U.S. Supreme Court Ruling: ATHEISM IS RELIGION

[zyzygy]

archeologists and other historians disagree severely with you.

Which ones? Names please.

 

[marduc]

Why is it so important for some people that atheism fall under the umbrella of a religion?

Even if that point was conceded (which it is absolutely not), so what then??

My religion then would be that I am neither convinced, swayed, nor compelled by the claims made by religions. I do not grok. What is the point and the purpose in trying to insist that?

Do you really want us godless heathens in the same bed with you? we might soil the mattress.

 

[RogueWarrior]

Why is it so important for some people that atheism fall under the umbrella of a religion?

Even if that point was conceded (which it is absolutely not), so what then??

My religion then would be that I am neither convinced, swayed, nor compelled by the claims made by religions. I do not grok. What is the point and the purpose in trying to insist that?

Do you really want us godless heathens in the same bed with you? we might soil the mattress.

That is easy to answer.

If atheism is just another religion making a claim, then it has a burden of proof. So when it comes down to which 'ism' is the correct 'ism', theists can gleefully shout about the 'atheist burden of proof'.
William Lane Craig uses this every debate. ' If atheism is true...' and for some reason never gets called on it!!?
And they do this because they think they can avoid their own burden to prove their claim or believe that their claim is automatically true if nobody can prove theirs.

Completely asinine because

• broadly, atheism is just disbelief of theistic claims. Disbelief is neither true nor false, it just is. Disbelief is the null position versus EVERY claim ever made in history until sufficient verifiable evidence is demonstrated for the claim.
• their claim still must be proven. No claim should be believed without good evidence. Theists CAN'T prove their claims. There is a reason why it is called having FAITH. Faith is belief without good evidence. Essentially faith is gullibility.

 

[michijo]

Probably a majority percentage of atheists merely have a sense of humor and cant take religion seriously. I knew one woman who merely said that she didnt know any of the people in the bible and it was strange ot become involved in their lives. She said the samd about TV, that watching a TV show was like spying on someone else's personal life experiences. In a sense maybe that is all it is, a mental elevation beyond personal life experiences will make you an atheist. I am an atheist from being too flippant to take Jesus seriously.

 

[Cable]

Yes, I do believe in the concept of tolerance, but no, I do not tolerate child rapists. Do you tolerate child rapists? Is that why you asked that?

Being a scientific advocate does not mean you have to accept that every ridiculous claim by desert nomads with no substance or evidence whatsoever should be taken seriously. If you provide some kind of evidence that gives your story credibility, YES, I will listen and change my view of the world accordingly. Christians warp their world around them to fit the bible, while my world view simply updates as new information comes in. Like my lack of belief in god, I don't believe there's a big invisible pink rabbit in the room with me. If anyone provides evidence to the contrary, I'll accept it.

And yes, I can show that science is the best way to go, and christianity ruling a society is the wrong way to go. For about a 1200 year period from 400 AD to 1600 AD christianity ruled western society. It was horrifically brutal, people were massively uneducated, and non-believers were murdered by christians regularly. All knowledge and technology was shunned and those who dared to better man kind were tortured and killed. Then comes the enlightenment. Society decided we don't want to let christians continue murdering people. We accept science, logic, reason, and look how far we've come. Look at the things around you science has given. We live in the most peaceful time in human history, and religious fanaticism is at an all time low. That's pretty conclusive.

Your signature line seems to reek of intolerance. The brutal murder of kings and priests is what is implied, in not outright stated.
Evidence for God will come to you from God. It could come in one of many forms, but isn't likely to come in a scientifically verifiable way.
My world fits the Bible more than anything else. This is my personal experience. Does this mean I try to make it so? No, for there was a time when I was an unbeliever. I had to accept God as a reasonable explanation at some point. I didn't have the drive to warp my world to fit biblical stories. The more I understood it all, the more it makes sense, and so it continues to this day.

You say Christianity ruling society was a wrong way to go. I would submit that Christ wasn't ruling, but men claiming to be Christians. Men have not needed to claim Christianity to do great evil, as an individual or as a society. History is quite clear on this. It may be a handy tool at times for those who would do evil, but it isn't inherently evil, humans are.
I don't fear knowledge or technology, so I clearly don't fit in your definition of a Christian. We are not all one thing. True believers are one with Christ, this is true, but he'll sort all that out.
We have come a long way technologically, but ethically, we are still the same liars, thieves, and murderers that we ever were. That is a scientifically verifiable fact.

