PDA

View Full Version : Atheists now become a protected class of people



garhkal
04-03-2015, 09:47 PM
Madison Wisconsin, has now made the strange step to make "atheists a protected class of citizens" using the logic that if the laws protect those who are religious, should it not also protect those who are Anti religious.

Saying, “It’s only fair,” Anita Weier led the city council in a unanimous vote approving an ordinance that protects citizens in the areas of employment, housing, and public accommodations. Ordinance sponsor Weier said:

There are many categories that are protected. And it did occur to me that if religion was, then perhaps the opposite should be.

What say you all??

http://freethinker.co.uk/2015/04/02/wisconsin-atheists-now-protected-by-law/comment-page-1/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/04/02/religious-freedom-debate-now-includes-atheists-a-k-a-the-least-accepted-group-in-politics/

I found it strange that the Washington post and a UK newspaper had it, but other than a bunch of rightwing religious sites, i didn't see any other mainstream media site having it...

Bos Mutus
04-03-2015, 10:42 PM
Madison Wisconsin, has now made the strange step to make "atheists a protected class of citizens" using the logic that if the laws protect those who are religious, should it not also protect those who are Anti religious.


What say you all??

http://freethinker.co.uk/2015/04/02/wisconsin-atheists-now-protected-by-law/comment-page-1/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/04/02/religious-freedom-debate-now-includes-atheists-a-k-a-the-least-accepted-group-in-politics/

I found it strange that the Washington post and a UK newspaper had it, but other than a bunch of rightwing religious sites, i didn't see any other mainstream media site having it...


Makes sense. Religious preference is already a protected class...the preference "none" should be included.

So, I don't think this is really a "strange step"...it's probably already covered for all practical purposes...just kind of a technicality correction...probably also why real media didn't find it to be much of a story.

TJMAC77SP
04-04-2015, 01:53 PM
Makes sense. Religious preference is already a protected class...the preference "none" should be included.

So, I don't think this is really a "strange step"...it's probably already covered for all practical purposes...just kind of a technicality correction...probably also why real media didn't find it to be much of a story.

At first reading I thought why is this necessary but if you look at it from the standpoint that one's religion should not be used against him/her then it follows that a lack of religion shouldn't either.

I imagined someone who declares they are an atheist during a job interview (although hard to picture why that subject would come up) and that fact keeps them from getting the job in the same way if someone declared they were a Mormon and didn't get the job.

Not sure what the lawmaker had in mind but I would venture a guess that there might be an interesting court case in the future for Madison, WI as the law is applied in different situations.

sandsjames
04-04-2015, 09:15 PM
Glad to see Atheists admit that Atheism is a religion.

BENDER56
04-05-2015, 12:06 AM
Speaking about a different issue recently, atheist Penn Jillette had this to say: "... I certainly want people to have religious freedom--because the only way that people who don't have religion are going to have freedom is if people who do have religion have freedom."

Makes sense to me.

Link, if you're interested: http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/02/penn-jillette-on-indiana-rfra-youre-not

Bos Mutus
04-05-2015, 04:16 AM
Glad to see Atheists admit that Atheism is a religion.

What's significance of that for you?

i know I have used the "atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby" phrase myself...but I don't really get the big deal over whether it is or not. It's like people arguing over whether NASCAR is a sport or not, and whether drivers are athletes...not that important to me what you call it, I love it...we all know what it is, racing cars.

When people ask me my religion, I just usually say none or nothing really...I don't really identify myself as a capital A Atheist and read books about it etc...although I do usually find religious discussions interesting, a lot of people don't like to discuss it...and yes I've poked my fair share of ridicule at faiths and what I see as inconsistencies in it.... I like how Karl Rove put it once "I'm not fortunate enought to be a person of faith"


just curious...why whether or not atheism is called a religion brings you glee

Stalwart
04-05-2015, 11:44 AM
Madison Wisconsin, has now made the strange step to make "atheists a protected class of citizens" using the logic that if the laws protect those who are religious, should it not also protect those who are Anti religious.


