry "all caps" diatribes trying to create a strawman that I somehow have appointed myself God.

You don't speak for all atheists--you sure as heck don't speak for the ones at these Sunday Assemblies.

I think you need to re-read the material I offered you. You're apparently glossing over it. Start with this:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/apr/04/religion-without-god/?pagination=false

Then, check this out--it's just a blurb, but the point is pretty clear:

http://alaindebotton.com/religion/

It seems pretty straightforward if you'd just stop allowing your biases to interfere with your processing of the material. I'm not going to return your insults, as they don't really bother me, and have no effect on my thought processes here. FWIW all they do is weaken your arguments. There's no need to get angry with me because you aren't making your case. This isn't about who's who in the DU AA forum, this is about a global paradigm shift. If you're telling me what I'm allowed to think or say, you DO have a dogma and a doctrine, even if you don't quite understand that.

You can either confront these paradigm shifts and see them for what they are, as they evolve before our eyes, or you can stick your head in the sand and insist this is just not happening, even as it does. Your choice!

[LostOne4Ever]

321. I read the links from Dworkins and Einstein, no they dont say otherwise.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Quote where they say atheism is a religion. I DARE YOU. But again, you won't do it because they don't.

Here you can read the Einstein quote in its entirety:

http://www.amazon.com/Living-Philosophies-Albert-Einstein/dp/0404591280

As for:

http://alaindebotton.com/religion/

The blurb doesn't say atheism is a religion either. It talks about religion for atheists. Cause, you know, they wouldn't have to say anything about atheists if atheism was a religion. They would say the religion of atheism....they don't.

And lets be clear, you are the one who has been throwing insults at me, as well as ascribing to me believes and position I do not have, I just keep on pointing out that you are not god. Cause you are not, although you keep on trying to tell me what I think.

In fact here is the first insult of our conversation...and it is from YOU:[/font]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7392578

Only if you are the center of the universe

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]And you have hurled them at me numerous times in this debate.

I made my case fine. From post one my logic has been flawless and you haven't been able to refute a single thing I said. That is why you keep handwaving it away. The post of yours that started this debate is still a burden of proof fallacy. Anyone can look it up and see that it is a text book case.

No this is not about AA. Nor is it about any group at DU. Nor is it about a perceived paradigm shift.

This is a debate where you wanted to preach about the ascendancy of the Sunday Assembly (who are not a religion) and I simply want to make it clear atheism is not a religion and point out a single fallacy you made.

You keep on harping about atheists who (you think) are religious (and there are some atheists who are religious...just not the Sunday Assembly) and I keep on pointing out that nothing you mention makes atheism a religion.

But you don't even make an attempt to understand what we are saying.

So maybe if I make it as simple as possible.[/font]

Belief-mental state of holding something to be true.

Disbelief- Mental state of not holding something to be true.

Contrary belief-Mental state of holding the opposite view to be true

One who holds a contrabelief obviously disbelieves, but disbelief does not imply contrabelief.

For instance:
Contrary belief-If I believe that Jack is heading south then I both disbelieve and have the contrary belief to the claim that he is heading north.

Disbelief without having the contrary belief- If I believe that James is heading east then I disbelieve that he is heading north. I don't think it is true. However, just because I disbelieve that he is heading north does not mean I hold the contrabelief of him heading south to be true either.

Theist-Believes in at least one god

Atheist-disbelieves in god(s)/ Does not believe in gods/lacks belief in gods (same thing stated three different ways)

Implicit atheist/agnostic-Neither believes in god nor do they believe there is no god.

Explicit atheist-Believes there are no gods. Since they believe there are no gods, they obviously don't believe in gods either.

The explicit atheist holds the contrary belief to the theist. The implicit atheist holds no belief.

Religion-1The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 A particular system of faith and worship. 3 A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Under none of the above is atheism a religion. Under none of the above is atheism a belief. One can believe there are no gods and still be an atheist. One can niether believe there are no gods and also not believe there are gods and still be an atheist. One can have no religion and still be an atheist. One can have a religion and still be an atheist.

The only thing that is important to the definition is that one not believe/"hold to be true" that there are gods.

I DON'T CARE ABOUT MOVEMENT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, What I do care about is people trying to redefine or give out misinformation about a group I am a part of us.

Further, I am not telling you want to do or think. In fact, you are doing that to me. I, unlike you, am an atheist. So when you say atheism is a religion you are saying I have dogma and doctrine and all the other shit that goes with religion. You are telling me what I think.

I am correcting you. Nothing more.

Atheism is not a religion by definition. And please, no more about these paradigm shifts because I DON'T CARE about them either way. I am only interesting in keeping people from giving out misinfo about a group to which I belong.

ONE LAST TIME:

I am NOT saying there are no atheistic religions.
I am NOT saying there are no religious atheists
I am NOT saying that there are not atheists who have beliefs
What I am saying is that atheism, in its entirety, and unto itself solely, is not a religion or belief.

AND I DON'T GIVE A FUCK ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ABOUT THE SUNDAY ASSEMBLY (though they aren't a relgion either, they say so themselves on their website).

No where did I tell you or anyone else what to think. No where did I say you can't be a part of a religion and be an atheist.

ALL I SAID IS THAT ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION.[/font]

[Lordquinton]

281. Wait a minute

Weren't you just saying we shouldn't pay attention to dead white atheists?

[beam me up scottie]

283. OH SNAP!

Dead - yep

White - yep

Atheist - yes indeed!

[MADem]

285. Dead white racist atheists...I don't think these two wanted to kill any Muslims!

[Lordquinton]

289. Richard P. Feynman

Carl Sagan, I don't think they were racist.

Plus you have several living atheists asking you to stop trying to define us, doesn't that count for you?

[MADem]

291. Why bring up a pair of skeptics who weren't atheists? Are you name dropping?

I am not "defining you." I am talking about the membership of the Sunday Assembly. Who have wide and varying views, and who attend an atheist church.

As for Sagan and Feynman, you've just dragged them in the door. Their illustrative purpose is entirely unclear. What, we're just tossing names, now?

They weren't atheists, either, though their deeply skeptical natures would have made the Sunday Assembly paradigm a swell fit for them!

Sagan:

“I am not an atheist. An atheist is someone who has compelling evidence that there is no Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. I am not that wise, but neither do I consider there to be anything approaching adequate evidence for such a god. Why are you in such a hurry to make up your mind? Why not simply wait until there is compelling evidence?” (It’s a bit puzzling that Sagan specifies the Abrahamic faiths in his definition of an atheist.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/achenblog/wp/2014/07/10/carl-sagan-denied-being-an-atheist-so-what-did-he-believe-part-1/

Feynman writes:

I do not believe that science can disprove the existence of God; I think that is impossible. And if it is impossible, is not a belief in science and in a God — an ordinary God of religion — a consistent possibility?

Yes, it is consistent. Despite the fact that I said that more than half of the scientists don’t believe in God, many scientists do believe in both science and God, in a perfectly consistent way. But this consistency, although possible, is not easy to attain, and I would like to try to discuss two things: Why it is not easy to attain, and whether it is worth attempting to attain it.

Clarifying that by “God” he means the personal deity typical of Western religions, “to whom you pray and who has something to do with creating the universe and guiding you in morals,” Feynman considers the key difficulties in reconciling the scientific worldview with the religious one. Building on his assertion that the universal responsibility of the scientist is to remain immersed in “ignorance and doubt and uncertainty,” he points out that the centrality of uncertainty in science is incompatible with the unconditional faith required by religion:

It is imperative in science to doubt; it is absolutely necessary, for progress in science, to have uncertainty as a fundamental part of your inner nature. To make progress in understanding, we must remain modest and allow that we do not know. Nothing is certain or proved beyond all doubt. You investigate for curiosity, because it is unknown, not because you know the answer. And as you develop more information in the sciences, it is not that you are finding out the truth, but that you are finding out that this or that is more or less likely.

https://www.brainpickings.org/2015/05/11/richard-feynman-science-religion/

[Lordquinton]

298. Feynman was an atheist

In his own words "[I call myself] an atheist. Agnostic for me would be trying to weasel out and sound a little nicer than I am about this." (Look up the interview if you wish)


The real question is are you a member of the Sunday Assembly?

And you are arguing with atheists here on this site about what atheism is and whether it is a religion, and you are wrong. Unless you are an atheist, are you?

[MADem]

304. He could not have been, no matter how he might have labeled himself.

I provided his EXACT words and a link. You provide me something you call an 'in his own words' but without a link or context. Sorry, I don't do your homework for you. You haven't proven your case.

He has said that he "can live with uncertainty and doubt." He doesn't mind not knowing--it doesn't frighten him.

Here, look at his face while he speaks, listen to him yourself:

I am not a member of Sunday Assembly. I find them fascinating, though--I think they are, if not the religion of the future, one of the foundations of a movement that will establish mainstream religions similar to this one, either through schism or evolution. I think we are seeing the cusp of great change. It's fascinating to observe. I wish I had another hundred years to see how it all shakes out.

The atheists here on du do not "own" atheism. If you had that idea, you'd better disabuse yourself of it pretty quick, because the angry, militant atheism I've seen here is completely out of step with what's coming down the pike, and ya know what? The people here, they're getting older and dying off, and they are not being replaced, while those kids at the SA churches, they're young, and of their demographic, forty percent of them are atheist/agnostic--a perfect fit for this church, which welcomes all ages, bring the children, is uplifting, positive, does good works in the community, etc.

I make it a point to not discuss many of my personal details with members of online message boards. Faith or lack of same is one of those items that I keep to myself--it does amuse me at times when people make assumptions, but I don't need to play that "I'm one of X, ergo I am an expert" game. Sorry! And I don't buy that argument from anyone else either--you need to prove your assertions or I will formulate an opinion of you.

I will tell you this--I can go into any Abrahamic/Ibrahimic house of worship and "pass." That's owing to my ability to be a very quick study with a facility for language and having lived all over the world where acquiring this talent was helpful in the extreme. I also enjoyed a rather classical education in my youth, where topics like philosophy and theology were, if not bread and butter, frequent side dishes.

Again, I don't speak for "all atheists"--but neither do YOU. You seem to not understand that, though I've said it more than once. These Sunday Assemblists do not agree with the hot-breathed and rigid dogma of some of my more angry interlocutors, and I doubt any amount of hectoring will move them to that side. They aren't interested in any dogma, doctrine, rules, regulations or limiting definitions. They're after joy and wonder and all the positive things that engaging with an uplifting congregation brings.

[Lordquinton]

306. Ok, here in his words, a link

Feynman: An atheist. Agnostic for me would be trying to weasel out and sound a little nicer than I am about this.

You completely misunderstand this whole discussion. Atheism is a very simple thing, that is a lack of a belief in god(s). That's it

There are atheistic religions, but atheism is not a religion.

The matter of weather or not you are an atheist matters a lot here, if you are not an atheist then you have zero business speaking for any of them, particularly since you have been asked by several here to not do so. Speaking for a minority you are not a member of after you have been asked to stop is not a liberal value. That's the reason you were blocked from the LGBTQIA group.

I don't speak for all atheists, but I do speak for one, and it seems like you speak for one less than I do.

[beam me up scottie]

309. "Feynman: An atheist. Agnostic for me would be trying to weasel out and sound a little nicer..."

Yep, that's an atheist.

And I speak for one atheist as well.

Atheism is not a religion, the lack of something is not something.

Such a simple concept.

[MADem]

310. It's pretty clear that, no matter what he said in response to that question, that he was uncertain.

In fact, he invalidates his assertion on the VERY SAME PAGE. All you have to do is keep reading, and he acknowledges uncertainty.

Look, I can call a pumpkin a fig, that doesn't make that pumpkin a fig. What the gentleman is describing about how he feels about the topic is just not atheism. It's close, but no cigar--see, the scientist in him couldn't allow him to express certainty when he didn't actually feel it.

And this is why a continuum of religiosity (as we've seen used in churches like the SA), decoupled, as some said, from theism-- is -- indeed -- a useful tool.

[beam me up scottie]

311. Agnostic atheists aren't certain, that's why it's called 'agnostic' atheism - still atheism.

Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

Agnostic atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheismWikipedia

Richard Feynman was an atheist.

[MADem]

319. There you go with the wikipedia again! Great link...not! nt

[beam me up scottie]

320. Beats using MADem for a source. :)

[MADem]

324. You should check your work. Or not. nt

[beam me up scottie]

326. More:

What is an Agnostic Atheist?

An agnostic atheist has two qualities: they don't happen to believe in any gods and they don't claim to know or sure that no gods can or do exist.

Not believing that some claim is true while also not claiming to know for sure that it's false is not only easy, it happens in lots and lots of different topics. It would be a surprise if it didn't happen when the topic is the existence of gods.

For some strange reason, though, many people have he mistaken impression that agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive. But why? There's nothing about "I don't know" which excludes "I don't believe." On the contrary, not only are they compatible but they frequently appear together because not knowing is frequently a reason for not believing. It's often a very good idea to not accept some proposition is true unless you have enough evidence that would qualify as knowledge.

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/Atheist-vs-Agnostic-Difference.htm

If that's too difficult try this, let me know if you still don't understand the difference, black and white thinkers might not get it:

[MADem]

328. Gee, look at all that dogma and doctrine!

Your first link still goes to garbage, though.

That's fine and dandy, but that term never came up in the originally cited link (the Nobel book cite, specifically).

This doesn't add anything.

[beam me up scottie]

329. I didn't think you would understand, it's never easy for fundamentalist thinkers.

You only see the world in black and white, don't feel bad, concepts like agnostic atheism may seem scary at first but if you work at it you'll get it eventually.

I have faith in you.

