Conquer Club

StiffMittens wrote:Well, I think the problem with this is that atheists reject a "faith-based" cosmic viewpoint in favor of a evidence-based cosmic viewpoint, and that is the basis upon which they eschew the label of religion. In some ways I agree with both sides of this issue. Atheists and agnostics are, in some ways, not very well represented in public institutions. This is impetus behind the Darwin fish on the backs of cars. Atheists just need better art direction and marketing - an area where religion has been succeeding for millenia. On the other hand, I do think that atheist tend to be intolerant of religious thinkers (I'm talking about "people of faith" here despite what the definition of religious is asserted to be by anyone in this thread).

luns101 wrote:

Backglass wrote:I believe that what my dear friend Luns is driving at, is a way to somehow say AHA! "The Atheists are religious!", even though they don't believe in gods. Am I right Luns?

No, I'm not trying to play gotcha! I already believe that atheists are religious. They deny this so that they will have the upper hand when it comes to removing religiously traditional symbols from public places. After all, if atheism was defined as religious then it could be said that the state is favoring one religious view over another. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has already defined atheism as a religion so the law actually supports this view despite your denial. Unless it was to be overturned by the Supreme Court, the standard that I gave is correct. Secular Humanism, which contains atheism as one of its core beliefs, has also been defined as a religion.

But when arguing these things on CC, atheists here obviously won't own up the fact they are religious so I dropped it and adopted your own definition, Backglass. Atheism is non-religious, no gods, blah blah blah. When I did that in this thread I was told that a religion may very well not bear a relationship to a deity whatsoever. So you can see how frustrating it is when no matter what we're discussing, non-believers (or whatever you guys are calling yourselves) keep changing the definition. The problem lies on your side. You guys come up with whether religion needs to include God or not.

Just make sure you stick to it and stop changing it mid-way through a discussion.

Backglass wrote:This is constantly being brought up by the religious as they tend to superimpose their way of thinking onto others.

Wow, we must have incredible powers to "superimpose" our ways onto others. Give me a break, Glass. Nobody has the ability to force someone else what to believe. You present your own views and that's about all one can do.

Backglass wrote:In their minds, the "absence of belief" is an entire belief system and therefor a religion of sorts. I don't see how you can make that jump personally...I truly believe the Coke Machine down the hall is full, but that does not make it a belief system or religion.

Well then let me explain it again, if not for your benefit, then for others who are not of the atheistic persuasion who read these posts of ours and then later pm me with more questions:

You are presented with information on whatever subject. You ponder it for awhile. You either accept it, reject it, or put it off until later in the hopes of finding more information that will help you make up your mind on it. There are no intellectual victims. Everyone makes a conscious decision on whether to accept something as true or to reject it as false.

To say that someone "lacks belief" is to try and pretend that one takes no intellectual action. That's absurd...people don't just do nothing with information.

luns101 wrote:No, I'm not trying to play gotcha! I already believe that atheists are religious. They deny this so that they will have the upper hand when it comes to removing religiously traditional symbols from public places. After all, if atheism was defined as religious then it could be said that the state is favoring one religious view over another. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has already defined atheism as a religion so the law actually supports this view despite your denial. Unless it was to be overturned by the Supreme Court, the standard that I gave is correct.

luns101 wrote:But when arguing these things on CC, atheists here obviously won't own up the fact they are religious so I dropped it and adopted your own definition, Backglass. Atheism is non-religious, no gods, blah blah blah.

luns101 wrote:When I did that in this thread I was told that a religion may very well not bear a relationship to a deity whatsoever. So you can see how frustrating it is when no matter what we're discussing, non-believers (or whatever you guys are calling yourselves) keep changing the definition. The problem lies on your side. You guys come up with whether religion needs to include God or not.

luns101 wrote:Wow, we must have incredible powers to "superimpose" our ways onto others. Give me a break, Glass. Nobody has the ability to force someone else what to believe. You present your own views and that's about all one can do.

luns101 wrote:To say that someone "lacks belief" is to try and pretend that one takes no intellectual action. That's absurd...people don't just do nothing with information.

Backglass wrote:

luns101 wrote:No, I'm not trying to play gotcha! I already believe that atheists are religious. They deny this so that they will have the upper hand when it comes to removing religiously traditional symbols from public places. After all, if atheism was defined as religious then it could be said that the state is favoring one religious view over another. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has already defined atheism as a religion so the law actually supports this view despite your denial. Unless it was to be overturned by the Supreme Court, the standard that I gave is correct.

Then you also believe that since the courts have legalized abortion it also is true and correct? After all, its the law.

Seriously, I just find the whole thing comical. I don't worship anything. I don't pray to anything. I don't go to a special building to meet with other atheists. I don't have a bible or holy book. I don't perform rituals. I don't have/do anything religious! So THAT in itself MAKES me religious? C'mon Luns.

I will say it again. Absence of religion is not a religion. Just as absence of a duck is not a duck.

luns101 wrote:...there is no such thing as "deciding not to decide".