I don't find it strange at all. Why should someone who is not a person of faith be denied a job, a place to live, or be evaluated on performance based on that lack of faith.



I found it strange that the Washington post and a UK newspaper had it, but other than a bunch of rightwing religious sites, i didn't see any other mainstream media site having it...

It didn't make big news because it isn't really big news. Equal protection under the law doesn't just apply to people who are religious. The freedom of religion also includes the freedom to not have religion.

sandsjames
04-05-2015, 12:34 PM
What's significance of that for you?

i know I have used the "atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby" phrase myself...but I don't really get the big deal over whether it is or not. It's like people arguing over whether NASCAR is a sport or not, and whether drivers are athletes...not that important to me what you call it, I love it...we all know what it is, racing cars.

When people ask me my religion, I just usually say none or nothing really...I don't really identify myself as a capital A Atheist and read books about it etc...although I do usually find religious discussions interesting, a lot of people don't like to discuss it...and yes I've poked my fair share of ridicule at faiths and what I see as inconsistencies in it.... I like how Karl Rove put it once "I'm not fortunate enought to be a person of faith"


just curious...why whether or not atheism is called a religion brings you glee

Because if Atheism is designated as a religion then maybe Atheists will have to figure out something else to blame wars, hate, and all other bad things in the world on, because they can't use "religion" anymore, otherwise that would be them taking part of the blame. Plus now, when two Atheists have slightly differing views on what Atheism is, I can ask them how they can be part of a religion that they don't even agree with or know about. I've heard the question asked on this site several times "How can you be a Christian and not even know what the bible says" or "how can you classify yourself as a 'non-denominational' Christian". It's the exact same way you can call yourself NOT a capitol "A" atheist.

I'm surprised you don't see how big this actually is. You consistently point out how important the definitions of words are with when and how they are used. The designation of Atheism as a religion (which is what's happening by putting them into a protected group) will hopefully make most Atheists a little less smug when generalizing all religions. I doubt it, but we can hope.

sandsjames
04-05-2015, 12:41 PM
It didn't make big news because it isn't really big news. Equal protection under the law doesn't just apply to people who are religious. The freedom of religion also includes the freedom to not have religion.But Atheists DO have religion. It's called Atheism. It's even law now that it's protected as a religious group. So no more saying that Atheists are free to not have a religion. Atheists are now free to openly practice their religion with protection from the law.

I think I will complain next time a government building doesn't have something out front on Christmas, as I don't want to be forced to view the Atheist religious symbols. They shouldn't play a part in the government. We could get into how the Constitution prevents that from happening, but it's really a moot point.

But I'm sure that the crazy Atheists will argue that it's their right to celebrate holidays as they choose as long as it's not hurting anyone else and will fight to maintain keeping the symbols they hold dear.

LogDog
04-05-2015, 07:44 PM
Glad to see Atheists admit that Atheism is a religion.
How would categorize Atheism other than in a religious connotation?

LogDog
04-05-2015, 07:54 PM
But Atheists DO have religion. It's called Atheism. It's even law now that it's protected as a religious group. So no more saying that Atheists are free to not have a religion. Atheists are now free to openly practice their religion with protection from the law.

I think I will complain next time a government building doesn't have something out front on Christmas, as I don't want to be forced to view the Atheist religious symbols. They shouldn't play a part in the government. We could get into how the Constitution prevents that from happening, but it's really a moot point.

But I'm sure that the crazy Atheists will argue that it's their right to celebrate holidays as they choose as long as it's not hurting anyone else and will fight to maintain keeping the symbols they hold dear.
If there is nothing out in front of a government building then how does that make it a religious symbol. In order for something to be a symbol to be seen then it has to have substance and if there is nothing then there is no substance therefor no religious symbol. The lack of any religious symbol doesn't mean support for Atheism or any religion.

sandsjames
04-05-2015, 10:24 PM
If there is nothing out in front of a government building then how does that make it a religious symbol. Because that's the symbol that Atheists want. It's part of their religion that there be no symbols.