[MADem]

331. Nothing to do with black and white--it has to do with what the gentleman actually said.

I guess that kind of thing doesn't matter to you--you've put words in his mouth. You do that on occasion, I've noticed.

That post is just sad. "Scary?" Really?

I wonder how old you are. Truly. 15?

[beam me up scottie]

333. Read through all of the definitions again and let me know which parts are confusing you.

I'll try to make it as simple as possible but if you refuse to do any work you're never going to get this.

Stubbornly refusing to learn really doesn't help matters, if you want to communicate with atheists you have to be willing to listen to them.

I understand when you were growing up that atheism only meant one thing but things have changed, dictionaries have evolved and so can you.

Stick with it!

[MADem]

336. Oh snap! ZOMG (to quote you) ....I don't think so. You've nothing to add. nt

[beam me up scottie]

338. So you refuse to even try to learn about agnostic atheism, how unexpected!

I understand, it's intimidating to find out you've been wrong all these years but you can't learn if you won't even try.

C'mon!

Read something, expand your horizons!

Here you go, it won't hurt, I promise:

Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

Agnostic atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheismWikipedia

What is an Agnostic Atheist?

An agnostic atheist has two qualities: they don't happen to believe in any gods and they don't claim to know or sure that no gods can or do exist.

Not believing that some claim is true while also not claiming to know for sure that it's false is not only easy, it happens in lots and lots of different topics. It would be a surprise if it didn't happen when the topic is the existence of gods.

For some strange reason, though, many people have he mistaken impression that agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive. But why? There's nothing about "I don't know" which excludes "I don't believe." On the contrary, not only are they compatible but they frequently appear together because not knowing is frequently a reason for not believing. It's often a very good idea to not accept some proposition is true unless you have enough evidence that would qualify as knowledge.

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/Atheist-vs-Agnostic-Difference.htm

[LostOne4Ever]

322. We gave you the Oxford dictionary but you don't believe that either. nt

[MADem]

323. You obviously didn't click on that link before you snarked at me. nt

[LostOne4Ever]

325. You mean this one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

[MADem]

334. No--one similar to it, that went nowhere.

You do realize that one can still see the first versions of posts even if they are edited before the thirty minute mark, don't you?

That stuff doesn't go away--the distracting 'red edit' line doesn't show up in the first half hour or so, but the edits are still visible with just a click or two.

DU is so transparent!

[LostOne4Ever]

337. I am aware of that post 325 has no edits. nt

[Lordquinton]

312. Unbelievable

He literally says "I am an atheist" and you say he's wrong.

Are you an atheist?

[MADem]

314. And then he acknowledges there is a possibility (albeit a low one) that he could be wrong.

I didn't say it--HE did. You have to actually read his words without looking for confirmation of your biases to see it.

I have answered that question already. You might try reading what people write.

[Lordquinton]

316. "You might try reading what people write."

Like when Feynman said "I am an atheist"

You're the one with conformation bias preventing you from seeing what he said in no uncertain terms.

And no, you haven't answered that question, you gave a long frilly speech that contradicted it's self several times and left me chuckling, but did not answer the question.

[MADem]

317. As I said, and you're ignoring, he qualified his response with his waffling in the next paragraph.

I did read it--all of it. You didn't. His terms were plainly not "uncertain" as he qualified them almost immediately, which you would have seen had you continued reading.

The answer you got is all the answer you're going to get. Too bad if you don't like that. You're not entitled to personal details about individuals, even if you think otherwise.

[cemaphonic]

357. A thought experiment for you:

Do you believe in leprechauns? Are you prepared to state with 100% certainty that they do not exist in any form even though there is every bit as much evidence for them (folktales and legends) as there is for any deity you might care to name.

Or Ganesha? Unless you're a Hindu, I'm guessing you don't believe in him. Are you absolutely sure that the hundreds of millions that pray to him everyday are wrong?

Being both atheistic and agnostic isn't some sort of logical contradiction - it's extremely common. So stop trying to claim that self-described atheists aren't actually so. It's very obnoxious and uncivilized.

[beam me up scottie]

293. Why do the atheists have to be dead? Live ones can't define atheism because...

[MADem]

296. You can keep running around and cheerleading those who are contributing to the conversation if you'd

like, but until you have something to add, there's no point engaging you. You aren't taking any of the points and you are engaging in BooYA Gotcha games.

[beam me up scottie]

300. I don't understand why you can't stop telling us we practice a religion because we say so.

Last edited Tue Dec 1, 2015, 06:06 AM - Edit history (1)

Why do you have to look for quotes from dead guys so you can keep being intolerant?

Atheists are telling you here and now that our atheism isn't a religion and you've spent hours and hours trying to prove that we don't know what we're talking about.

What is wrong with you?

Do you look for source material so you can tell poc they're not poc? Authors who claim lgbt people are really straight?

And before you go off on that tangent atheism is not a choice, I was born an atheist, I didn't decide to become one.

When someone tells you you're wrong about them the liberal thing to do is acknowledge that fact and move on.

You don't keep insisting they don't know what they're talking about.

Your little dance did nothing but prove that you're a fundamentalist who cannot admit when they're wrong.


Not having a religion is not a religion, bald is not a hair colour and not having a disease is not a disease.

[MADem]

313. Well, I'm not really conversing with you. You keep jumping in with your booya stuff,

and it's not really productive or even original. You're parroting the thoughts of others in this discussion, and any questions you have (not that you have many, you're mostly trying to play a gotcha game and I just won't engage you on that low level) are already answered elsewhere in this thread.

Read along if you're interested but that's all you're going to get from me. Now declare victory if you'd like, that seems to be your MO.

[beam me up scottie]

315. I asked a question. Why do you keep telling us what we think and believe?

You're not an atheist so you can't even speak for yourself, you're parroting dead guys for fuck's sake.

If you want to slink off now and pretend you won, that's fine but you got pwned big time in this thread MADem, and I am savoring every minute of it.

[MADem]

318. You're all over this thread like a kid playing the dozens. Oh snap!

I don't engage with people who demonstrate that level of maturity.

I'm not going anywhere--I'm just not wasting time engaging with you on any substantive level. There's no gain, and you aren't asking anything new. You're just copying off the smart kids and pretending it's your own work.

See, only someone with the attitude of a grammar schooler would yammer on about being "pwned" (how the hell old are you?) in a theological discussion.

It says so much about you, this post. So much! ....LOL at "...what WE think..." You seem to think "OH SNAP" is discourse!

beam me up scottie
315. I asked a question. Why do you keep telling us what we think and believe?
View profile
You're not an atheist so you can't even speak for yourself, you're parroting dead guys for fuck's sake.

If you want to slink off now and pretend you won, that's fine but you got pwned big time in this thread MADem, and I am savoring every minute of it.

[beam me up scottie]

340. And yet you're the one refusing to learn about agnostic atheism.

You absolutely will not admit that you're wrong, atheist after atheist has explained this to you with dozens of legitimate links and citations and all you've done is plug your ears while screaming "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" as if this is substantive debate.

[beam me up scottie]

265. Yep, that's why they were banned alright.

How intolerant do you have to be to barge into a protected group and lecture them on how they should think and feel about a homophobic politician?

Now they're doing the same thing to atheists, telling us that we're wrong about ourselves.

Apparently they haven't learned a damned thing about tolerance.

[Lordquinton]

267. I remember reading that thread when it happened

Couldn't believe it then, and now, watching him telling atheists that they are wrong about their own disbelief is stunning.

I like his style tho, maybe the next time someone suggests I read Thomas Aquinas for better understanding I should dismiss him as a dead white man.

[beam me up scottie]

269. Is Thomas Aquinas one of those "dead, white racist angry atheists" too?

Learn something new every day.

[Lordquinton]

271. Well, not an atheist

but still dead and white, which is two parts, and really the important ones.

[beam me up scottie]

272. Oops, I got confused. So much misinformation in this one thread I just can't keep track of it all.

No religion is a religion, bald is a hair colour, dead white racists are making rules about atheism on the internet from beyond the grave...

[LostOne4Ever]

273. And Oxford University and the Religious Tolerance Website are devoted to Genocide of the religious

[font style="font-family:'georgia','MS Mincho','Fangsong',fantasy;" size=5 color=teal]It just gets better and better!!! 5/5 Star comedy!!!

[/font]

[beam me up scottie]

274. Oh! This must be performance art! That explains it!

And here I thought they were serious, my bad.

[Lordquinton]

275. It is confusing here at times

Apparently Being dead and white invalidates anything you have to say (I mean, you'd think that atheists would know what they were about)

And contrary to what some have declared, the history of atheism has been mostly defined by believers, thus the bad rap we've gotten throughout history. I'd dare say that I'd define the New atheists as the first generation of atheists who were able to define themselves, they created what atheism is as an identity, instead of what believers have been labeling atheists as.

[beam me up scottie]

276. There seems to be a need for some to redefine a minority/movement whenever they get too uppity.

This is how it goes:

"What's wrong with the old atheism/civil rights/women's/lgbt movements?"

Why back in my day they knew their place, now they wanna be all up in my face about privilege and oppression?

*insert something about reverse discrimination here*

*cite quotes from extremists, redefine minority as radical and intolerant, dismiss the entire movement*

[LostOne4Ever]

277. I think this comic sums it up perfectly

*Stolen without permission from WillParkinson.

[beam me up scottie]

278. EXACTLY! That could be any uppity minority saying "NO" to the majority!

I always liked this one too:

[Lordquinton]

292. Turns out Aquinas is (was) racist!

I mean, who knew, what with his writings driving Catholic Imperialism and all.

Probably not an atheist tho.

[beam me up scottie]

295. Well in order to be correct one has to be dead, white, non-racist and an atheist.

Them's the rules, Lordquinton.

Otherwise nothing they wrote and/or said about atheism is credible.

[MADem]

287. You can think whatever you'd like. You just can't tell others what to think.

Was Thomas Aquinas a racist?

You really need to read mo'better, ya know! So you stuffed Jimmy under the bus, too? Even though he was right, at the end of the day? Texas wasn't needed--the Supremes acted without them.

When he dies--and he will, soon--don't you go shedding any tears for the guy.

[Lordquinton]

290. So disregard anyone in hostory who was racist?

You do realize that covers most historical figures.

As for Aquinas? I'll let him speak for himself:

[4] On the other hand, those who founded sects committed to erroneous doctrines proceeded in a way that is opposite to this, The point is clear in the case of Muhammad. He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity. He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the contrary, Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning, Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms. Nor do divine pronouncements on the part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be. seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words believe foolishly.

http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles1.htm#6

As for Carter, he's a great man, but he was dead wrong on that issue. As are you.

[MADem]

294. You're going a little far afield, here.

Weren't your misstatements the last few times enough punishment for you?

Aquinas wasn't an atheist, either.

smh.

You're having such a hard time doing the "Live and let live" thing.

I guess this SA church really DOES have a lot of the old-schoolers on the ropes! The brand is being co-opted by the youth, and there's more of them than there are of the entrenched establishment.

That's the way of the world--everything old is new again. Was it ever thus!

[Lordquinton]

299. I'm takign your refutation to it's logical conclusion

What do you mean "Wasn't an atheist, either?" He was racist, as I provided. If you have a problem with what I posted, look to your own logic, cause it all came from there.

The Sunday assembly you are obsessed with is a minority , as Lostone4ever pointed out to you. They do not speak for every atheist, and particularly they do not speak for any atheist here on DU.

Are you an atheist? Are you a member of the Sunday Assembly?

[MADem]

327. No, you're not doing that at all.

You're trying to go as far afield from the original discussion as you can manage. You're flinging others, who have nothing to do with the topic, into the mix to try and obfuscate the discussion. You can cough up a laundry list of dead atheists if you would like--racist, or not--and it wouldn't matter. These people are going to keep assembling and starting new congregations even if you don't like that.

Further, if the Sunday Assembly is "a minority" then why are you getting so irritated about them? This is a group that appeals to millennials, who are flocking to them in droves. It's one of the fastest growing churches in the history of churches, but do go on and dismiss it.

I've answered your personal questions already. Repetition isn't going to change my response.

[LostOne4Ever]

330. No one is getting riled up about the Sunday Assembly but you. Most of us are indifferent to them

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]BTW: I am a millennial. I am an atheist. I am an agnostic atheist. I am LGBTQ.

You...are not any of these things.

Also: Sunday Assembly isn't a religion. Says so on their official website.[/font]

[MADem]

332. You don't really know a thing about me. And bigger letters doesn't make it "better."

I'd have thought you were a senior citizen with the size of those things...'LOL.'

Sunday Assembly IS a religion--the participants say so.

[LostOne4Ever]

335. Oh? Please provide quotes from every single member saying so

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]I have the official website saying its not.

Who to believe, them, or you...and admitted non-member.

Oh and I know you aren't a millenial, an atheist or LGBTQ.[/font]

[MADem]

347. You could look at the videos I have offered in this thread....

OR....you can go to a place called YOUTUBE, and punch in "Sunday Assembly" and page after page after page of videos of services, from congregations all over the world, will come up. You can watch those and get a great idea of what these people are all about. There are also a huge number of news articles about these guys and what they're trying to accomplish. It's pretty much a MEMBER driven outfit--the website is referential, not controlling. But nice try to inject a little authoritarianism into an organization that has no DOCTRINE or DOGMA.

You know next to nothing about me--I am old as dirt, I'll give you that. Does that make me "ageist" like another your number charge?

[LostOne4Ever]

353. Your first video (the short one) didn't say a word about atheism being a religion

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]It said they take parts of religion from religion. Are "parts of a yatch a yatch? If all I have is two planks does that make a yatch? Nope

The 35mins video doesn't call it or atheism a religion at all.

You know kinda like your link from Dworkins didn't say a word about atheism not being a religion. I noticed you once again didn't take me up on my dares yet again.