 

[beefheart]

Evidence for God will come to you from God. It could come in one of many forms, but isn't likely to come in a scientifically verifiable way.

Or, it could just be mental illness, and hearing voices.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

whether you worship yourself or something else you worship something.

there is something in your life that you place above everything else.

That could be correct if you redefine the word worship to be as ambiguous as possible. No, I don't worship anything.

archeologists and other historians disagree severely with you.

Please post links where archeologists and historians have confirmed with evidence that absolutely any kind of magic or miracles happened in ancient times.

Why is it so important for some people that atheism fall under the umbrella of a religion?

Even if that point was conceded (which it is absolutely not), so what then??

My religion then would be that I am neither convinced, swayed, nor compelled by the claims made by religions. I do not grok. What is the point and the purpose in trying to insist that?

Do you really want us godless heathens in the same bed with you? we might soil the mattress.

The reason they do it is to try to put factual evidence, logic and reasoning on the same level as their mysticism and magic. They don't understand the concept of burden of proof and think that everything in the world is a belief. It's rather pathetic to be honest.

Your signature line seems to reek of intolerance. The brutal murder of kings and priests is what is implied, in not outright stated.
Evidence for God will come to you from God. It could come in one of many forms, but isn't likely to come in a scientifically verifiable way.
My world fits the Bible more than anything else. This is my personal experience. Does this mean I try to make it so? No, for there was a time when I was an unbeliever. I had to accept God as a reasonable explanation at some point. I didn't have the drive to warp my world to fit biblical stories. The more I understood it all, the more it makes sense, and so it continues to this day.

You say Christianity ruling society was a wrong way to go. I would submit that Christ wasn't ruling, but men claiming to be Christians. Men have not needed to claim Christianity to do great evil, as an individual or as a society. History is quite clear on this. It may be a handy tool at times for those who would do evil, but it isn't inherently evil, humans are.
I don't fear knowledge or technology, so I clearly don't fit in your definition of a Christian. We are not all one thing. True believers are one with Christ, this is true, but he'll sort all that out.
We have come a long way technologically, but ethically, we are still the same liars, thieves, and murderers that we ever were. That is a scientifically verifiable fact.

You seem to be obsessed with my signature, so I'll explain it because you seem too dense to read between the lines. Do you honestly think that I actually want to go kill priests and kings? I don't want to kill people who oppose me, I'm not a christian. Where would I even find a king to strangle? If you had half an education you probably would've been able to read between the lines a bit. It's a comparison of priests to kings, and that their sole job and task is to control and manipulate our society for their own personal gain. Until mankind shakes these oppressors and learns to think for itself, we'll never be free.

Yes, you did have to warp your world to fit biblical stories. If you were raised as an unbeliever, you grew up not believing in magic and miracles. At some point you started getting interested in christianity and started reading the bible. At some point you convinced yourself that magic and miracles used to happen but now no longer do. You warped your reality to include these things, even though you have no other reason to believe it other than a single book you read written by human beings you've never met.

It was not men claiming to be christians that murdered people for over 1200 years, it was christians. The bible directly condones and promotes violence against unbelievers. What kind of an omnipotent god would order moses and his army to rape and murder an entire nation? What other message should that send other than god loves violence?

And yes, we have come a long way, but we certainly are still liars, thieves, and murderers. However, you seem to think it's a good idea to ignore that fact and trust a compilation of books written, compiled and promoted by those very same liars, thieves and murderers.

 

[Ceist]

Religion is based on faith. There really isn't anything to prove. you either believe it or not. For people that do believe they have seen enough and or heard the word of God call to them. They accepted.

Unless you want to call them a liar and a fraud and provide evidence that their experiences are just that then you don't have much to refute. That is why the Christians most powerful evidence is their testimony. the only way to challenge someone's personal testimony is to call them a liar and provide evidence showing that they are lieing.

using faulty analogy fallacies like the FSM shows how far a stretch you really have to go to in order to try and say God doesn't exist.

The one of the main proofs of his existence is Christ own testimony of God which has been historically documented.

Creating God in one’s own image – Not Exactly Rocket Science

"Through a combination of surveys, psychological manipulation and brain-scanning, he has found that when religious Americans try to infer the will of God, they mainly draw on their own personal beliefs."

"Psychological studies have found that people are always a tad egocentric when considering other people’s mindsets. They use their own beliefs as a starting point, which colours their final conclusions. Epley found that the same process happens, and then some, when people try and divine the mind of God. Their opinions on God’s attitudes on important social issues closely mirror their own beliefs. If their own attitudes change, so do their perceptions of what God thinks. They even use the same parts of their brain when considering God’s will and their own opinions."