Backglass wrote:I will say it again. Absence of religion is not a religion. Just as absence of a duck is not a duck.

mpjh wrote:But didn't you make a decision to be neutral between the flavors?

StiffMittens wrote:

Backglass wrote:I will say it again. Absence of religion is not a religion. Just as absence of a duck is not a duck.

But maybe it is a duck and there's an anti-duck occupying the same segment of spacetime which is negating the actual duck and preventing us from perceiving it.

Backglass wrote:

StiffMittens wrote:As for the coke machine, a single belief doesn't really qualify as a belief system. If, however, the idea that the coke machine down the hall is full becomes a guiding principle in how you plan to lead the rest of your life, then I would say that it is a religion.

Then is my plan to hit the treadmill daily a religion? Or my sincere attempt to lower my cholesterol? After all these are now guiding principles of my life that I "religiously" adhere to.

mpjh wrote:But didn't you make a decision to be neutral between the flavors?

mpjh wrote:Luns is playing semantics, and trivializing the whole matter.

luns101 wrote:

mpjh wrote:Luns is playing semantics, and trivializing the whole matter.

Nope, it's your side that's engaging in that. I once tried to argue that atheism was religious in nature. Atheists rejected that and said it was the lack of belief in God or gods. So in this thread I accepted that premise and it was nitpicked by yourself and Stiffy. Seems that no matter what a Christian says, you're knee-jerk reaction will be to disagree, even if it means contradicting your own definitions. You guys got caught this time and don't like it so you're trying to throw the spotlight back on me.

Backglass wrote:Then you also believe that since the courts have legalized abortion it also is true and correct? After all, its the law.

Backglass wrote:Seriously, I just find the whole thing comical.

Backglass wrote:I don't worship anything. I don't pray to anything. I don't go to a special building to meet with other atheists. I don't have a bible or holy book. I don't perform rituals. I don't have/do anything religious! So THAT in itself MAKES me religious? C'mon Luns.

Backglass wrote:I will say it again. Absence of religion is not a religion. Just as absence of a duck is not a duck.

Backglass wrote:I never said you were forcing anything...you misunderstand. What I am saying is that you are a devoutly religious man. You life is consumed with service to your god. You THEN assume that I, with my "atheist religion", have devoted my life to atheism and live in service to it's creedo of non-god-ism!

Backglass wrote:It really seems to drive christians nuts that there are those that simply aren't on ANY team.

Backglass wrote:Look, you can distill the semantics of it anyway you like if it helps you out, but it really doesn't change anything. <WAIT FOR IT!>

StiffMittens wrote:

luns101 wrote:...there is no such thing as "deciding not to decide".

Not true. Have you ever done this?:

Someone else: What kind of ice cream do you want with your cake? Chocolate or vanilla?
You: I don't care. Surprise me.

If so, then you made a decision that you didn't want to decide and allowed someone else to make the decision for you.

luns101 wrote:

StiffMittens wrote:

luns101 wrote:...there is no such thing as "deciding not to decide".

Not true. Have you ever done this?:

Someone else: What kind of ice cream do you want with your cake? Chocolate or vanilla?
You: I don't care. Surprise me.

If so, then you made a decision that you didn't want to decide and allowed someone else to make the decision for you.

OK, so atheists let other people make the decision for them on the existence of God...got it. Whatever way you want to play the game.

Well, I think the real crux of the biscuit here is a matter of degree (gee, imagine that - a question without an easily quantifiable answer). You yourself decribe these behaviors as something you "religiously adhere to." So you are acknowledging that they bear a resemblance to religion. What keeps them from being an actual religion is a how fundamental they are to your cosmic viewpoint. In your case, I suspect that you are doing these things because you want to be more healthy (perhaps decided that on your own, or were advised to do so by a doctor) and not because you believe that it is a fundamental truth of the cosmos that you should be more healthy.

StiffMittens wrote:You're ridiculous. You know very well that is not the intended meaning of this. It's a simple example of how one could decide not to decide (which you said was impossible).

StiffMittens wrote:And atheists don't care if you decide that god exists or not, because they don't believe you anyway.

StiffMittens wrote:So stop being so deliberately obtuse. It's getting really annoying.

StiffMittens wrote:If you want to discuss something, then let's discuss it. Otherwise if you continue with these idiotic misinterpretations of anything anybody else says, then I'll have to come to the conclusion that you are a 13 year old jackass just trying to screw around with people (which, if it were true, would actually be pretty funny. Sadly, however, I suspect that's not the case).

got tonkaed wrote:luns, its possible youve told me this before and i could have forgotten but where does the desire to quantify Atheist as being religious come from?

luns101 wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:luns, its possible youve told me this before and i could have forgotten but where does the desire to quantify Atheist as being religious come from?

Not really a desire but just what I've read them say in their own words. Atheism is the basis for the secular humanist religion.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Defining "religion" in such restrictive terms as to exclude atheism from being an element of its set may be possible (though I've yet to see it done convincingly), but only through the grossest semantic sophistries can most of the arguments being made by the atheists here be posited, for the good reason that the definition of religion they're left with is so empty and meaningless as to render any analytic on it a futile exercise.