I am not going to watch thru every single video, especially the one over an hour long, to see that you are misrepresenting them (I bet the hour+ long video is a bunch of singing and not one word about atheism or the SA being a religion) as I can simply click on the OFFICIAL WEBSITE made the the FOUNDERS of the Sunday Assembly to prove you wrong.

Now, provide every single member's quote proving your claim.

Like this, the FOUNDERS saying if you are not religious at the 14 second mark.

?t=14

Or this one where one member says "were not a cult" at the 20 second mark

?t=20

and another says "rebuilding the communities that were crumbling as people leave religion" at second 25

Cause from this it looks pretty obvious they don't consider themselves a religion.

Here is an article that says they wanted to create a church without religion

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2013/12/18/organized-non-religion

So NO IT IS NOT A RELIGION. The founders and the official website say so.

And that is beside the POINT, because one can be religious and still be an atheist

BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE ATHEISM A RELIGION.

AGAIN no one supports, not even the Sunday Assembly!!![/font]

[LostOne4Ever]

356. More sunday assembly people saying it is not a religion

Last edited Tue Dec 1, 2015, 02:05 PM - Edit history (4)

http://www.nottinghampost.com/s-best-bits-church-religion-awesome-pop-songs/story-21454836-detail/story.html


[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Though not the founders this time. The founders can be found here saying all the best parts of church WITHOUT the religion:

http://www.npr.org/2014/01/07/260184473/sunday-assembly-a-church-for-the-godless-picks-up-steam

and Here:

http://www.guildford-dragon.com/2015/09/30/new-sunday-assembly-offers-best-bits-of-church-but-no-religion/

AND HERE:

It like it is their slogan or something...

Here is one where a guy says it for people without religion who want the community of church.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=210&v=TjmE-9ovm7o

EDIT: And here is Sunday Assembly NY saying they are a church without Religion:

https://www.facebook.com/sundayassemblymanhattan/info/

And here they call themself a secular community:

http://www.meetup.com/Sunday-Assembly-NYC/

Here is The Nashville SA (from your video) saying they are SECULAR:

http://nashville.sundayassembly.com/about/
https://www.facebook.com/sundayassemblynashville/info/?tab=page_info

and The Sunday Assembly from Phoenix you linked? Yeah here is their website:

http://www.sundayassemblyphx.org/assembly

The Sunday Assembly is a non-religious community that celebrates life and strives to make a difference in ourselves and in the world.

THE VERY FIRST LINE!!!

Edit: Here is the Oakland chapter saying they are a secular community:
http://eastbay.sundayassembly.com/about/

Here is Silicon Valley chapter saying they are secular:
http://www.meetup.com/Sunday-Assembly-Silicon-Valley/

Here is the Edinburgh chapter calling themselves secular:
https://www.facebook.com/sundayassemblyedinburgh/info/?tab=page_info

Here is the Sydney Chapter saying they don't want the religious stuff and calling themselves secular:
http://sydney.sundayassembly.com/

Edit: Not even the chapter in Berlin agrees with you:
http://berlin.sundayassembly.com/faq/

Was ist Sunday Assembly?

Sunday Assembly ist eine nicht-religiöse Gemeinschaft, die sich regelmäßig trifft um das Leben zu feiern. Unser Motto ist „Lebe besser, hilf‘ öfter, staune mehr“ und unsere Mission ist es, jedem zu helfen, das Beste aus diesem einen Leben herauszuholen.

What is Sunday Assembly?

Sunday Assembly is a non-religious community that meets regularly to celebrate life. Our motto is "Live better, help 'more often, more amazed" and our mission is to help everyone get the most out of this one life.

Not even the SUNDAY ASSEMBLIES YOU LINKED AGREE WITH YOU!!!

Is there even single one in the world that agrees with you?

[/font]

[LostOne4Ever]

339. If I was a senior citizen I could simply zoom in the page. nt

[MADem]

346. That's what "I" do! LOL!!! nt

[Orrex]

343. That's an openly ageist slur

So you're judgmental, a hypocrite, and an ageist. Quite the trifecta.


Are you sure that the Sunday Assembly will let you in, given your aggressive negativity? You seem directly (and deliberately) contrary to their positive message.

[MADem]

345. Ha ha ha!

It's kinda hard to be "ageist" when you're talking about your peer group.

Try again, sport.

Who, save you, said I wanted to be "let in" to the Sunday Assembly? You like making up stories, I see.

[Orrex]

349. It's kind of pathetic, actually.

It's kinda hard to be "ageist" when you're talking about your peer group.

I don't care how old you are; it was an ageist slur from a judgmental hypocrite, incidentally hinting at a curious self-hatred. Do you need to talk with someone?

Others in your age group who are less interested in pursuing the "cranky blowhard" image might not appreciate your embodiment of that stereotype.

Who, save you, said I wanted to be "let in" to the Sunday Assembly? You like making up stories, I see.

Your determined proselytizing conveys the clear impression that you want to be part of what you identify as the cool group. If this is not the case, then perhaps you should cut back on your determined proselytizing, because your shameless sycophancy lacks dignity.

I have known many atheists over the decades from all across the personality spectrum, some of them preachy assholes, in fact. But I've never met one IRL or online who was as aggressive or hostile as you have been since you started in this thread. It's quite striking, really, considering how eagerly you scold atheists for their negativity.

Try again, sport.

Why? Are you likely to stop being a cranky blowhard? You've clearly dug in your heels and refused to budge no matter how may times you've been conclusively demonstrated to be wrong.

It's frankly amazing that you can be so resistant to personal growth and so utterly lacking self-awareness. You're the classic mote-in-the-eye loudmouth, telling everyone what's wrong with them while being completely blind to your own significant shortcomings.

[cemaphonic]

361. I don't know why you think that older atheists are the mouthy activists and the millenials aren't

but that's pretty much backwards.Other than a handful of celebrities that the media has designated as the Official Atheist Spokespeople, most of us over 40 keep our mouth shut about religion, or answer "not very religious" when pressed. The Millennials are the ones that are owning and defending the label publicly.

As for that SA group that you are so enamored by, they sound fine, but they are a small subset of atheists, and don't define the larger community. And I agree with others ITT that even if they have adopted some of the trappings of church, the lack of any sort of doctrine keeps them from being a religion.

[MADem]

387. I am not "enamoured," but I am fascinated.

This is a very different perspective on this topic than I have seen up to now.

The only angry atheists I have encountered are here. Most of the ones I've met IRL are very mellow. However, the ones I meet IRL aren't terribly interested in theological/philosophical debates on the issue. Most of them are in the "Church of the Fluffy Pillow" club and that informs their Sunday (or Friday, or Saturday) decision-making process.

I think these SA people are going to grow and turn into a major like it or not, ersatz or what-have-you, "religion" and maybe in my lifetime. I think they've hit on a winning formula and if they stick to a sustainable business model they could very well be a huge game changer in the "faith(less) - based" game.

[beam me up scottie]

301. They said without a trace of irony after insisting only dead, white, non-racist atheists count.

[beam me up scottie]

266. BOOM! There it is: "Sunday Assembly is a secular community"

Nicely done!

[beam me up scottie]

238. You are hilarious. Link after link from credible sources proving you wrong and still you dig in.

Someone thinks they're infallible here and it's not atheists.

My dog it's been fun watching you spin your wheels in this thread.

GOVERNMENT FORMS! VIDEOS! THE IRS!


ALL OF THIS PROVES THAT THE LACK OF RELIGION IS A RELIGION, BALD IS A HAIR COLOUR AND EVERY DICTIONARY IS WRONG!!!

[MADem]

260. Why are the opinions of dead, white racist angry atheists "credible?" I don't think bigots are

credible--interesting that you do, though.

I don't think I'm the one "spinning" here. Your contributions certainly speak for themselves!

[beam me up scottie]

261. ZOMG! ALL of the people in those links are "dead, white racist angry atheists"?

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/atheism
http://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism?
http://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/18391-what-is-a-freethinker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/agnostic?q=agnosticism#agnostic__13
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/knowledge?q=knowledge
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/belief?q=belief
http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm


I had NO idea.

And they're controlling teh interwebs from beyond the grave, impressive.

[LostOne4Ever]

358. Oh YEAH

Last edited Tue Dec 1, 2015, 02:08 PM - Edit history (1)

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]here is Sunday Assembly NY saying they are a church without Religion:

https://www.facebook.com/sundayassemblymanhattan/info/

And here they call themself a secular community:

http://www.meetup.com/Sunday-Assembly-NYC/

Here is The Nashville SA (from your video) saying they are SECULAR:

http://nashville.sundayassembly.com/about/
https://www.facebook.com/sundayassemblynashville/info/?tab=page_info

and The Sunday Assembly from Phoenix you linked? Yeah here is their website:

http://www.sundayassemblyphx.org/assembly

The Sunday Assembly is a non-religious community that celebrates life and strives to make a difference in ourselves and in the world.

THE VERY FIRST LINE!!!

Edit: Here is the Oakland chapter saying they are a secular community:
http://eastbay.sundayassembly.com/about/

Here is Silicon Valley chapter saying they are secular:
http://www.meetup.com/Sunday-Assembly-Silicon-Valley/

Here is the Edinburgh chapter calling themselves secular:
https://www.facebook.com/sundayassemblyedinburgh/info/?tab=page_info

Here is the Sydney Chapter saying they don't want the religious stuff and calling themselves secular:
http://sydney.sundayassembly.com/

Not even the SUNDAY ASSEMBLIES YOU LINKED AGREE WITH YOU!!!

Edit: Not even the chapter in Berlin agrees with you:
http://berlin.sundayassembly.com/faq/

Was ist Sunday Assembly?

Sunday Assembly ist eine nicht-religiöse Gemeinschaft, die sich regelmäßig trifft um das Leben zu feiern. Unser Motto ist „Lebe besser, hilf‘ öfter, staune mehr“ und unsere Mission ist es, jedem zu helfen, das Beste aus diesem einen Leben herauszuholen.

What is Sunday Assembly?

Sunday Assembly is a non-religious community that meets regularly to celebrate life. Our motto is "Live better, help 'more often, more amazed" and our mission is to help everyone get the most out of this one life.

Now exactly which chapter calls themself a religion again?[/font]

[MADem]

384. Well, you need to listen to the people in attendance, too.

Some regard it as a religion, others do not.

See, they are "radically inclusive." And those religious atheists/agnostics like that in this church. They like the "religious format" without the dogma/doctrine.

[LostOne4Ever]

386. The Sunday Assembly is inclusive

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]But it is still not a religion.

Not only does it not meet the definition of a religion, but the main group and pretty much every chapter directly states they are not a religion.

Those who founded the Sunday assemblies directly say it is not a religion. Those who run the local chapters directly say it is not a religion. In fact, it is one of their slogans.[/font]

[font size=5]All the Best Bits of Church, but Without the Religion![/font]

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]I have not see a single person in those videos say it was a religion. Closest I saw was your first short video where some said they were taking the best parts of religion and using them. The "throwing out the baby jesus but keeping the bathwater" if you will.

But, again, parts of a religion doesn't make something a religion. I could take the best seat and floor panel out of an airplane, but that seat and floor panel alone are not an airplane.

But, lets say for sake of argument, that there were a few members who believe that (cause like you said, they are an inclusive bunch). That still doesn't make it a religion. Just like if a few Window Washers might believe that to be a window washer means thinking that Elvis was an alien, doesn't mean that belief is a part of what it means to be a window-washer.
[hr]
But if you would listen to what we have been telling you instead of talking past us and ascribing beliefs and points to us that no one has claimed you would know this is neither here nor there.

I have never been trying to argue that one can't be religious and still be an atheist. One most certainly can be religious, or even a part of a religion, and still be an atheist.

Again, I am NOT arguing that one can't be both religious and an atheist.

WHAT I am arguing:


[font size=6 color=crimson face=papyrus]Atheism is not, unto and by itself, a belief nor a religion.[/font]

Again, I am not saying that one can't be religious and still be an atheist. In fact, one can. Further, there are atheistic religions. Some forms of Satanism are atheistic, as are some forms of Buddhism. But that does not make atheism a religion

I have never been trying to argue that the Sunday Assembly is bad nor do I have a problem with them.

In fact, I think their goals sound nice, but they are not for me. I hated everything about Church as a believer and still do. I have social phobia and am an introvert and loner. Having to socialize with a large group of people like that is a nightmare to me. I don't like to sing, and can't carry a tune in a plastic bag if my life depended upon it.

Things like the Sunday Assembly just are not for me and probably not for the other 77% of atheists.

But, there are a sizable minority (~13%) of atheists, ritual atheists, who liked and miss that aspects of church. The Sunday Assembly helps them and gives them something back that they sorely missed. More than anything, it is for them. That is a great and noble thing and I applaud them for it.

I am not advocating for any type of secular philosophy or support of any particular atheist.

You keep on attacking Hitchens, but I really don't care. I haven't read a single book by him or any other atheist activist. Not Dawkins, not Dennett, not Harris, and not Hitchens.

What I am saying, what I am advocating, and what is a fact, is that atheism, unto and by itself, as per the broadest definition of the word, is not a religion.

The definition of atheism is not believing in gods. Going by the definition of religion, there is no belief and therefore no belief system for it to be a religion.

There is no worship nor any belief in any supernatural higher power in the definition of atheism for it to be a religion.

There is no pursuit nor interest in not believing so again it can not be a religion.

Not believing in gods is not holding something of supreme importance...so it can not be a religion.

It is not a world view nor is it a cultural system, so it can not be a religion.

Just as not having a disease is not a disease, Not having a belief is not a belief.

Atheism is not a Religion nor a belief!!! By definition. This is not a rule, it is the definition.

