Forum

Right on dude!!!

Soylent Green is Marklar.

And you are a f*cking idiot who can only back up his point by stomping his feet and howling the same thing over and over again. You have no idea what you're talking about, and have yet to provide a single reputable source that defines atheism as a religion or faith.

Belief is not the only form of thought around. Only people who are so obsessed with their own beliefs that they cannot imagine living without them would make such a stupid assumption. One can be informed of something without "believing" in it. One can accept or agree with an idea without "believing" in it. I can learn about where a candidate stands on issues in an election, but I don't have to "believe" in him. I may even intend to vote against him!

The same goes for religion. Some fundamentalists are so caught up in their own religion that they cannot imagine anyone living without one, therefore they assume that any lack of religion must be a religion in itself. By doing so you are presuming to tell other people what they are thinking, which is the height of arrogant stupidity. By your logic, agnosticism, deism, and pantheism must also be "religions".

Here's wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Here is how the Oxford English Dictionary defines a religion:

1) Belief in the existence of a supernatural holy power.
2) A particular system of faith or worship.
3) Something compared to religious faith as a controlling influence on a person's life, i.e. 'football is his religion.'

1 and 2 clearly do not apply to atheism, and the third is a comparison rather than a definition.

Here is how the OED defines atheism:

Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God.

Do they look the same? Hell no. You lost this argument a long time ago.

All of you in this argument know what atheism means. Whether it's a doctrine or not doesn't matter at all compared to the basic definition of the word.---disbelief in a God.

Of course atheism is not a religion, but I don't see what's so harmful about calling it a religion. Tdewey is wrong. Let him be wrong. It's not like he's attacking atheism in any way.

There are just as many fundamentalist Christains who label atheism as a religion as atheists who label their own disbeliefs as a religion. I know several people like this.

f*ck YEAH!

Dude. I have a brain. I don't need to resort to a higher power to make my points

Just because atheist websites declare with sound and fury that atheism isn't a religion doesn't make it so. Go read some Leff -- the only reason why you assert that atheism isn't a religion is that your logic has defined religion in a very particularized way so as to exclude atheism. That's what we call a tautology. It's true because you say it is true.


Look, does your belief in atheism inform your decision-making process (that is does it create a set of norms to which you try to adhere).

I don't know you, but from what you write it appears that the answer is yes (as it is for most atheists).

That's an anthropological definition of a religion. Look it up on the web.

No, you're a troll who can only regurgitate the same bullsh*t that fundamentalist idiots spew all the time.

Speak for yourself. You claim atheism is a religion only because you say so, and you instinctively reject any evidence that proves you wrong. I provided the definitions, and a comparison. You provided nothing but your own ignorant stupidity.

No, it doesn't, so don't even try to put words in my mouth. I used the label out of choice, and it was only after reexamining my beliefs and finding which opinions were closest to my own. My views actually fall somewhere between Buddhism and Unitarian Universalism, but since I don't worship anything, atheism is technically valid. Just because some people let their religious or political affiliation do the thinking for them, it doesn't mean that everyone does.

So first you lied, then you dug yourself a hole, then you set up a strawman and beat it to death. Nearly everyone else knows you're wrong, including most of the Christian members. What are you trying to prove?

Whoa dude,you're into a whole shitload of religions,huh?

tdewey wrote:


This is the kind of logic that argues what the meaning of "is" is. If you want to make points like this then you are really discussing a point of philosophy. We named ourselves "man", we call a tree a tree, we also developed this language and called it language. If you have a problem with the definition of Atheism then you have a problem with the definition of Religion. My guess is that you have a problem with admitting you lack the knowledge to argue the point. Thus grabbing at straws to throw to deflect the attention of this possibility, also known as denial. The only other possibility is that you just like to argue for arguments sake but, FYI, that is usually a sign of denial.

If you place trust with any belief and make it your own truth you can believe anything. I personally don't believe anything to the point of staking my faith in it. I have no faith, no religion, no politics, and very nearly no trust for science. I got Comedy Channel, my last resort, without it I got nothin'.

Well, that's not possible! You have faith in many things, weather you belivie it or not. You get in a car, you have faith that it won't explode. You tell a person a secret, you have faith that they won't blab. You have faith that maybe there is no gods and religion is pointless. No matter what you belive in, you have faith in it. Faith just dosen't apply to the religious. Just a little tidbit of info from ugo!!!!!

I have a picture which has a chart of evolution that Ms. Garrison teaches right here:



I tell ya, this looks great! However, there is a little thing wrong in the chart: Paleozoic Era started in 550,000,000 BC., not 400,000,000 (the middle of the Devonian period); Permian period (which started in 300,000,000 B.C.) got that right; Mesozoic Era started 250,000,000 years ago, which is 50,000,000 years higher than 200,000,000 (a little off); and both the Cenozoic Era (which claims it is 100,000,000 years ago) and the Tertiary period (which claims it is 80,000,000 years ago) are too high and not separate as they claim they are, but they BOTH occur in 65,000,000 B.C., which is after the extinction of the dinosaurs.

Oh, and I can't believe she missed the Trilobites (which did live in the Paleozoic Era). She does, however, go with Eusthenopteron (which had an "r" in it and which she calls fish and "retard fish", 382,000,000 1/2 years ago); the Tiktaalik (which actually lived 370,000,000 years ago and whom she calls "retard baby fish" with "mutant fish hands"); Acanthostega (which actually lived 365,000,000 years ago and still lived in the water, NOT on land, which she calls a "squirrel or something"); the prehistoric mammal (which she calls "retard frog-squirrel"); Australopithecus afarensis (mispelled, which actually lived between 3.9-3 million years ago, and whom she calls "monkey-fish-frog"; discovered as Lucy of "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds); Homo habilis (which actually lived 2.5-1.8 million years ago and whom she calls "that monkey"); Homo erectus (which actually lived 1.8-1 million years ago and whom she calls "mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey"); and finally Homo sapiens (which is us, humans, living 25,000 years ago and still living today). The last 4 of these did NOT live in either the Cenozoic Era OR the Tertiary period, but they did live in the Quaternary Period. I learned that from Wikipedia.

("Homo"... giggle)

Isn't learning fun kids?

Who's we? The other people in your Rod Up the Ass Club?

J/P, anyway, I always thought a tautology was a statement based on circular logic. Boys will be boys. A is A. Tautologies are Tautologies...

It's true because we say it's true is more of a fallacy based on having an incorrect conclusion rather than circular logic.

You are right, babies don't believe in god....hmmmmm...what is the word for that again?


And remember, there is a very subtle but VERY important difference between the belief in the non-existence of god and holding no belief in the existence of god, and it is this distinction that you seem to have a problem comprehending.[/quote]

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! Dude, you gotta check this out from Big Will's site! IT'S F***ING HILARIOUS!!!!!!!
http://www.spscriptorium.com/Season10/E1012secrets.htm I had NO idea! That's HILARIOUS!!! Kinna makes me wish I watched the Shinning when I had it on Netflx! HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

Erin Gray was on Buck Rogers,not Battlestar Galactica.

LOL
->http://youtube.com/watch?v=g2I470eM5oc<-