In order for something to be a symbol to be seen then it has to have substance and if there is nothing then there is no substance therefor no religious symbol. The lack of any religious symbol doesn't mean support for Atheism or any religion.Nope...the reason there is nothing is because of the religious beliefs of Atheists. You don't hear of other religion asking for the Christmas tree to come down except for Atheists. That means that Atheists are having their religious beliefs catered to while all other religions have to stand by and watch.

And "nothing" out front of our government buildings over the holidays carries WAAAY more symbolism than any physical items that may be there.

LogDog
04-05-2015, 10:48 PM
Because that's the symbol that Atheists want. It's part of their religion that there be no symbols.

Nope...the reason there is nothing is because of the religious beliefs of Atheists. You don't hear of other religion asking for the Christmas tree to come down except for Atheists. That means that Atheists are having their religious beliefs catered to while all other religions have to stand by and watch.

And "nothing" out front of our government buildings over the holidays carries WAAAY more symbolism than any physical items that may be there.
You fail to understand Atheists. What we want is no favoritism towards any one religion, including Atheism; just treat everyone equally. If you're going to have a Christmas Tree in front of a government building then why not allow a Menorah or symbols from the Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan, Buddhism, and other religions for their holidays. I'm sure if you saw a Muslim symbol honoring one of their holidays on a government building you'd have a fit.

I have no problems with government facilities displaying religious symbols honoring a religious observance nor do I have a problem with these facilities being available for use by religious groups provided all groups are treated equally.

sandsjames
04-05-2015, 11:23 PM
You fail to understand Atheists. What we want is no favoritism towards any one religion, including Atheism; just treat everyone equally. If you're going to have a Christmas Tree in front of a government building then why not allow a Menorah or symbols from the Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan, Buddhism, and other religions for their holidays. I'm sure if you saw a Muslim symbol honoring one of their holidays on a government building you'd have a fit. You are wrong about this. I wouldn't have a fit at all. I've often wondered why other religions don't get involved (not just government buildings cuz I don't care where it's at). Wouldn't bother me a bit. Then everyone would be happy, and Atheists could remain smug.


I have no problems with government facilities displaying religious symbols honoring a religious observance nor do I have a problem with these facilities being available for use by religious groups provided all groups are treated equally.Are they not treated equally? Have you ever heard of other religions trying to display stuff and be turned away? I'm pretty much under the assumption that most religions, other than Christianity, don't even make the effort.

garhkal
04-05-2015, 11:53 PM
I don't find it strange at all. Why should someone who is not a person of faith be denied a job, a place to live, or be evaluated on performance based on that lack of faith.


Stewart. Have you ever heard anyone so far, getting denied any of those things based on being an Atheist prior? Then why is it such a need now?

Stalwart
04-06-2015, 12:33 AM
Stewart. Have you ever heard anyone so far, getting denied any of those things based on being an Atheist prior? Then why is it such a need now?

Actually, yes.

I recall a teacher in Idaho/Iowa/Indiana (it started with an "I") who was fired for declaring her lack of faith. She worked at a religious school (not sure the denomination). Now, we could argue whether her lack of faith inhibited her ability to teach; if she made atheist statements in the classroom to students etc.; in the end I think that since it was a private and not a public school they were within their right (if that was somehow a condition of employment) to fire her.

I also did hear about this in MI last month(not really something loosing a job but an example of discrimination against atheists):

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2015/03/warren_must_pay_100000_for_den.html

In sum, an atheist noticed a prayer station in city hall, he petitioned to have a 'reason station' in the same space. He went court, he won, the city owes him $100k.

Now:

-Do I think this is as common as racism, or 'militant' atheists who push an agenda on religion ... no.

-Do I think all atheists are 'militant' ... no.

-Do I think the law should be clear to avoid overzealous people (on both sides of the argument ... apparently so. Equal protection under the law (the pesky 14th amendment) is the law after all.

Edit: who is Stewart ;)

Bos Mutus
04-06-2015, 06:18 AM
Because if Atheism is designated as a religion then maybe Atheists will have to figure out something else to blame wars, hate, and all other bad things in the world on, because they can't use "religion" anymore, otherwise that would be them taking part of the blame.