To quote myself from post 321:


[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]ONE LAST TIME:

I am NOT saying there are no atheistic religions.
I am NOT saying there are no religious atheists
I am NOT saying that there are not atheists who have beliefs
What I am saying is that atheism, in its entirety, and unto itself solely, is not a religion or belief.[/font]

[beam me up scottie]

236. Well done, LO4E!!! I can't believe they're still pretending their definition is correct.

[beam me up scottie]

154. Another fail! Strawman! Agnostic atheists don't "claim to have all the answers".

Agnostic atheism

Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.[1][2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

[LostOne4Ever]

155. Don't you just love the referee meme? nt

[beam me up scottie]

157. I do! So many fallacies and they covered them all.

[hifiguy]

228. One of the best recent memes.

And that it's Ed Hochuli makes it even funnier if you are an NFL fan.

As a brony I also find this one chuckle-worthy and frequently useful:

[MADem]

193. The referee meme only works if you speak from a position of authority, which clearly, you do not.

You'd know this if you read the links at post 162!

[mr blur]

192. But all that YOU offer is "lame arguments"! I really can't work out whether -

you actually believe all the drivel you constantly spew out or whether it's some kind of Performance Art.
If it's the former then I really do feel sorry for you; if it's the latter then congratulations, I suppose.

[MADem]

194. Take it up with the founders of Sunday Assemblies. They're all over the world,

on every continent; you're crabbing at me on a tiny website.

Paradigms are shifting right out from under you. That monolithic argument that has been bandied about for years no longer holds. The youth have a different idea, and it doesn't involve being shitty, carping or scolding. Or pretending that their movement is "performance art" just because you disapprove!

You too would benefit from a read of the links at post 162. You will learn something!

[rjsquirrel]

350. No, it's not a "belief system" either and that's why it is not a "religion"

Atheism eschews the necessity for faith or "belief" in mysteries that have no naturalistic explanation. Natural causes, visible and sensible and replicable and intersubjectively verifiable, ate a sufficient explanation for all phenomena. We have no "spirits" or "souls." Those are beliefs. My atheism does not need them. It is materialist.

However I'll call it a church if we can have the nice sweet tax exemption people get for "believing" in arrant nonsense about a sky daddy and his son and eternal souls and evil spirits. Those are "beliefs" BECAUSE THEY NOT ONLY ARE NOT PROVEN, THEY ARE BY DEFINITION (and conveniently!) UNPROVABLE. They are stories, not explanations anyone can verify by observation.

Atheism is reason. It is the exact opposite of faith. Therefore by historical roots it is not a religion even if its adherents show some of the cult properties associated with religion (all religion is a cult, and depends on suppressing critical thought and giving oneself over to another's authority. Atheists can be followers of other people too.)

So no, atheism is not a religion. It is the refusal of explanation based on unverifiable assertions of faith.

Atheists do not "believe" in "no god." We don't need your God. At all.

[Yorktown]

141. What percentage of atheists have a symbol on their tombstone?

I would guess, an extremely low percentage.

That the US Army felt a need for a symbol for atheists is testament to the religious culture of the organization, not the sign atheist soldiers have been claoring for this right ugly symbol.

[MADem]

143. Actually, atheists sued for it for many years.

The DOD (VA) finally included it in their listing. They've also included the Hammer of Thor...!

From militaryatheists.org:

A secular government does not show hostility toward beliefs, but rather neutrality. This allows for personal expressions, like grave markers, to be accommodated very broadly without judgment on the content of the belief.


- See more at: http://militaryatheists.org/news/2013/07/veterans-administration-hammers-through-barriers-to-diversity/#sthash.AfdaIs9G.dpuf

Interesting article on belief diversity at Arlington:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/24/arlington-cemetery-religious-gravestones_n_7423604.html

[Yorktown]

145. I knew that, it does not address my point

Some 'militant' atheists might have thought it was cute to have a symbol.

I was just doubting a large proportion of atheists have a symbol of such on their tombstones.

[MADem]

213. Well, given that the symbol is relatively new, you're probably accurate.

It's not about "cuteness" though. It's not about militancy, either.

It's about recognizing a person's philosophy of life in equal measure as one's peers.

The relatives of people long dead, if they even knew or care if their ancestor was an atheist, are unlikely to petition the government to change something that wasn't allowed until fairly recently.

Just because you don't see evidence of them, in the form of recently permitted symbols, does not mean that they weren't there.

Since 40 percent of millennials identify as atheist or agnostic, though, you'll probably see more of them in future. It's probably off-putting to many people that this Sunday Assembly movement is taking hold; from a religious perspective, it encroaches on their collective "brand," and from a "militant atheist" perspective, the POV is that these young people are "selling out." What they are actually doing, though, is joining the mainstream and pushing their philosophy of life right out there in the marketplace of ideas.

Next step--acknowledged atheists in public life, in electoral politics, without anyone batting an eye. I may see this in my lifetime if that Sunday Assembly movement keeps growing, which I think it will.

[AlbertCat]

38. I think these guys are atheists:

I think they are satirists.

[MADem]

42. That's some serious performance art, for the sake of "satire."

The godless church and the atheists taking the US by storm

The Sunday Assembly has launched new services in 35 cities across the world – the largest expansion yet of their 'atheist churches'.
Subscribe to the Guardian ► http://bit.ly/subscribegdn
Started in January 2013 by British comedians Sanderson Jones and Pippa Evans, the Sunday Assembly seeks to offer the communal, uplifting aspect of church, without any of the God business.
More from the US ► http://bit.ly/guardianUS
The US has proved one of the most fertile markets for the Sunday Assembly, with 11 cities already hosting events and another 16 launching new services as part of the latest expansion.
Get the whole picture ► http://bit.ly/guardianhome
The Guardian sent Adam Gabbatt to the first service in Cleveland, Ohio, to find out how a godless church works.

http://www.meetup.com/SundayAssemblyBoston/

The Sunday Assembly is a secular congregation that meets to hear great talks, sing songs and generally celebrate the wonder of life. It’s a service for anyone who wants to live better, help often and wonder more.

The purpose of Sunday Assembly Boston is to bring the Sunday Assembly model to our neighborhood, for monthly congregational programs that are family-friendly, open, and energizing.

Support our mission, donate to Sunday Assembly Boston - Sunday Assembly Boston, Inc. is an exempt organization as described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

[mountain grammy]

123. Tax scam! Support our mission, send your tax exempt donations here.

If Scientology is a tax exempt religion, anything can be. Do you consider Scientology a religion?

Atheism is not a religion, but, for tax exempt purposes, why not.

[MADem]

134. What is a religion? A set of beliefs, principles, guidelines that people adhere to, in an organized

fashion? A thing that encourages some people (though not all) to gather in a building once a week? Something that people give money to, to support the entity and its goals? An organization that often (not always, but often) does community outreach, helping the needy, feeding the poor, that kind of thing?

In USA, if you can get the tax exemption, you've got yourself a religion! If the IRS can call some conglomeration of people who believe they're the spawn of aliens a religion, who am I to judge? USA has a reputation for "religious tolerance" and "religious freedom" and I've never thought there was, or should be, a rule against behaving in a way that some people find stupid or outlandish.

There's certainly a "pecking order" in the minds of people as to what is a "good" religion, and what is an "inferior" or "cult" or "scam" religion, and in the case of most religious people, the "good" religion is their own. The Catholic finds the Catholic religion best, the Baptist prefers their brand, the Muslim prefers the Muslim faith, the Mormons think they are right and everyone else is just stupid, and the Scientologists think they're the bee's knees and better than the rest. Generally speaking, the newer the religion, the less 'respect' it gets from other religions. The older religions tend to clump together and back each other as "better" than some of the newer ones.

[beam me up scottie]

163. So AA is a religion? A book club? What about volunteers at a shelter?

Those all meet your criteria, are they religions?

[MADem]

165. I will suggest--again--that you check out the links at post 162.

Maybe you'll learn something.

Book clubs don't get IRS church exemptions. Sunday Assemblies do.

[beam me up scottie]

167. I don't see where any of them define atheism as a religion.

But I see you finally admitted it's not so my work here is done!

I'm glad you finally came around.

[MADem]

170. You obviously didn't read them very carefully. Why am I not surprised?

Your work is only beginning. You'll find yourself in the minority as to attitudes about atheism if you continue down a path of scolding and scorn.

The Sunday Assembies crowd are the future. You'll be left behind if you continue to hew to a mocking, snarking POV.

[beam me up scottie]

171. Like I said, you've seen the error of your ways so there's really no need to continue.

No need to get so upset, I only jumped in to counter the right wing talking points and I'm glad we've made such progress!

[MADem]

174. Again--there has been no "error of my ways" --trying to pretend otherwise is a real loser

move on your part. And clearly, the one who is upset is you, seeing as you're holding two separate conversations with me simultaneously on this thread.

People CAN read what you write, you know--the whole conversation...all your disjointed sentences and incomplete thoughts, to include your declarations of victory without presenting anything resembling an argument.

You plainly haven't reviewed any of the material. I can understand that the paradigm shift might be frightening to you--spending so many years programmed to mock and scold, and then being presented with a model of positivity that embraces wonder and thankfulness--it's probably a difficult adjustment for you. You'll have to learn new doctrine, be less judgmental, and maybe even embrace the values-oriented philosophies of the group.

Or, you can keep snarking on the internet...but you'll find yourself with less company as this movement takes off, I suspect.

[beam me up scottie]

175. Tl, dr! :)

[MADem]

179. Of course--the smell of burning rubber is strong in these parts!

[beam me up scottie]

180. *yawn*

[MADem]

182. Post 162. nt

[beam me up scottie]

184. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......

[MADem]

186. 162! nt

[Hassin Bin Sober]

89. I've always found DU to be good at calling out rank stupidity.

[MADem]

93. I've found DU to be uniquely gifted at beating pointless topics to death, too.

Ones that don't change the world, that don't matter in the big scheme, but offer up a lot of Internet Fight Time.

Pitbulls breast feeding at the Olive Garden comes to mind...

[Hassin Bin Sober]

95. Wanna hear how Du can warp one's real life.

This summer my neighbor asked me to buy/help lease a car (I was in the car business so I get this request often)

After spending all saturday making the deal, she offered to buy my partner and I dinner.

Her: how about Olive Garden?

Me: Olive Garden? really?

Her: (puzzled look) yes, Olive Garden.


Me: lol. really? We are going to Olive garden????

Her: why? You don't like Olive Garden?

Me: it's ummm. Well..... Umm.......I guesss.....Never mind, you had to be there.

Thing is, I don't mind Olive Garden. In fact, one of the last fond memories I have of our whole family being together before my parents died was at Olive Garden.

I had a couple big glasses of wine and a big plate of pasta.

.....now pit bulls you say??????

I CHALLENGE YOU TO A DUEL, SIR!!!!!! My seconds will call your seconds!!!!!!!!

[MFrohike]

161. Yes

This is one of the best descriptions of DU I've ever read. You've summed up the various GD wars quite nicely in 3 sentences.

[onehandle]

92. Heh.

Even though I come from the Bible Belt, the vast majority of people who have preached their faith to me are Atheists.

[beam me up scottie]

97. The bible belt, well that explains where you got the bigoted stereotype about atheism.

Heh, intolerance of minorities is hilarious isn't it?

[Lordquinton]

98. Conformation Bias

What do you qualify as "Preaching their faith?"

[RedCappedBandit]

106. What faith would that be? nt

[MADem]

220. I think you'd like these Sunday Assembly types.

They don't preach, sneer, scold, put down, act superior, or try to tell you what the RULES of ATHEISM are ( "rules" -- I mean, come on!). They have a fascinating philosophy that is very fluid and encompassing, welcoming, not scolding, and focuses on having fun, enjoying life, and helping out one's fellow man.

They aren't like the few old grouches I've met who quote dead racists like Christopher Hitchens, the quitessential "angry drunkard," to "prove" their points.

[Orrex]

217. Atheism is a religion like lack-of-measles is a disease

[MADem]

218. Tell that to the IRS! And the Veteran's Administration! nt

[Orrex]

219. Why should I? I don't represent atheism or atheists.

What would I tell the IRS, exactly?

[MADem]

221. You would tell them your comment about measles.

See, you directed that at me, like I have authority to adjudicate it. But the IRS, and the VA, who DO have authority, have adjudicated it, and they've decided to give the Sunday Assmblists a tax exemption, and the VA has decided to give the atheists a couple of choices when it comes to marking their graves with a belief system symbol.

[Orrex]

222. Still means nothing to me.

If the IRS has deemed an atheist organization as worthy of a tax exemption as a church, then so be it. If it's an issue for you, and it appears to be, then I invite you to contact the IRS yourself. IMO it's offensive that churches--even stadium-sized megachurches--are tax free, but there's nothing I can do about it.

For that matter, why would you grant the IRS the supreme authority to declare what is and what is not a religion? They can decide who to tax, of course, but that's a very different matter.

the VA has decided to give the atheists a couple of choices when it comes to marking their graves with a belief system symbol.

That's one way to put it, I suppose; another way to put it is that the VA has made "a couple of choices" available to non-believers who want to declare their non-belief. That doesn't make it a religion, either.

Incidentally, the "atom" symbol seems silly to me, but if it pleases other people then they are welcome to it.

See, you directed that at me, like I have authority to adjudicate it.

See, your reply #26 was a mocking dismissal of the entirely correct assertion that atheism is not a religion. Your mocking dismissal suggests that you think you do have the authority to adjudicate it.

To that end, I would like you to explain why you think that the lack of religion is a religion.