Believers' estimates of God's beliefs are more egocentric than estimates of other people's beliefs

 

[Cable]

.....
You seem to be obsessed with my signature, so I'll explain it because you seem too dense to read between the lines. Do you honestly think that I actually want to go kill priests and kings? I don't want to kill people who oppose me, I'm not a christian. Where would I even find a king to strangle? If you had half an education you probably would've been able to read between the lines a bit. It's a comparison of priests to kings, and that their sole job and task is to control and manipulate our society for their own personal gain. Until mankind shakes these oppressors and learns to think for itself, we'll never be free.

Why is it you hold me in such contempt that you feel insulting me at every turn is a worthy pursuit?
There are a hundred ways to say men should be free. You chose to illustrate the need with a murderous slogan. I think there is some reason in that. At minimum, it is recklessness. Perhaps in your pursuit of history and the sciences you have neglected your ethical education?

Yes, you did have to warp your world to fit biblical stories. If you were raised as an unbeliever, you grew up not believing in magic and miracles. At some point you started getting interested in christianity and started reading the bible. At some point you convinced yourself that magic and miracles used to happen but now no longer do. You warped your reality to include these things, even though you have no other reason to believe it other than a single book you read written by human beings you've never met.

Your speculation is duly noted.

It was not men claiming to be christians that murdered people for over 1200 years, it was christians. The bible directly condones and promotes violence against unbelievers. What kind of an omnipotent god would order moses and his army to rape and murder an entire nation? What other message should that send other than god loves violence?

And yes, we have come a long way, but we certainly are still liars, thieves, and murderers. However, you seem to think it's a good idea to ignore that fact and trust a compilation of books written, compiled and promoted by those very same liars, thieves and murderers.

Christians? There is no such thing according to you. Or, there is only one type, all in error, which is more likely I think to be your outlook.
But history is full of examples of the difference. Martin Luther and the Pope are prime examples.
Regarding rape and murder, that is your interpretation. It isn't accurate. But it is the stuff of another thread.

The laws of God are not the laws of men. Do you find rape in murder in "love thy neighbor as thyself" ?

 

[Cable]

Creating God in one’s own image – Not Exactly Rocket Science

"Through a combination of surveys, psychological manipulation and brain-scanning, he has found that when religious Americans try to infer the will of God, they mainly draw on their own personal beliefs."

"Psychological studies have found that people are always a tad egocentric when considering other people’s mindsets. They use their own beliefs as a starting point, which colours their final conclusions. Epley found that the same process happens, and then some, when people try and divine the mind of God. Their opinions on God’s attitudes on important social issues closely mirror their own beliefs. If their own attitudes change, so do their perceptions of what God thinks. They even use the same parts of their brain when considering God’s will and their own opinions."



Believers' estimates of God's beliefs are more egocentric than estimates of other people's beliefs

This is shocking news! LOL. Another example of science playing God.
Are there not millions of examples of people changing their lives dramatically due to their new understanding of God?
Read my signature. This is the believer's mind.

 

[pernicious1]

Winning !

 

[Jayhawker30]

I do wonder what you mean, Pernicus.

 

[pernicious1]

Yet another step in progressive acceptance of people's right to believe what you want.

 

[TobyOne]

Evangelical atheists are just as nutty as the nuttiest evangelical Xtians or muslims ( I don't believe Jews evangelize). The evangelical atheists approach to evangelizing is the same as believers - repeat dogma ad nauseum. Atheist dogma includes statements about the bible, science, and the relationship between science and religion.

They also quote their drunken british mostly dead saints and in the US they worship their unholy father, Bill Maher. All of them are nuttier than a nut salad.

 

[RogueWarrior]

Evangelical atheists are just as nutty as the nuttiest evangelical Xtians or muslims ( I don't believe Jews evangelize). The evangelical atheists approach to evangelizing is the same as believers - repeat dogma ad nauseum. Atheist dogma includes statements about the bible, science, and the relationship between science and religion.

They also quote their drunken british mostly dead saints and in the US they worship their unholy father, Bill Maher. All of them are nuttier than a nut salad.

Goes to show that you know nothing about atheism if you believe there is such a thing as 'atheist dogma'. You probably don't even know what dogma is. There is no way you understand what dogma is and then make your statement.