I'm more of the opinion that power and violence are just human nature...and religion is just a convenient excuse for violent, power-seeking people. If it weren't religion, they would cloak their violence in something else.


Plus now, when two Atheists have slightly differing views on what Atheism is, I can ask them how they can be part of a religion that they don't even agree with or know about. I've heard the question asked on this site several times "How can you be a Christian and not even know what the bible says" or "how can you classify yourself as a 'non-denominational' Christian". It's the exact same way you can call yourself NOT a capitol "A" atheist.

I think we all know and realize that there are different Christians who don't all believe in the same things. I guess it gets confusing for me when someone says "I am Christian", but then declares they don't believe in eternal life. That seems, to me, more like someone saying "I am Atheist, but I believe in God."...doesn't meet the definition. But many Christians have disagreements about more minor points of the faith.


I'm surprised you don't see how big this actually is. You consistently point out how important the definitions of words are with when and how they are used.

Okay, I'm getting it.


The designation of Atheism as a religion (which is what's happening by putting them into a protected group) will hopefully make most Atheists a little less smug when generalizing all religions. I doubt it, but we can hope.

We can also hope that people of faith will be a little less smug in generalizing all atheists, but that is unlikely also.

Bos Mutus
04-06-2015, 06:24 AM
Because that's the symbol that Atheists want. It's part of their religion that there be no symbols.

Nope...the reason there is nothing is because of the religious beliefs of Atheists. You don't hear of other religion asking for the Christmas tree to come down except for Atheists. That means that Atheists are having their religious beliefs catered to while all other religions have to stand by and watch.

And "nothing" out front of our government buildings over the holidays carries WAAAY more symbolism than any physical items that may be there.

Some atheist groups do have symbols...

technomage1
04-06-2015, 09:19 AM
Atheism is defined as not having any religion. Therefore, Atheism isn't a religion. It can't be by definition. It's the absence of religion. It's like defining the absence of being a basketball fan by calling someone a basketball fan - it just doesn't make any sense. "I don't care for basketball" shouldn't bring the response, "Oh, so you're a basketball fan".

Freedom of religion to us includes, not only the right to have a religion, but the right not to have one at all. As such, we are entitled to equal protection under the establishment clause and the civil rights act. This has been the general consensus of the court system as well.

As far as atheists being the only ones who complain - like failure to complain is something to brag about? If you stand aside and let someone piss on the constitution and the laws of the land and discriminate against any group, shame on you. Atheists are typically the target of discrimination and we're the largest minority in the US. Of course we're going to be the most likely to complain, but the fact believers stand idly by or participate in violations of the law is pretty darn sad to me.

Sometimes people are ignorant of the law. Most complaints of the FFRF, for example, end at the point when the foundation sends a letter to the person or organization violating the law explaining that they're violating the law and how. The organiztion or person apologizes and/or removes the violation. Mission accomplished.

sandsjames
04-06-2015, 11:42 AM
Atheism is defined as not having any religion. Therefore, Atheism isn't a religion. It can't be by definition. It's the absence of religion. Wrong. The law we are discussing defines Atheism as a religion. It gives protection to Atheists as a religious group.

Welcome to the fight.

Rusty Jones
04-06-2015, 01:20 PM
Because if Atheism is designated as a religion then maybe Atheists will have to figure out something else to blame wars, hate, and all other bad things in the world on, because they can't use "religion" anymore, otherwise that would be them taking part of the blame. Plus now, when two Atheists have slightly differing views on what Atheism is, I can ask them how they can be part of a religion that they don't even agree with or know about. I've heard the question asked on this site several times "How can you be a Christian and not even know what the bible says" or "how can you classify yourself as a 'non-denominational' Christian". It's the exact same way you can call yourself NOT a capitol "A" atheist.

I'm surprised you don't see how big this actually is. You consistently point out how important the definitions of words are with when and how they are used. The designation of Atheism as a religion (which is what's happening by putting them into a protected group) will hopefully make most Atheists a little less smug when generalizing all religions. I doubt it, but we can hope.

This pretty much sumbs it up. Christians are hell bent on considering atheism a religion, due to their own inferiority complex.