[MADem]

231. It's not an "issue" for me. It's a topic of interest.

If you don't like the atom, there are other options. You don't have to roll with that one. You can do the "humanist" one, or the "infinity" one. Or, you could make a request for a symbol. The VA is processing requests on this order. I'll bet the Sunday Assembly triangle will probably join that pack pretty soon, especially if their numbers keep growing like they have. Or...if you're of the view that you don't need an Emblem of Belief, which is what they're called, you can skip it entirely and have none at all.

As for the IRS, that's a common benchmark--if the IRS gives them the nod, they're good to go.

I'm not "mocking" anyone--save perhaps the self-important scolds here who think they can cow me into believing that what they say in the Atheists forum of Big Ole DU is somehow controlling. They sure as hell aren't the boss of all the atheists, and the fact that this Assembly movement has taken off and is tearing across the globe tells me that the "angry old atheist" paradigm is on its last legs--perhaps it came to DU to die?

I've been watching a lot of these Sunday Assembly videos, and these people are pretty cool. They enjoy life, they're happy, they help people, they have inquisitive minds. If I'm going to buy any dogma (and unlike the many --not all, but many-- angry, hectoring, rejectionist, and condescending atheists who seek to tell me what they believe, and what I am "allowed" to believe about what they believe, these people are not "doctrinaires" at all) I'd rather take the kind of attitude and vibe the Sunday Assembly folks are selling.

They're energetic, many are young, their movement is growing, fueled by the forty percent of millennials who don't buy into a deity-based religion. They look like the future. People who continue to tout their (cough) superiority by citing dead racists like Hitchens, and trying to sell me on a laundry list of "rules" made by angry old white men? They're the past. Times are changing--the kids are taking over. They don't buy that mean-snark nonsense. See, I could ask you why you think that these atheist congregations are NOT religions, but the SA people, they think that kind of shit is sort of beside the point. They take the best parts of the religious experience, and run with it. As one of them said they "throw the baby Jesus out, and keep the bathwater." See? They've got a sense of humor, too.

[Orrex]

248. You still haven't explained why you think the lack of religion is a religion.

If you don't like the atom, there are other options. You don't have to roll with that one. You can do the "humanist" one, or the "infinity" one. Or, you could make a request for a symbol. The VA is processing requests on this order. I'll bet the Sunday Assembly triangle will probably join that pack pretty soon, especially if their numbers keep growing like they have. Or...if you're of the view that you don't need an Emblem of Belief, which is what they're called, you can skip it entirely and have none at all.

It's irrelevant to me personally because the VA will have no input in my burial arrangements, which as far as I'm concerned can be a cardboard box dumped in a landfill. If others wish to select "emblems of belief" that resonate with their preferences, so be it.

As for the IRS, that's a common benchmark--if the IRS gives them the nod, they're good to go.

A common benchmark for determining whether an entity or organization is tax-exempt, sure. But "good to go" as a religion? I doubt it. Ask the Catholic Church if it's only a church because the IRS has given them the nod.

I'm not "mocking" anyone--save perhaps the self-important scolds here who think they can cow me into believing that what they say in the Atheists forum of Big Ole DU is somehow controlling.

Frankly, that sounds a lot like projection. Further, anyone who presumes to tell me what I believe--or that my lack of belief is somehow a religion--can go fuck themselves.

They sure as hell aren't the boss of all the atheists,

The only ones I've ever seen trying to be "the boss of all the atheists" are those who insist that atheism is a religion.

People who continue to tout their (cough) superiority by citing dead racists like Hitchens, and trying to sell me on a laundry list of "rules" made by angry old white men?

Hitchens was an asshole, as are Dawkins and Harris. But I defy you to find my one essay by any of them in which they tried to "sell" anyone on the laundry list you describe. They openly mock(ed) religion, but so what? Religion should be mocked, because otherwise it stagnates in unchanging dogma. But mocking religion is not at all the same as selling a set of rules.

See, I could ask you why you think that these atheist congregations are NOT religions, but the SA people, they think that kind of shit is sort of beside the point.

Do you speak for the Sunday Assembly? Even if what you say is true, it's true in part because they enjoy the luxury of coming of age at a time when that shit can be beside the point. We are all products of our time, and it would be foolish to pretend otherwise.

They take the best parts of the religious experience, and run with it. As one of them said they "throw the baby Jesus out, and keep the bathwater." See? They've got a sense of humor, too.

Yeah, and prior to 2014, you had to go all the way to a UU church to find an uplifting hodgepodge like that. I wish them well in their re-branding effort.

the fact that this Assembly movement has taken off and is tearing across the globe tells me that the "angry old atheist" paradigm is on its last legs--perhaps it came to DU to die?

Well, that's petty and childish, but whatever. As for "tearing across the globe?" That seems a trifle optimistic. The official website doesn't offer much in the way of hard numbers beyond the 300 they drew to the second meeting. Sounds like the whole worldwide congregation could fit in a high school stadium.

[MADem]

249. I'll say it one more time--who am I to judge?

Why "should" religion be "mocked?" To make you feel important? To put someone down? Who cares what they think? Why is it important to you to even do such a pointless thing? Live your life as best you can--don't try to sell others, with put-downs and snark, about what fuckups you think they are. It never ends well.

Some of the Sunday Assembly members liken their congregations to a religion without deities....should I stand up and screech at them, "NO! NOOOOO! You are WRONG!!!!!" like some kind of unhinged doctrine-soaked scold? Hell to the no. If they liken it to a religion, that's just fine with me.

It looks like one to my eye (and to the eye of many in their membership), it is not dogmatic, it is open and accepting (they don't bar those "deity" people from their services, they just don't play the "deity" game), and they seem to like each other--and pretty much most people in the world--and they have a lot of fun.

I think a LOT of people could learn a little something from these folks.

When you start demanding adherence to stupid little rules, you're not really an "atheist." You're just a guy with a bunch of little rules, and anyone found wanting can't join your little club. Most people, I should think, will leave you to your nitpicking and join the "radically inclusive" crowd at the SAs. No harm, no foul...you sit over there, and the 40 percent of millennials and their older buddies with open minds, and the young ones coming up, they can have a good time singing and helping.

No wonder people prefer this other club over here--they don't demand a thing save your presence and an appreciation of what their goals are. Their "Ten Commandments" are delightful.


http://www.nottinghampost.com/COMMANDMENTS-SUNDAY-ASSEMBLY/story-21454837-detail/story.html

'TEN COMMANDMENTS' OF THE SUNDAY ASSEMBLY
By Nottingham Post | Posted: July 12, 2014


In good voice – the Sunday Assembly choir.
VIEW GALLERY
Comments (0)
The Sunday Assembly...

1. Is a 100 per cent celebration of life. We are born from nothing and go to nothing. Let's enjoy it together.

2. Has no doctrine. We have no set texts so we can make use of wisdom from all sources.

3. Has no deity. We don't do supernatural but we also won't tell you you're wrong if you do.

4. Is radically inclusive. Everyone is welcome, regardless of their beliefs – this is a place of love that is open and accepting.

5. Is free to attend, not-for-profit and volunteer-run. We ask for donations to cover our costs and support our community work.

6. Has a community mission. Through our Action Heroes (you!) we will be a force for good.

7. Is independent. We do not accept sponsorship or promote outside organisations.

8. Is here to stay. With your involvement, the Sunday Assembly will make the world a better place.

9. We won't tell you how to live, but will try to help you do it as well as you can.

10. And remember point 1… The Sunday Assembly is a celebration of the one life we know we have.

As for your "prior to 2014" comment, you're wrong--they're well past the two year mark at many congregations.

There are at least seventy congregations. You, too, can go to YT and have a look at the meetings. Some meet 2x per month, others 1x per month, but the meetings are well attended, and, like I said, FUN.

These people don't spend their time screaming at deity worshippers about what fuck ups they are, and how they are so much smarter and better, they sing, they dance, they learn and they help others.

Sounds like a great bunch. Look at all the videos that have been uploaded in JUST the last month...!

https://www.youtube.com/results?filters=month&lclk=month&search_query=sunday+assembly

[Orrex]

252. But of course you *are* judging, from start to finish.

I'll say it one more time--who am I to judge?

Why "should" religion be "mocked?" To make you feel important? To put someone down? Who cares what they think? Why is it important to you to even do such a pointless thing?

When do we get to the part when you're not judging?

Religion should absolutely be mocked as an institution for the stifling of human advancement, whether it's in the denial of demonstrated fact, the oppression of women, the persecution of homosexuals, the justification of bigotry, and the list goes on. And if a particular religion doesn't engage in that sort of stifling, then bully for that religion. We can celebrate the positive aspects of religion when they pop up, but don't pretend that religion is some sacred cow off-limits to mockery.

In general, religionists make little or no effort to respect or understand my lack of belief, so I'm under absolutely no obligation to respect their mythology.

Live your life as best you can--don't try to sell others, with put-downs and snark, about what fuckups you think they are. It never ends well.

It "ends well" if it stops some pushy asshole from preaching his mythology at me, thanks.

When you start demanding adherence to stupid little rules, you're not really an "atheist." You're just a guy with a bunch of little rules, and anyone found wanting can't join your little club.

What the fuck are you talking about? You sure as hell aren't addressing me--if you think that you are, then you understand nothing of my position, and you're simply sermonizing.

Most people, I should think, will leave you to your nitpicking and join the "radically inclusive" crowd at the SAs. No harm, no foul...you sit over there, and the 40 percent of millennials and their older buddies with open minds,

Ah, yes. The scolding red herring of the "open mind." Is this the part where you're not judging?

You seem utterly desperate to cast me in the same mold as Hitchens or Dawkins, which might be offensive if it weren't so flatly preposterous. And as you're trying to shoehorn me into your preconception, you're not judging, I'm sure.

Hey, if the church of the rebranded UU appeals to you, then by all means knock yourself out and start your own congregation. I'm sure they'd appreciate your proselytizing, but you might find them insufficiently judgmental for your tastes.

[MADem]

254. No, I'm not--but you sure are. Here you are, continuing to "make the rules" for the atheists!

Religion should absolutely be mocked as an institution ....

Because YOU say so!

Yeah--that'll make 'em change their ways! You'll put the fear of God in 'em...oh, wait....they're some pushy asshole .... preaching his mythology at me so I guess they tie you down and force you to listen, or something?



You denigrate these SA people by attempting to call them "The church of the rebranded UU" (there are deities in the UU universe, there are no deities in the SA milieu) -- which they clearly are not.

Then, you call me scolding and desperate and a proselytizer for this organization that I simply find interesting and different...but which you, quite clearly, find threatening. You know, just because I enjoy visiting a bookstore and learning about the types of books they sell doesn't mean I want to start one of my own.

Not sure why you have to go "all in" when you try to make a point. It says more about the intensity of your concern than you realize.

[Orrex]

258. Certainly you are--again and again throughout this thread

Worse, you're doing it while you're scolding all those mean old atheists for being judgmental. So you're not simply judgmental; you're a judgmental hypocrite.

Religion should absolutely be mocked as an institution

Because YOU say so!

Because you asked me. Didn't you read your own post? And let's avoid any cutesy equivocation about the word "absolute" here, because I should think it apparent that I mean the term figuratively, rather than as some objective and nonexistent absolute.

Yeah--that'll make 'em change their ways! You'll put the fear of God in 'em...oh, wait....they're some pushy asshole .... preaching his mythology at me so I guess they tie you down and force you to listen, or something?

What fucking country do you live in? Religious propaganda is catapulted EVERYWHERE in the US, on currency and in legal documents and in both houses of the Congress and in public schools and online and as you walk down the street and as you participate in just about any aspect of the culture. You are deliberately choosing not to see it, pretending not to see it, or simply blind to it.

Also, despite your judgmental bullshit, I have no illusions about "changing their ways." I've had the conversation countless times in my life, so I know how deeply invested people are in their mythology. And, lest you decide to judge me for what you probably imagine to be my inhospitable tone, let me state that I only go full bore like this on pushy blowhards.

You denigrate these SA people by attempting to call them "The church of the rebranded UU" (there are deities in the UU universe, there are no deities in the SA milieu) -- which they clearly are not.

That contradicts the 10 commandments that you posted during your proselytizing, one of which clearly states that they welcome believers.

Then, you call me scolding and desperate and a proselytizer for this organization that I simply find interesting and different...but which you, quite clearly, find threatening.

Not at all--you are projecting, and you are judgmental. I'm not threatened in the slightest--I simply have no interest in it. Further, you've been preaching the good news about the SA throughout this thread; if you're not a proselytizer, you're certainly an eager salesperson.

Not sure why you have to go "all in" when you try to make a point. It says more about the intensity of your concern than you realize.

I have little tolerance for bullshit, and my tone reflects that. In the interest of disclosure, I'm also not impressed by your half-assed and judgmental pop-psychology.

I'm pretty sure that everyone in the thread is wise to your shtick. Feel free to keep it up as long as it amuses you, but it's clear that you're more interested in scolding than in discussing.

[MADem]

259. No, I'm not. I'm simply talking about one specific religion of atheists called the Sunday Assembly.

I am being whined at by people who don't want to believe that this group is a religion, that they don't have all the hallmarks of a religion, that they don't gather in congregations for singing and praise and celebration (of the one life they know they have), that they don't foster a sense of community, that they don't do good works as a unit in their towns and cities, and that they don't profess a sense of wonder at the lives they are enjoying each and every day.

I think the "old school" atheists don't know how to handle these young upstarts. The first atheists to break that glass ceiling, 'come out,' and achieve high political office will come from THIS group, I suspect--not the race-baiting, religion-hating atheist crowd.

