Is atheism a religion?

[thegreekdog]

Atheism is definitely not a religion.

I believe atheism is a belief, however.

[jonesthecurl]

All the people who don't vote do NOT make up a political party.

[Haggis_McMutton]

All the people who don't vote do NOT make up a political party.

Actually that's not a bad idea.

Shall we call it the Apathetic Party?
Every vote that isn't cast will be a vote for us.

[jonesthecurl]

OK - but I don't want to be the Prime Minister/President.

[Army of GOD]

I don't care if I get voted to be the President

[Juan_Bottom]

Dawkins does pretty much speak for all of us. His book "the God Delusion" was the most concise gathering of our arguments that I have read. That's why/how he speaks for us.

Oh please. The God Delusion is more of a collection of excerpts from and sketches of a variety of philosophical ideas. Dawkins is not a bad writer at all and his arguments are easy to follow, but intellectually he really went out of his depth with that book. Delusion may serve as a brief introduction and as a starting point for further reading and studies, but it's not what I would call a concise gathering of arguments. It most certainly is not the be-all and end-all of atheism.

Not to Atheists, to Christians. Guys like Hitchens tackle the weird stuff. Dawkins tackles all the stuff that the organized will throw at you. That's why his book feels like excerpts to you.
And I didn't think that he went out of his depth.

[Symmetry]

Dawkins does pretty much speak for all of us. His book "the God Delusion" was the most concise gathering of our arguments that I have read. That's why/how he speaks for us.

Oh please. The God Delusion is more of a collection of excerpts from and sketches of a variety of philosophical ideas. Dawkins is not a bad writer at all and his arguments are easy to follow, but intellectually he really went out of his depth with that book. Delusion may serve as a brief introduction and as a starting point for further reading and studies, but it's not what I would call a concise gathering of arguments. It most certainly is not the be-all and end-all of atheism.

Not to Atheists, to Christians. Guys like Hitchens tackle the weird stuff. Dawkins tackles all the stuff that the organized will throw at you. That's why his book feels like excerpts to you.
And I didn't think that he went out of his depth.

Honestly, he really did. I like Dawkins, he's a clever man. I've read most of his scientific work on evolution (at least the popular stuff) he's very solid there. I also class myself as an atheist. I also study religious history. Unsurprisingly Dawkins has not managed to disprove God. The God Delusion is basically a re-hash of the most basic arguments for atheism. They're all fine, but you'd get demolished in a debate with a theolgian, someone who'd actually spent time on this stuff.

It really annoys me, and I say this as an atheist, when atheists think they've come up with some amazing argument that disproves faith. Trust me, smarter men than you or I have noticed the problem and tackled it.

[Snorri1234]

Dawkins does pretty much speak for all of us. His book "the God Delusion" was the most concise gathering of our arguments that I have read. That's why/how he speaks for us.

Oh please. The God Delusion is more of a collection of excerpts from and sketches of a variety of philosophical ideas. Dawkins is not a bad writer at all and his arguments are easy to follow, but intellectually he really went out of his depth with that book. Delusion may serve as a brief introduction and as a starting point for further reading and studies, but it's not what I would call a concise gathering of arguments. It most certainly is not the be-all and end-all of atheism.

Not to Atheists, to Christians. Guys like Hitchens tackle the weird stuff. Dawkins tackles all the stuff that the organized will throw at you. That's why his book feels like excerpts to you.
And I didn't think that he went out of his depth.

Honestly, he really did. I like Dawkins, he's a clever man. I've read most of his scientific work on evolution (at least the popular stuff) he's very solid there. I also class myself as an atheist. I also study religious history. Unsurprisingly Dawkins has not managed to disprove God. The God Delusion is basically a re-hash of the most basic arguments for atheism. They're all fine, but you'd get demolished in a debate with a theolgian, someone who'd actually spent time on this stuff.

It really annoys me, and I say this as an atheist, when atheists think they've come up with some amazing argument that disproves faith. Trust me, smarter men than you or I have noticed the problem and tackled it.

I think Juan had a good point in that Delusion is not so much arguments for atheism as a collection of rebuttals to common arguments. It deals with the stuff that is obviously bullshit.

[Army of GOD]

BUT SNORRI, 1000*1080*1042=10101!!!!! OBVIOUSLY GOD EXISTS BY THAT FORMULA

[Snorri1234]

BUT SNORRI, 1000*1080*1042=10101!!!!! OBVIOUSLY GOD EXISTS BY THAT FORMULA

Obviously. It's why Dawkins left it out, he just couldn't refute it.

[Phatscotty]

BUT SNORRI, 1000*1080*1042=10101!!!!! OBVIOUSLY GOD EXISTS BY THAT FORMULA

Obviously. It's why Dawkins left it out, he just couldn't refute it.

Hi snorri!!!!!!!!!!!

[Snorri1234]

BUT SNORRI, 1000*1080*1042=10101!!!!! OBVIOUSLY GOD EXISTS BY THAT FORMULA

Obviously. It's why Dawkins left it out, he just couldn't refute it.

Hi snorri!!!!!!!!!!!

sup phats domino?

[Phatscotty]

BUT SNORRI, 1000*1080*1042=10101!!!!! OBVIOUSLY GOD EXISTS BY THAT FORMULA

Obviously. It's why Dawkins left it out, he just couldn't refute it.

Hi snorri!!!!!!!!!!!

sup phats domino

nothing just miss old faces. Is Dawkins 100% right or just pretty much right?

[Snorri1234]

BUT SNORRI, 1000*1080*1042=10101!!!!! OBVIOUSLY GOD EXISTS BY THAT FORMULA

Obviously. It's why Dawkins left it out, he just couldn't refute it.

Hi snorri!!!!!!!!!!!

sup phats domino

nothing just miss old faces. Is Dawkins 100% right or just pretty much right?

100% right unless you count that time he killed those two hookers but swore he didn't touch them.

[Phatscotty]

dang I didnt know that.

[Haggis_McMutton]

eh, no one's perfect.

[Army of GOD]

Jesus is. He killed two hookers so he could have sex with their dead bodies, but then he brought them back to life.

Sick f*ck if you ask me...

[Victor Sullivan]

Jesus is. He killed two hookers so he could have sex with their dead bodies, but then he brought them back to life.

Sick f*ck if you ask me...

[Symmetry]

BUT SNORRI, 1000*1080*1042=10101!!!!! OBVIOUSLY GOD EXISTS BY THAT FORMULA

Obviously. It's why Dawkins left it out, he just couldn't refute it.

Hi snorri!!!!!!!!!!!

sup phats domino

nothing just miss old faces. Is Dawkins 100% right or just pretty much right?

About what?