"Atheists think they're better than us! Nooooooooo!!!!!"

sandsjames
04-06-2015, 01:26 PM
This pretty much sumbs it up. Christians are hell bent on considering atheism a religion, due to their own inferiority complex.

"Atheists think they're better than us! Nooooooooo!!!!!"

It's the law, Rusty. It's the law.

Rusty Jones
04-06-2015, 01:28 PM
It's the law, Rusty. It's the law.

What's the law?

sandsjames
04-06-2015, 01:36 PM
What's the law?

That Atheism is a religion. Didn't you read the OP?

Rusty Jones
04-06-2015, 02:08 PM
Well, I'm going to do what should have been done a long time ago. Use the dictionary definitions of "religion"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion


religion

noun re•li•gion \ri-ˈli-jən\

: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group


Full Definition of RELIGION

1
a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

— re•li•gion•less adjective

Clearly, atheism meets none of the definitions here. There's no belief in gods, there's not organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, or rules used to worship a god or gods... and if you go with the vague "an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group," it still wouldn't work because atheism doesn't require an active interest or participation in order for one to be atheist.

If we move down to " Full Definition of RELIGION":

1a only applies to nuns, 1b(1) requires the belief in a god or something supernatural (atheists don't meet this requirement), and 1b(2) there's no "commitment" or "devotion" to anything, and there's no "faith" or "observance."

2 atheists don't meet this requirement either. There's no "set" of "religious attitutudes, beliefs, and practices" (notice it says "and," not "or") among atheists.

3 this is "archaic," but with atheism, being anti-conformist by its very nature, wouldn't meet this definition.

4 held to with ardor and faith? I can say with all honesty that if God were to come down to Earth and show himself, and do a bunch of shit that shows his omnipotence, I would believe. But I can say the same for any god of any religion. Christians? Nope. If another god from another religion was to show itself, Christians would simply say that it was Satan. That, or Satan playing some kind of trick. Hell, Christians already say that dinosaur bones were placed by Satan. In any case, the Christian faith is still maintained and literally perserveres through ANYTHING. Now that's being held to with "ardor and faith." Can't say the same with atheists.

Let's look at another site:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t


re-li-gion

[ri-lij-uh n]

noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:
to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

7. religions, Archaic. religious rites:
painted priests performing religions deep into the night.

1. Key "cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"? To an atheist, the universe is just simply "there." Only the religious try to explain the "cause, nature, and purpose."

2. Nuff said on this one. When have atheists ever gathered together to lay out there set of beliefs for other atheists to follow? Never.

3. Body of persons? You mean like a church, synogogue, or mosque? Yeah...

4. No monascticism in atheism. Sorry

5. How does an atheist "practice" anything? There's nothing for us to "practice." Therefore, we don't "practice."

6. Again, this doesn't fit atheism. What "thing" do we believe in and "follow devotedly?" For Christians, it's God/Jesus. What about atheists?

7. No "rites" for us. If you know of one, please spill it.

Rusty Jones
04-06-2015, 02:12 PM
That Atheism is a religion. Didn't you read the OP?

Sure did. Neither article stated that atheism was a religion. Oh, but look what I dug up from the first article:


Weier explained:

This is important because I believe it is only fair that if we protect religion, in all its varieties, we should also protect non-religion from discrimination.

You were saying?

Stalwart
04-06-2015, 02:30 PM
I have read both articles, twice ... I don't see where they are saying that atheism is a religion, but that it should be affoarded the same legal protections as a religion ...

sandsjames
04-06-2015, 03:00 PM
Third line from the very first definition.

"an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group"

sandsjames
04-06-2015, 03:03 PM
I have read both articles, twice ... I don't see where they are saying that atheism is a religion, but that it should be affoarded the same legal protections as a religion ...If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...It is a belief that has now become a protected group with the same protections as all other religions.

sandsjames
04-06-2015, 03:04 PM
Sure did. Neither article stated that atheism was a religion. Oh, but look what I dug up from the first article:



You were saying?

Don't worry Rusty. We won't judge you based on your religious beliefs. You can celebrate as you see fit.