These 'live and let live' atheists, with their "radically inclusive" philosophies, are the best of the genre. And they are the future. And as for that "we welcome believers" thing, you do know that other churches welcome people from other faiths--they just don't expect that Jew to sit in the Christian pew and start telling the minister how to run the show. This IS the same deal, it's obvious from their Ten Commandments, and for you to try to spin it as something other than what it is (I guess you missed the "no deities" bit in that list) is pretty lame.

For someone who is doing all the scolding, it's kind of funny that you try and project that 'tude on me! You're the one telling me that these people are wrong, and religions should be mocked (just because "some" people push it on you, they're ALL to blame; great job with the collective punishment, there!)--and you're trying to claim that I'm the scold?

I don't think so...

[Orrex]

264. Yes, you are. You've been judging me and others in nearly every one of your posts

So you're judgmental, a hypocrite, and possibly even an outright liar.

I am being whined at...

That's judging.

by people who don't want to believe that this group is a religion,

That's inaccurate. The claim is that atheism is not religion. The claim is not that a tiny group of a few thousand atheists worldwide don't consider their pursuit to be a religion. Try to keep it straight.

that they don't have all the hallmarks of a religion,

Your initial assertion is that the "hallmark of religion" is the IRS saying that a given organization is "good to go." Since I don't accept that definition of religion, your assertion was and is meaningless to me.

We should perhaps now distinguish between a religion and a philosophy, which can overlap but need not be the same. Multiple sources identify religion to entail the belief in or worship of supernatural phenomena or entities. By that definition, atheism--even the version that you're proselytizing--simply cannot be a religion, regardless of what the IRS declares.

My particular atheism is an utter lack of belief in the supernatural or in an accessible objective reality, so anyone who insists that is a religion or even a belief system is full of shit and should be called out as such.

that they don't gather in congregations for singing and praise and celebration (of the one life they know they have), that they don't foster a sense of community, that they don't do good works as a unit in their towns and cities, and that they don't profess a sense of wonder at the lives they are enjoying each and every day.

I have seen no one contest any of those points--are you making it up?

I think the "old school" atheists don't know how to handle these young upstarts.

And that's also judgmental.

The first atheists to break that glass ceiling, 'come out,' and achieve high political office will come from THIS group, I suspect--not the race-baiting, religion-hating atheist crowd.

And that's judgmental.

These 'live and let live' atheists, with their "radically inclusive" philosophies, are the best of the genre.

And that's judgmental.

And they are the future.

And that's judgmental.

for you to try to spin it as something other than what it is (I guess you missed the "no deities" bit in that list) is pretty lame.

And that's judgmental.

How can you insist that you're not judging, after I've explicitly pointed out dozens of examples of you doing exactly that? And that's just in your replies to me--I'm sure that you're equally judgmental throughout the thread.

You're trying to claim that I'm the scold? I don't think so...

I know that you don't think so, but you demonstrate an astonishing lack of self-awareness, so your protest is as unpersuasive as your proselytizing.


Tell you what--you're boring me with your hypocrisy and your repetition, so I'm going to leave it at that. If you want to tell yourself that you've proven some kind of point, by all means do so--you're clearly comfortable believing in lots of made-up shit anyway, so what's one more artificial belief?

[MADem]

268. Now you're down to name calling? Judgmental? A hypocrite? An outright liar? THAT's what you call

me?

You apparently don't understand the difference between offering an opinion and being judgmental. Calling someone names IS judgmental. Having a conversation where I express my view on an issue and you reply is NOT judgmental.

Saying these people who have a joyful atheist congregational experience are the future is "judgmental?" Of whom? Them? Saying they'll likely produce the first "out" atheist of high political rank is "judgmental?" Good grief--you do need a dictionary (that's an opinion, not a "judgment" --you plainly are having trouble with definitions, here).

If I am "judging" these SA folks, I'm judging them in a rather positive light--why does that piss you off, hmmmm?

You'd better get used to these guys--I don't think they're going away. And that's a "judgment" I've made after looking at their videos, their enthusiasm, their organizational structure, their youth and energy, and their motivation.

Yep--these are the coolest bunch of atheists and secular humanists on the block....they ARE the future.

[Orrex]

341. I called you judgmental and a hypocrite because you *are* a judgmental hypocrite

as I've extensively documented. I also speculated that you might be an outright liar. Apparently you don't understand the difference between speculating and offering opinion.

Further, when you pass judgment, you say that you're simply expressing an opinion, so it's all good. But when others express an opinion, you scold them for being judgmental. You're a hypocrite.

Saying these people who have a joyful atheist congregational experience are the future is "judgmental?" Of whom?

Look, if you're not going to read your own bullshit, then don't expect me to explain it to you. If you're judging this auditorium full of SA congregationalists to be "the future," then you are explicitly judging the non-SA atheists to be old fashioned, out of step, or on their way to extinction.

And then you presume to lecture me on my grasp of definitions? What a load of judgmental bullshit!

If I am "judging" these SA folks, I'm judging them in a rather positive light--why does that piss you off, hmmmm?

That doesn't piss me off in the slightest. Why are you projecting? I frankly don't give a shit about which form of atheism you deign to anoint as acceptable and relevant--you are a judgmental hypocrite and utterly full of yourself.

You'd better get used to these guys--I don't think they're going away.

Really? Not going away? From their numbers, the SA can barely be said to be "here" at all! And anyway, the more the merrier! You seem desperate for me to dislike this tiny group as if it has any impact on my life whatsoever. It's curious that you're so insistent on this point.

And that's a "judgment" I've made after looking at their videos, their enthusiasm, their organizational structure, their youth and energy, and their motivation.

You are indeed a very determined proselytizer.

Yep--these are the coolest bunch of atheists and secular humanists on the block....they ARE the future.

Your judgment on this point is unpersuasive and, ultimately, irrelevant. You sure as hell aren't the arbiter of "cool atheism" no matter how eagerly you spread the good news nor how eagerly you seek to cast yourself in the role of evangelist. And if more people abandon the bronze age mythology that's been used for millennia to oppress women (among its many other offenses), then I'm delighted.

Good luck with your crusade.

[MADem]

344. That is simply not true. You're just angry that I don't agree with YOUR opinions, and so you

call me "judgmental" because I find your logic lacking.

I think your assessment that you believe I want you to "dislike" the SA says more about your perceptions than anything I've actually said.

And that "determined proselytizer" stuff? Where do you even get these ideas?

I suspect we'll be revisiting this topic soon as this organization grows--and you might not like the trajectory of the topic, based on your comments here.

That last sentence is just ... weird. Really, really weird.

I know you think you're insulting me or something, but you're only calling attention to yourself--not in a good way, either.

[Orrex]

348. I call you judgmental because you're constantly judging everyone

I think your assessment that you believe I want you to "dislike" the SA says more about your perceptions than anything I've actually said.

You are free to continue to be mistaken in this regard. Your repeated insistence that I dislike or am threatened by a tiny group of atheists is a laughable attempt to elevate them beyond their actual importance. They have absolutely no bearing on my existence whatsoever, but please continue your missionary work as you see fit.

And that "determined proselytizer" stuff? Where do you even get these ideas?

From your determined proselytizing, obviously. Would you prefer the term "frenzied evangelist" instead?

I suspect we'll be revisiting this topic soon as this organization grows--and you might not like the trajectory of the topic, based on your comments here.

You are welcome to imagine whatever fantasies validate your hypocritical and judgmental agenda.

And I'm sure that you'll continue to be hypocritical and judgmental of anyone who doesn't sign onto your anointed definition of Good Atheism, based on your comments here.

I know you think you're insulting me or something, but you're only calling attention to yourself--not in a good way, either.

If you consider it an insult to be identified as a determined proselytizer, then perhaps you should cut back on your determined proselytizing. It's only calling attention to your judgmental hypocrisy.

[AlbertCat]

35. Atheism is a religion. Agnostic is not religious.

Don't be ridiculous.

What common text do atheists believe in? What rituals do they regularly engage in as a group to support this text? What belief holds them together....because the absence of belief has nothing to hold it together.

"Off" is not a TV channel and bald is not a hair color.

Atheists don't "believe" in science and the study of empirical evidence, they trust it. And not because someone told them to. they just look around and see how successful it is. These are not religious traits.

[MosheFeingold]

363. I'm not sure

Atheism (which I am defining as a firm belief that "there is no G-d) cannot be proven empirically, just like G-d cannot be proven empirically.

So, belief that there is no G-d (of any kind) is a belief based on a faith, of sorts.

I do agree that it doesn't fit in the normal mode of thinking of what a religion is. Bit like how "0" is a number.

So I would think atheism would be a religion of nothing: no practices or beliefs while agnostic (which I am defining as "I don't know&quot is not a religion.

That said, I won't say you are wrong. It depends a lot on how you define things.

[TransitJohn]

87. Wow

So much fail.

[Arugula Latte]

90. Ha ha. Riiiiiight.

[RedCappedBandit]

108. You clearly don't have a basic understanding of either word.

What made you think the two were mutually exclusive? Can you elaborate whatsoever on either of your statements?

[TBF]

114. I see quite a few dumb statements on message boards -

But that one wins for today.

[Arugula Latte]

225. "Atheism is a religion" is a completely moronic statement.

[MADem]

288. Some light reading. From that Dworkin "moron."

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/apr/04/religion-without-god/?pagination=false

[beam me up scottie]

297. And who made Dworkin the pope of atheism?

I didn't get a vote, why do his words count more than any other atheist?

You are really really reaching, MADem.

I mean you scoured the internet, found one quote from a dead guy and suddenly that means atheism is a religion?

Bizarre.

[rockfordfile]

388. No I don't think so

[backscatter712]

5. Infidel.

In certain places in the world, they chop your head off with a sword for daring to use your brain.

[libdem4life]

6. Adding Atheist does not help. I'd suggest a self delete. Seriously.*

[immoderate]

7. It's the <blank> race. The occupants of "Nobody Home."

The sound of No Hands Clapping.

--imm

[saltpoint]

8. People grow up believing some things

and not others. As their world view becomes more refined and focused, they begin to connect different dots, and the possibility of a significantly adjusted world view emerges and sometimes manifests.

Sometimes that process leads to an absence in the belief of a Supreme Being, and a good number of those folks connecting those particular dots identify as atheists.

I'm not convinced 'race' has anything to do with at all.

[JoePhilly]

9. Its not genetic.

[JanMichael]

11. we are in every so called race.

alwayshave always will be so.


ultimately we will be number 1.

[Takket]

15. i don't even understand the question....

why do you want people to call atheists a race? That doesn't even make sense. that's like saying you want Caucasian to be classified a religion.

[Fumesucker]

56. Probably has to do with calling Islam or Muslim a "race"

Certainly plenty of people call any criticism of Islam "racism".

[beam me up scottie]

75. That's how I took it as well.

[hifiguy]

107. People who do are

Total Boneheads. Dumb beyond quantifying.

[Kalidurga]

19. I am pretty sure the answer is

Math.

[riderinthestorm]

20. Fight? I think the answer is science!!

Lol!

[Kalidurga]

21. No Math no Science

[riderinthestorm]

23. A brother from a different mother?

Or maybe you're a sister....

Peace!

[Kalidurga]

24. Okay Pi then

I think we can all agree Pi rules!!!

[ZombieHorde]

177. Ha!

So funny.

[pnwmom]

25. No. Race isn't a matter of belief or non-belief. But our Constitution

already protects us against discrimination based on religion or the lack of it.

[JHB]

27. Marathon

[DJ13]

28. Its a drag race

Lots of sound and smoke, a constant struggle for traction.

[Shoulders of Giants]

29. I don't even understand what point you are trying to make.

[herding cats]

32. 42

The answer, as always in such questions, is 42.

[GoneOffShore]

94. Which is also the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin.

Yay!

Time is an illusion - lunchtime doubly so. Drink up. And have some peanuts.

[ProfessorGAC]

223. Occam's Razor

The actual answer is 6. Now, i see why you're confused, but if you just add the two digits of your universal answer, what do you get?
See what i mean?

[Juicy_Bellows]

34. Race and religion are both human constructs.

We use them both to divide us.

I think they should go away. I know I won't live to see it.

[valerief]

109. ^^^THIS^^^

[Starry Messenger]

36. Um? I'm not either, but don't understand this post.

[Behind the Aegis]

39. Well done.

I understand your post.

[herding cats]

41. Explain it to me then, please?

Faith or a lack of it, is a choice, and race isn't. Just because I was born into a lack of faith doesn't mean I have to follow such lack of belief when I reach my majority. I could potentially become a person of any faith I decide to embrace, or not. However, I was born into my race, I can't find a new one when I turn 18 just because I suddenly think my family was wrong in my race. It's set for me for my lifetime. Like it or not it's mine to bear. That's just a fact of our society. I can change my belief system, and our society supports that, but my race is not something I can ever have an ounce of control over. In that one area I am who I am and there's not one thing I can do to change matters. Ever. I am who I was born from.

What am I missing here? Are we obliquely speaking of culture? Or what? Because if that's the case then this is a serious oversimplification of the issues at hand.

[Behind the Aegis]

86. See post #56

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7388962

[herding cats]

133. Thanks.

I knew I was missing something.

[Fearless]

40. We atheists don't race, we stop to smell the roses

Fulfillment is to be found in this life not in a magical afterlife.

[CrawlingChaos]

59. I'm guessing this is really about Muslims and Islamophobia

And if I'm right, this is a major fail.

(if I'm wrong, please, by all means, let us all know what point it is you ARE trying to make)

The Islamophobia being peddled by right-wingers and New Atheists is rife with demeaning anti-Arab stereotypes. It is more than a little racist in nature. It's really not difficult to see, unless you're determined not to see it.

[cpwm17]

96. I think you're right.

Racists do hide behind the claim they are only criticizing religion to attack (literally and figuratively) scary brown Muslims in the Middle East. They're transparent.