 

[TobyOne]

Dogma is exactly what describes many atheist statements.

Goes to show that you know nothing about atheism if you believe there is such a thing as 'atheist dogma'. You probably don't even know what dogma is. There is no way you understand what dogma is and then make your statement.

 

[zyzygy]

Dogma is exactly what describes many atheist statements.

Holding the opinion that all gods are imaginary beings is dogma? How does that work?

 

[RogueWarrior]

Goes to show that you know nothing about atheism if you believe there is such a thing as 'atheist dogma'. You probably don't even know what dogma is. There is no way you understand what dogma is and then make your statement.

Dogma is exactly what describes many atheist statements.

Thank you for proving the point.
Atheism is disbelief. Disbelief of theistic claims. How can it be said that 'disbelief' is a dogma when dogma is about belief? WTF.

that would be like saying abstinence is a sex position

Maybe you should indicate which statements you are referring to? I have found that many theists have a very skewed idea of atheism.

 

[RogueWarrior]

Holding the opinion that all gods are imaginary beings is dogma? How does that work?

That is not the broad atheist position.
The broad atheist position, that one that all atheists can agree on, is that a god is unproven to exist until such time sufficient evidence is provided to demonstrate its existence. By stating that all gods are imaginary you are making a positive claim that you must support with evidence. This view is a very narrow view, one that most atheist do not lay claim to.

I certainly don't have the time to disprove every god. And some cases gods DO exist. If a tribe says a tree is their god, then it obviously exists. There is tons more evidence for their god then the christian or hindu gods.

 

[TobyOne]

I don't believe the broad belief of atheists are dogma. I myself am agnostic. They just make many ignorant and dogmatic statements in support of their belief i.e the bible is fiction, science is an authority of itself and others that i run into occasionally. Tbh, most of these come from the anti-religion crowd who are more defined by their bigotry towards religion than they are for their unbelief in a god or gods.

Thank you for proving the point.
Atheism is disbelief. Disbelief of theistic claims. How can it be said that 'disbelief' is a dogma when dogma is about belief? WTF.

that would be like saying abstinence is a sex position

Maybe you should indicate which statements you are referring to? I have found that many theists have a very skewed idea of atheism.

 

[RogueWarrior]

I don't believe the broad belief of atheists are dogma. I myself am agnostic. They just make many ignorant and dogmatic statements in support of their belief i.e the bible is fiction, science is an authority of itself and others that i run into occasionally. Tbh, most of these come from the anti-religion crowd who are more defined by their bigotry towards religion than they are for their unbelief in a god or gods.

• Agnosticism and atheism are about completely different things. Agnosticism is about knowledge. I am also agnostic. Atheism is about belief. Either you believe the theistic claim that gods exist or you don't, there is no middle ground. Which is it? You are either an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist.
  
• The bible is mostly unproven. Most of the evidence that christian theists present for the bible being true comes from the bible. The bible can't prove itself to be true. Nothing can.
  There are some biblical things, historical or geographical in nature, that can be demonstrated, using extra-biblical sources, to be correct. To say the bible is fiction is wrong and I, as an atheist, will always say that because it implies that it is completely false. Some things or at least some interpretations of biblical scripture ARE wrong. The 6000-10000 year old Earth or Noah's flood being prime examples.
  
• Science is not an authority of itself. It relies on demonstrable, verifiable evidence. (Is it not strange that some people believe that the bible IS an authority for itself, without verifiable evidence?)
  Science is just a tool. It has proven to be the most effective tool we have so far, to investigate the reality around us. Its effectiveness is rooted in is self-correcting nature. Observations are made. Predictions are made. Hypotheses are made and tested. If a hypothesis is tested enough it might actually become a 'theory'. A theory, the highest form of scientific thought, is still not immune to counter evidence. Scientific 'laws' really don't exist. Laws imply that no further discussion is possible and that is NEVER the case in science.
  
• Atheists are not anti-religion. Atheism is not concerned with religion at all. There are atheistic religions FFS. Although some atheists might also be anti-religious but that is separate from their disbelief in a god.

 

[TobyOne]

I reject all labels except "well hung". I don't really care what camp of atheism I'm in. I'd rather not associate with them at all as I see too many of them as dysfunctional and ignorant. It is interesting that you're defining the pure atheism and saying what it is and is not. That sounds very cult like. The sane atheists I know just don't have as much emotional investment in the entire topic. Thats probably where the line is drawn between Non-militant and militant atheists.