[valerief]

110. What is a "New Atheist?" nt

[beam me up scottie]

113. I can show you:

[cpwm17]

116. Atheists that despise Muslims and often are closely associated with the neocons

and other pro-war and racist movements.

[beam me up scottie]

119. Really? Then why do they call Daniel Dennett a 'new' atheist?

Or PZ Myers or any of the other tolerant atheists who just got a little too uppity for theists?

[cpwm17]

121. I wouldn't call PZ Myers a "new atheist".

This could be a word definition issue, but many people divide atheists between liberal (progressive) atheists (DU types) and "new atheists" which tend to support bigotry and war.

PZ MYers and Sam Harris aren't fans of each other.

From PZ Myers just a couple days ago:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/11/24/jebus-sam-harris-again/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+freethoughtblogs%2Fpharyngula+%28FTB%3A+Pharyngula%29

As expected, every time I highlight some reactionary idiocy from Sam Harris, I wake up to a chorus of his fan boys urgently typing at me to tell me the rallying cry of the Harrisites everywhere: HE DIDN’T REALLY SAY THAT. Yeah, he did. He really does prefer Republican nutjob Ted Cruz over any of those ‘leftists’ he despises on foreign policy, because Muslims.

But at least it was Cruz, right? He didn’t say anything nice about Ben Carson, I would hope? Sorry to break your illusions, but another reader also told me I had to listen to his recent interview with British neocon, Douglas Murray. He was kind and told me I could skip almost all of it, and just zip up to the 1:56 mark.

"Given a choice between Noam Chomsky and Ben Carson, in terms of the totality of their understanding of what’s happening now in the world, I’d vote for Ben Carson every time. Ben Carson is a dangerously deluded religious imbecile, Ben Carson does not…the fact that he is a candidate for president is a scandal…but at the very least he can be counted on to sort of get this one right. He understands that jihadists are the enemy."

Yeah, that’s right. Ben Carson is a religious imbecile, but according to Harris, he’s better qualified than some damn leftist on the basis of his foreign policy expertise, which consists of hating Islam almost as much as Sam Harris does.

Douglas Murray is the one that Sam Harris interviewed on his podcast:

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
http://www.amazon.com/NeoConservatism-Why-We-Need-It/dp/1594031479

Neo Conservatism: Why We Need It is a defense of the most controversial political philosophy of our era. Douglas Murray takes a fresh look at the movement that replaced Great-Society liberalism, helped Ronald Reagan bring down the Wall, and provided the intellectual rationale for the Bush administration's War on Terror. While others are blaming it for foreign policy failures and, more extremely, attacking it as a Jewish cabal, Murray argues that the West needs Neo-conservatism more than ever. In addition to explaining what Neo conservatism is and where it came from, he argues that this American-born response to the failed policies of the 1960s is the best approach to foreign affairs not only for the United States but also for Britain and the West as well.

Douglas Murray is British and he complains about all the brown immigrants to Great Britain, which is expected for someone Sam Harris supports since Sam Harris has said: "The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists. To say that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement: It does not bode well for the future of civilization."

But since Sam Harris has said and believes: "Unless liberals realize that there are tens of millions of people in the Muslim world who are far scarier than Dick Cheney, they will be unable to protect civilization from its genuine enemies." some white fascist doesn't seem that bad.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sam_Harris

[beam me up scottie]

122. The term is used as a slur by anti-atheist bigots, and I notice you didn't eliminate Dennett, why?

Dennett is one of the 'four horsemen' and is frequently the target of Christian apologists who are outraged by his criticism of religion yet you won't find any bigotry in his work.

Your own source proved your definition of 'new atheist' (Atheists that despise Muslims and often are closely associated with the neocons and other pro-war and racist movements) is incorrect.

From rationalwiki:

New Atheism
The Atheist's Guide To Atheism

"The best definition of a New Atheist that I've ever heard, it's: a New Atheist is just any old Atheist that the Catholic Church cannot legally set on fire, anymore."

—P.Z. Myers[1]

New Atheism is a contemporary intellectual movement uniting outspoken atheists. The New Atheists' philosophies and arguments are generally consistent with those of their predecessors; what's "New" is a difference in style and profitability. Most of the prominent New Atheists have had at least one book become a bestseller, which was almost unheard of for atheistic literature in the past. New Atheists consider belief in God erroneous as well as detrimental to society, and espouse their views frequently and publicly. In the 21st century, many anti-religious thinkers have been the subject of media attention, although many reject the "New Atheist" label.

While some prefer to call New Atheism a trend manufactured by the media (specifically, in a 2006 article featured in Wired[2]) rather than a real organized movement, others later came to openly adopt the term, notably with Victor Stenger's publication of The New Atheism.[3]

The term sometimes acts as a straw-man, as it can be used to define the tactics or personal beliefs of non-believers en masse, ignoring internal differences and tensions within the movement.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/New_Atheism

You are using right wing talking points and broadbrushing atheists.

[cpwm17]

124. No, I'm criticizing right-wing atheists.

How can I be using "right wing talking points and broadbrushing atheists"? That makes no sense. I explicitly wrote I was referring to "new atheists" and not liberal atheists. I'm using the term "new atheist" as it is popularly used.

I'm an atheist (for 40 years), but much more importantly, I'm anti-war. Atheists that are associated when the so-called "new atheist" movement tend to be pro-war, or at least rather bigoted. I have little in common with them.

Years ago I watched some of the "Four Horsemen" YouTube video where they are all together discussing issues related to atheism. The more I watched the more I hated them all, except Richard Dawkins.

As was his habit, Christopher Hitchens made some almost sociopathic comments and neither Sam Harris nor Dennett were fazed at all. Richard Dawkins seemed uncomfortable with the direction of the conversation. I really haven't paid much attention to Dennett's atheism beyond that, though I didn't like the book he wrote "Consciousness Explained". I found it annoying.

[beam me up scottie]

125. No, new atheists do not "tend to be pro-war, or at least rather bigoted".

They are simply outspoken atheists who have the nerve to criticize religion in public, loudly and often.

Again your own source proves your definition is wrong, you are using the term as it is "popularly used" by religionists.

Atheists can be right wing bigots but stereotyping all 'new atheists' is intolerant too.

The more I watched the more I hated them all, except Richard Dawkins.

You admit you know nothing about Dennett and he said nothing bigoted but he's guilty too because you don't like him.

You let your own bias taint your perception of all new atheists, thanks for proving my point.

[cpwm17]

126. When Sam Harris is criticized for his pro-war stance and bigotry

one can expected a swarm of his supporters to defend his every word, no matter what he says. Sam Harris is now the atheist most associated with the so-called "new atheists".

Richard Dawkins is also strongly associated with the "new atheists" He hates Muslims almost as much as Sam Harris, but without the war-mongering.

If you are using a different definition of "new atheist" then good for you. I'm not impressed by those that claim to support "new atheists."

[beam me up scottie]

127. So what? Are all Muslims jihadists because some bigots associate them with Bin Laden?

You are stereotyping all new atheists because you believe two of them are bigoted.

If you are using a different definition of "new atheist" then good for you.

Again, the definition I provided was from YOUR source. I can provide others if that's your deal (but I doubt it is)

The New Atheists

The New Atheists are authors of early twenty-first century books promoting atheism. These authors include Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens. The “New Atheist” label for these critics of religion and religious belief emerged out of journalistic commentary on the contents and impacts of their books. A standard observation is that New Atheist authors exhibit an unusually high level of confidence in their views. Reviewers have noted that these authors tend to be motivated by a sense of moral concern and even outrage about the effects of religious beliefs on the global scene. It is difficult to identify anything philosophically unprecedented in their positions and arguments, but the New Atheists have provoked considerable controversy with their body of work.

In spite of their different approaches and occupations (only Dennett is a professional philosopher), the New Atheists tend to share a general set of assumptions and viewpoints. These positions constitute the background theoretical framework that is known as the New Atheism. The framework has a metaphysical component, an epistemological component, and an ethical component. Regarding the metaphysical component, the New Atheist authors share the central belief that there is no supernatural or divine reality of any kind. The epistemological component is their common claim that religious belief is irrational. The moral component is the assumption that there is a universal and objective secular moral standard. This moral component sets them apart from other prominent historical atheists such as Nietzsche and Sartre, and it plays a pivotal role in their arguments because it is used to conclude that religion is bad in various ways, although Dennett is more reserved than the other three.

The New Atheists make substantial use of the natural sciences in both their criticisms of theistic belief and in their proposed explanations of its origin and evolution. They draw on science for recommended alternatives to religion. They believe empirical science is the only (or at least the best) basis for genuine knowledge of the world, and they insist that a belief can be epistemically justified only if it is based on adequate evidence. Their conclusion is that science fails to show that there is a God and even supports the claim that such a being probably does not exist. What science will show about religious belief, they claim, is that this belief can be explained as a product of biological evolution. Moreover, they think that it is possible to live a satisfying non-religious life on the basis of secular morals and scientific discoveries.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/

New Atheism

New Atheism is a social and political movement that began in the early 2000s in favour of atheism and secularism promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises".[1] There is uncertainty about how much influence the movement has had on religious demographics worldwide. In England and Wales, as of 2011 the increase in atheist groups, student societies, publications and public appearances coincided with the non-religious being the largest growing demographic, followed by Islam and Evangelicalism.[2]

New Atheism lends itself to and often overlaps with secular humanism and antitheism, particularly in its criticism of what many New Atheists regard as the indoctrination of children and the perpetuation of ideologies.

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

Nothing in there about being "Atheists that despise Muslims and often are closely associated with the neocons and other pro-war and racist movements."

I'm not impressed by those that claim to support "new atheists."

And I'm not impressed with those who broadbrush entire groups of people because they dislike a few.

[cpwm17]

129. I'm using the commonly used definition.

In practice they are highly bigoted. Obviously their own definition will leave that part out.

Christopher Hitchens was a flaming pro-genocide, Muslim hating, neocon. Sam Harris is not much better. Richard Dawkins has gotten worse and is rather irrational concerning Muslims.

That pretty much makes my point.

[beam me up scottie]

130. "their own definition"? Do new atheists own Wikipedia and IEP now?

You're the one making up your own definition.

Find me one legitimate source that includes your definition: "Atheists that despise Muslims and often are closely associated with the neocons and other pro-war and racist movements."

I'll wait.

Christopher Hitchens was a flaming pro-genocide, Muslim hating, neocon. Sam Harris is not much better. Richard Dawkins has gotten worse and is rather irrational concerning Muslims.

I disagree but that's beside the point, that's exactly what Islamophobes say about Muslims, they believe they're all like the few extremists.

Keep digging, the more you post the more you reveal your own bias.

[cpwm17]

191. A movement that produces, defends, and promotes such characters as Sam Harris

and Christopher Hitchens is deeply flawed.

The self-definition of a "truther" is going to be very different than what a "truther" is in reality. A new atheist will identify himself very differently than an outside critic that recognizes what they are really about in practice.

"New atheists" way over-estimate the importance of not believing in a god and not possessing a religion. They don't understand the dominant sources of evil in this world. They are very dismissive towards those that believe differently, often dehumanizing believers in the process. They are often very full of themselves.

This out-of-proportion belief in the importance of atheism, like any other similar irrational belief, can lead in dangerous directions. The high percentage of those that support and defend extreme evil actions in the "new atheist" movement is evidence of that.

[beam me up scottie]

201. That sounds like what men said about the women's movement.

Damn those uppity women/atheists/other minorities, don't they know their place?

How dare they speak out against the source of oppression!

We're going to find the worst of the lot and use them to smear the entire movement.

Yeah, I've seen this type of tactic before, it's used all the time by the oppressors against those who challenge them.

So they lie, misrepresent and stereotype an entire movement in order to shut it down.

Your definition is wrong, you don't have any facts to back up your claims and your anti-atheist bias is obvious.

Fail.

[cpwm17]

203. I'm strongly pro-atheist, as I am one.

I'm not a "new atheist" since that is a recent term that is applied to atheists that have strong right-wing tendencies when it comes to foreign policy and the universal value of human life.

I don't hide my atheism and I normally am the only person around in my work environment that is well known to be an atheist. "New atheists" go beyond atheism. I don't accept their right-wing positions which are well documented.

Here are some videos concerning "new atheists" vs "progressives" (generally atheist also):
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=new+atheists+vs+progressives

[beam me up scottie]

204. Again you failed to prove your definition is accurate.

Until and unless you can back up your original assertions I have no interest in discussing this further.

You have shown your true colours and I've discovered that trying to change the mind of someone who is prejudiced is futile.

Once someone attempts to redefine an entire movement in order to dismiss it they're not worth my time.

[cpwm17]

206. Here's wikipedia on "new atheists":

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

History[edit]

The 2004 publication of The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason by Sam Harris, a bestseller in the US, marked the first of a series of popular bestsellers. Harris was motivated by the events of September 11, 2001, which he laid directly at the feet of Islam, while also directly criticizing Christianity and Judaism. Two years later Harris followed up with Letter to a Christian Nation, which was also a severe criticism of Christianity. Also in 2006, following his television documentary The Root of All Evil?, Richard Dawkins published The God Delusion, which was on the New York Times bestseller list for 51 weeks.

In a 2010 column entitled Why I Don't Believe in the New Atheism, Tom Flynn contends that what has been called "New Atheism" is neither a movement nor new, and that what was new was the publication of atheist material by big-name publishers, read by millions, and appearing on best-seller lists.

Major publications
These are some of the significant books in the field of New Atheism:

The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason by Sam Harris (2004)

Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam by Michel Onfray (2005)

Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali (2006 in Dutch, English translation 2007)

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins (2006)

Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel Dennett (2006)

God: The Failed Hypothesis – How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist by Victor J. Stenger (2007)

God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens (2007)

Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists by Dan Barker (2008)

The God Argument by A. C. Grayling (2013)

Prominent figures
"Four Horsemen of the Non-Apocalypse" During "The God Debate" in 2010 featuring Christopher Hitchens vs Dinesh D'Souza the group of prominent atheists (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett) were referred to as the "Four Horsemen of the Non-Apocalypse",[6][citation needed] a reference to the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse mentioned in the Book of Revelation in the Bible.

The alleged movement is dominated by right-wingers whose morals are shit. Why would I want to have anything to do with this term? I don't know why you feel so attached to the term "new atheist."

I'm an old atheist. I've been an atheist since I was a kid in the mid 1970's despite the fact I was forced to go to church every Sunday. It was no huge achievement and it was no reason for me to get a swelled head about it, though it was nice to disregard the threats of hell for my inability to really ever believe the stupid religion.

Plain old atheism works fine for me. I don't want to be associated with those folks.

[hifiguy]

197. Dennett is WONDERFUL.

Am currently reading "Breaking The Spell." He's not only a brilliant thinker, he is a terrific, subtle and witty writer.

[beam me up scottie]

198. He certainly is.

You'd have to be a closed minded anti-atheist with an agenda not to appreciate his work.

Another outspoken atheist gets thrown under the bus by so called liberals.

I think much of the resentment and hatred is because the 'new' atheists know more about religion than theists, they can't win debates so they try to smear them any way they can.

[hifiguy]

200. Dennett's ability to metaphorically hang the Abrahamic religions

with their own internal logic is delicious. I appreciate a good vituperative polemic from Hitchens, Harris or Dawkins as much as the next person who is sick to death of invisible skydaddies, but Dennett's calm, rigorous demolition of religulous "logic" is simply scrumptious. The intellectual equivalent of a big, gooey fudge brownie.

[beam me up scottie]

202. Absolutely perfect description!

I love listening to him, you inspired me, I'm off to YouTube to watch some videos!

[LiberalAndProud]

131. Harris and the late Hitchens don't despise Muslims. They despise the text and what it teaches.

For those who don't understand the difference, they are the poorer for not understanding. Where I don't draw the same pro-war conclusions that Sam and Christopher have done, I am also less knowledgeable about the content and history of the Q'ran.

Honestly, if our own Christian end-timers make greater inroads into our political forums, it won't matter what a couple of "new atheists" have said. The holy war will continue to the end of time because holy warriors believe it is foreordained. It's in the fucking texts.

[cpwm17]

135. Oh no, Hitchens despised Muslims.

PZ Myers' post concerning Hitchens' genocidal speech concerning Muslims doesn't exist any more. I saw it when it was up. This does cover it some:
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2007/10/17/christopher-hitchens-and-genocide/

“It was Hitchens at his most bellicose. He told us what the most serious threat to the West was (and you know this line already): it was Islam. Then he accused the audience of being soft on Islam, of being the kind of vague atheists who refuse to see the threat for what it was, a clash of civilizations, and of being too weak to do what was necessary, which was to spill blood to defeat the enemy. Along the way he told us who his choice for president was right now – Rudy Giuliani – and that Obama was a fool, Clinton was a pandering closet fundamentalist, and that he was less than thrilled about all the support among the FFRF for the Democratic party. We cannot afford to allow the Iranian theocracy to arm itself with nuclear weapons (something I entirely sympathize with), and that the only solution is to go in there with bombs and marines and blow it all up. The way to win the war is to kill so many Moslems that they begin to question whether they can bear the mounting casualties….

“This was made even more clear in the Q&A. He was asked to consider the possibility that bombing and killing was only going to accomplish an increase in the number of people opposing us. Hitchens accused the questioner of being incredibly stupid (the question was not well-phrased, I’ll agree, but it was clear what he meant), and said that it was obvious that every Moslem you kill means there is one less Moslem to fight you … which is only true if you assume that every Moslem already wants to kill Americans and is armed and willing to do so.

“Basically, what Hitchens was proposing is genocide. Or, at least, wholesale execution of the population of the Moslem world until they are sufficiently cowed and frightened and depleted that they are unable to resist us in any way, ever again.”

Sam Harris is also pretty explicit in his hatred of Muslims. It's difficult to get much clearer, though Hitchens managed.

[LiberalAndProud]

136. Youtube is full of videos in their own words.

Or you can read excerpts and paraphrases. It's entirely up to you.

[cpwm17]

138. Hitchens' attitude is no secret.

Hitchens was clear about his love of war that murders other people's sons and daughters:

http://www.thenation.com/article/images-rearview-mirror/

I should perhaps confess that on September 11 last, once I had experienced all the usual mammalian gamut of emotions, from rage to nausea, I also discovered that another sensation was contending for mastery. On examination, and to my own surprise and pleasure, it turned out be exhilaration. Here was the most frightful enemy–theocratic barbarism–in plain view. All my other foes, from the Christian Coalition to the Milosevic Left, were busy getting it wrong or giving it cover. Other and better people were gloomy at the prospect of confrontation. But I realized that if the battle went on until the last day of my life, I would never get bored in prosecuting it to the utmost.

https://books.google.com.br/books?id=t_pmdoRTuOwC&pg=PA276&lpg=PA276&dq=%22and+I%27m+being+asked+to+worry+about+these+fucking+fat+slags%22&source=bl&ots=eyWFzgnyKZ&sig=4E7lFRdJPEzIulXuFcpv5i4LRcA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-qDsTt8ow4O2B-W4zYsK#v=onepage&q=%22and%20I'm%20being%20asked%20to%20worry%20about%20these%20fucking%20fat%20slags%22&f=false

He denounced the Dixie Chicks as being “sluts” and “fucking fat slags” for the crime of mildly disparaging the Commander-in-Chief, since they had the common sense to oppose the unprovoked war against Iraq.

He was spectacularly wrong about everything concerning the war against Iraq. As far as I know, he never admitted he was wrong about anything, including the WMD's.

Defend him if you want. I'm not a "new atheist" so my atheism doesn't compel me to support such bigotry and atrocities.

[Lordquinton]

351. He did admit he was wrong on some things

I disagree with him strongly on a manner of issues concerning war, but he came about on a manner of issues when he was pretty much the only pro-war person to agree to be waterborded, and after seconds he begged for it to stop and admitted he was wrong about it not being bad torture.

[cpwm17]

352. I remember that, now that you mention it.

It was one of his better moments. As far as I know, he stuck to the WMD's story to the very end, which is rare.

I'm a big fan of atheism as far as it atheism goes, but since atheism is just the lack of belief in gods, that leaves a lot of potential to have widely divergent views in many issues, and a lot of potential for some not always rational but rather zealous people to grab a lot of undeserved attention for themselves.

I first noticed this is the alleged "humanist" movement. There are quite a few rather pro-war folks that like to call themselves "humanist." I used to subscribe to the Free Inquiry magazine, a publication of the Council for Secular Humanism. I thought it had potent.

Christopher Hitchens happened to write for the magazine. Paul Kurtz was editor in chief. In the magazine, Paul Kurtz openly supported the ethnic cleansing campaign against the Palestinians at Israel's birth. He also promoted Alan Dershowitz in the magazine, a self-proclaimed "humanist" and actual sociopath. I also listened to a podcast of Paul Kurtz's "humanist" organization once, and the guy who did the podcast explicitly said that he liked war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Kurtz

I think any movement that self-proclaims they are morally superior almost inevitably is the opposite. They may start out good, but the crazies tend to take over, drunk on their self-proclaimed superiority.

[Matrosov]

360. I despise Islam

I also despise Christianity and Judaism, and any other kind of misogynistic and homophobic belief systems.

So against whom am I racist?

[cpwm17]

362. Nobody, religions are objectively wrong and from just what you wrote there

you just despise religion. Nothing is wrong with that, as long as you keep it in perspective, meaning, you don't think religion is the main cause of evil in this world or that people from certain parts of the world are inferior to others.

Evil comes from selfishness, though religion does make a good rationalization for selfishness and evil: create your own god that supports your own positions and then claim god support your positions. It's a good scam for some people.

Most evil is not closely related to religion and religious motivated evil is no more wrong than evil motivated by other rationalizations. There are a lot of a good people in this world (religious and not) mixed in when some not so good people (religious and not). This is universal.

[madville]

77. Religion or lack thereof is not a race

Religion or lack thereof is not a race. There are Atheist, Jewish, Muslim and Christian people of every race.

It seems like everyday less people understand the difference between racism and bigotry. I think many are just starting to use "racism" in place of "bigotry" because they just simply don't know the difference.

[Vinca]

80. What's "race" got to do with atheism?

[whatthehey]

83. I love how this thread reveals the subconscious self-loathing of religious folks

They are always so desperate to demean and insult atheists by calling them religious that they never quite click that they are using a description of themselves as the most withering put-down they can come up with for others. If religion is an insult, what does that say about their true feelings towards themselves as genuinely religious?

Kinda like that overdone aggressive use of "gay" as an insult by people who pretend to be 100% heterosexual but just can't quite be sure...

[Agnosticsherbet]

103. Race is a social construct rather than a biological division. Make your own categories

if that is what you want.

[Boomer]

128. We're all atheists, even you Christians

How many Christians believe in the Etruscan gods?

If you don't worship Etruscan deities, you're an atheist just like me. Even more like me if you also don't believe in the Greek and Roman gods, or Aztec gods, or Incan gods. The only different between us is that I add the Christian god to that list and you don't. So really, we're not that far apart.

And just like you don't spend a lot of time denouncing the Etruscan gods, I don't spend a lot of time denouncing the Christian god. In fact, I hardly think about him at all except when Christians bring him up. The next time someone talks about an Etruscan god, then I'll think about him too, but until then out of sight, out of mind.

[MisterP]

253. more Ernst Bloch, yay!

[Rex]

132. Why? It is a belief system. Are you upset with believing in something?

Or in something not existing? Okay fine, your ritual belief system is not a religion.

[LostOne4Ever]

168. There are no beliefs in atheism. We are the null set if anything nt

[ZombieHorde]

187. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, but many atheists hold many false beliefs.

For example: authority, objective morality and value, the existence of borders, and pleasant country music.

[LostOne4Ever]

188. Completely correct! Especially about country music :D nt

[MADem]

255. I am astounded at how many atheists are throwing out "rules" for a belief system that they insist

is NOT a belief system. If it wasn't a belief system, there'd be no rules!

[ozone_man]

364. Is mathematics a belief system?

It has plenty of rules. Why should atheism be any different?

I could say that I believe that 7 x 6 =42, but most people would simply say that 7 x 6 = 42, as there have not been any other verifiable results, such as 41 or 43.

In the same way, I could say that there are no gods. Show me one, then maybe I could have a belief in gods.

[LostOne4Ever]

366. I am astounded at how you don't know the difference between a rule and a definition

*Title is Mirroring your own words back at you*

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/definition
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/rule

Seriously they aren't even synonyms of each other:

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/definition
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/rule

And atheism isn't a belief system because it doesn't have any beliefs.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/belief
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/atheism

I highly recommend you invest in a dictionary. You either need one, or to invest in a new one.

I recommend Oxford, it is the standard for the English Language.[/font]

[MADem]

367. If it's not a belief system, why does it have churches and congregations?

You don't get to make the rules for the entire crowd--only a Pope or an Ayatullah can do that sort of thing.

[LostOne4Ever]

368. Churches and congregations does not a religion make. nt

[beam me up scottie]

369. Lack of religious belief is not a belief system.

A few atheists have created what they describe as a "secular community" but they specifically refer to it as non-religious in nature.

The fact that those communities exist does not mean the definition of atheism has changed.

Keep trying, you'll get it eventually: the lack of something is not something. Lack of hair is not a hair colour, the absence of disease is not a disease and the lack of religious beliefs is not a belief system.

Atheism is not a religion.

[cpwm17]

381. Not having a religion is not a religion.

You have to have a religion to have a religion otherwise you don't have a religion.

Lacking an affirmative belief in any gods is not a religion either; it is the absence of a particular religious belief. That's all atheism is. Regardless if a few atheists may want to have some get-togethers, it still doesn't change that fact that atheism isn't a religion. The Get-togethers have nothing to do with the definition of what an atheist is.

[MADem]

382. I think these people are messing with the definitions, then.

Sort of like how the definition of "dude" has changed over the last century and a half, or so.

[alphafemale]

189. speak for yourself and leave me the fuck alone.

I am not an Atheist race

[Orrex]

342. Thread win

I wish you'd been reply #1. Would've saved us a lot of time!

[sakabatou]

208. I don't see how atheism can be put into as a "race" or ethnicity

And this is coming from an atheist.

[Deuce]

214. No...

[Orrex]

355. Whatever else can be said about it, this was a very successful drive-by.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

359. no. it is def not a race.

But, if this is about Islam, then yes a large part of the motivation against Islam comes from race and ethnicity.

people who are anti-islam are both racist and religious bigots.

[LanternWaste]

365. It would be intolerant of us to ever call white a color again.

As white is not an actual color, but rather an absence of color, it would be uneducated (at best) or intolerant (at worst) for any of us to ever call white a color again.

I wonder if that sentiment could be applied consistently, allowing us the pretext to churlishly chide anyone who dares ever call a white a color again...?

[yellowcanine]

380. This should have been locked long ago. See rules for GD

RELIGION
Threads about current events related to religion, and threads about church-state issues are permitted under normal circumstances.

Threads about the existence/non-existence of God, threads discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of religion in general, and threads discussing the truth/untruth of religious dogma are not permitted under normal circumstances and should be posted under Religion.

Open discussion of religion is permitted during very high-profile news events which are heavily covered across all newsmedia.