• Agnosticism and atheism are about completely different things. Agnosticism is about knowledge. I am also agnostic. Atheism is about belief. Either you believe the theistic claim that gods exist or you don't, there is no middle ground. Which is it? You are either an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist.
  
• The bible is mostly unproven. Most of the evidence that christian theists present for the bible being true comes from the bible. The bible can't prove itself to be true. Nothing can.
  There are some biblical things, historical or geographical in nature, that can be demonstrated, using extra-biblical sources, to be correct. To say the bible is fiction is wrong and I, as an atheist, will always say that because it implies that it is completely false. Some things or at least some interpretations of biblical scripture ARE wrong. The 6000-10000 year old Earth or Noah's flood being prime examples.
  
• Science is not an authority of itself. It relies on demonstrable, verifiable evidence. (Is it not strange that some people believe that the bible IS an authority for itself, without verifiable evidence?)
  Science is just a tool. It has proven to be the most effective tool we have so far, to investigate the reality around us. Its effectiveness is rooted in is self-correcting nature. Observations are made. Predictions are made. Hypotheses are made and tested. If a hypothesis is tested enough it might actually become a 'theory'. A theory, the highest form of scientific thought, is still not immune to counter evidence. Scientific 'laws' really don't exist. Laws imply that no further discussion is possible and that is NEVER the case in science.
  
• Atheists are not anti-religion. Atheism is not concerned with religion at all. There are atheistic religions FFS. Although some atheists might also be anti-religious but that is separate from their disbelief in a god.

 

[RogueWarrior]

I reject all labels except "well hung". I don't really care what camp of atheism I'm in. I'd rather not associate with them at all as I see too many of them as dysfunctional and ignorant. It is interesting that you're defining the pure atheism and saying what it is and is not. That sounds very cult like. The sane atheists I know just don't have as much emotional investment in the entire topic. Thats probably where the line is drawn between Non-militant and militant atheists.

You can reject labels all you want.
The theistic claim only has 2 choices. Belief or non-belief of their claim. I didn't make the rules. Belief or non belief is part of ANY CLAIM and non belief is the default position. At least I can't think of any claim were non belief is not the default position, maybe you can provide one?


Atheism doesn't make any claims about gods although some atheists choose to do so. Atheism is does not say gods cannot exist although some atheists will make that claim, which of course they would have to back up with evidence. Atheism is disbelief NOT denial.

Atheism is a response to a specific claim that gods exist. Atheism has no other implication about the world or reality; although many theists try their damnest to make it seem so by associating scientific ideas like evolution or abiogenesis; or by implying immorality or other nonsense.

Atheists can be anything (see the sole exception below):

they can be religious
they can be conservative
they can be liberal
they can be cruel
they can be kind
they can be naughty
they can be nice
they can be moral
they can be immoral
they can be amoral
their world views vary as much as the rest of the world.

EXCEPT the one and only thing they can't be is a theist.

You would have an emotional investment if your non-belief in something was a reviled as my non-belief in gods is. FFS it seems that I am worse than a communist pedophile, and that my hobbies are now raping and murdering.
No reason to be emotional about that is there? **** you.

 

[TobyOne]

:lol: The persecuted emotional atheist with baggage. Probably also drunk and british.

You can reject labels all you want.
The theistic claim only has 2 choices. Belief or non-belief of their claim. I didn't make the rules. Belief or non belief is part of ANY CLAIM and non belief is the default position. At least I can't think of any claim were non belief is not the default position, maybe you can provide one?


Atheism doesn't make any claims about gods although some atheists choose to do so. Atheism is does not say gods cannot exist although some atheists will make that claim, which of course they would have to back up with evidence. Atheism is disbelief NOT denial.

Atheism is a response to a specific claim that gods exist. Atheism has no other implication about the world or reality; although many theists try their damnest to make it seem so by associating scientific ideas like evolution or abiogenesis; or by implying immorality or other nonsense.

Atheists can be anything (see the sole exception below):

they can be religious
they can be conservative
they can be liberal
they can be cruel
they can be kind
they can be naughty
they can be nice
they can be moral
they can be immoral
they can be amoral
their world views vary as much as the rest of the world.

EXCEPT the one and only thing they can't be is a theist.

You would have an emotional investment if your non-belief in something was a reviled as my non-belief in gods is. FFS it seems that I am worse than a communist pedophile, and that my hobbies are now raping and murdering.
No reason to be emotional about that is there? **** you.

 

[RogueWarrior]

So no rebuttals then.
You concede?