Rusty Jones
04-06-2015, 03:06 PM
Third line from the very first definition.

"an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group"

And, like I said in response to this before: it still wouldn't work because atheism doesn't require an active interest or participation in order for one to be atheist.

Rainmaker
04-06-2015, 04:10 PM
Actually, yes.

I recall a teacher in Idaho/Iowa/Indiana (it started with an "I") who was fired for declaring her lack of faith. She worked at a religious school (not sure the denomination). Now, we could argue whether her lack of faith inhibited her ability to teach; if she made atheist statements in the classroom to students etc.; in the end I think that since it was a private and not a public school they were within their right (if that was somehow a condition of employment) to fire her.

I also did hear about this in MI last month(not really something loosing a job but an example of discrimination against atheists):

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2015/03/warren_must_pay_100000_for_den.html

In sum, an atheist noticed a prayer station in city hall, he petitioned to have a 'reason station' in the same space. He went court, he won, the city owes him $100k.

Now:

-Do I think this is as common as racism, or 'militant' atheists who push an agenda on religion ... no.

-Do I think all atheists are 'militant' ... no.

-Do I think the law should be clear to avoid overzealous people (on both sides of the argument ... apparently so. Equal protection under the law (the pesky 14th amendment) is the law after all.

Edit: who is Stewart ;)

Lawsuit brought by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State....... All 3 Communist front groups.....Likely bought off or blackmailed the judge

http://www.redstate.com/2011/01/04/the-aclus-communist-origins/

Interesting though that the powers behind these groups are "religious" themselves (luciferians). But, their goal is to convert the United States from a Federal Republic into a Socialist (Atheistic) Unitary state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_state

Message to all commie hippy pinkos who hate America....You will not win....God is everywhere!!!

Stalwart
04-06-2015, 04:24 PM
Lawsuit brought by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State....... All 3 Communist front groups.....Likely bought off or blackmailed the judge

http://www.redstate.com/2011/01/04/the-aclus-communist-origins/

Interesting though that the powers behind these groups are "religious" themselves (luciferians). But, their goal is to convert the United States from a Federal Republic into a Socialist (Atheistic) Unitary state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_state

Message to all commie hippy pinkos who hate America....You will not win....God is everywhere!!!

Interesting theory ... very intereseting.

sandsjames
04-06-2015, 05:07 PM
And, like I said in response to this before: it still wouldn't work because atheism doesn't require an active interest or participation in order for one to be atheist.

Nor does Christianity. Do you know how many people I know who were "raised Catholic", who still classify themselves that way, but have no active interest or participation?

Rainmaker
04-06-2015, 06:08 PM
Keep the faith Sandsjames, because These communists will not succeed in forcing us to believe that It all started from a dot with microbes imploding and shit and that the atheists are the ONLY smart people in the world and the Billions of others that have gone before us were all idiots... , when you believe in nothing, you end up as a cynical, self-hating materialistic hippy and so most of them will wind up depressed and they won't even bother to reproduce anymore. When you don't have kids anymore, you eventually get replaced by those who still bother reproducing. It's as simple as that. FORWARD!!!

Rusty Jones
04-06-2015, 06:39 PM
Nor does Christianity. Do you know how many people I know who were "raised Catholic", who still classify themselves that way, but have no active interest or participation?


They still have an active interest, if they still consider themselves Catholic. Otherwise, they wouldn't.

Rusty Jones
04-06-2015, 06:42 PM
Keep the faith Sandsjames, because These communists will not succeed in forcing us to believe that It all started from a dot with microbes imploding and shit and that the atheists are the ONLY smart people in the world and the Billions of others that have gone before us were all idiots... , when you believe in nothing, you end up as a cynical, self-hating materialistic hippy and so most of them will wind up depressed and they won't even bother to reproduce anymore. When you don't have kids anymore, you eventually get replaced by those who still bother reproducing. It's as simple as that. FORWARD!!!

No one's trying to get SJ to abandon his faith. His issue is that he knows what what religion has done, what it's doing, and where it's going... and he's trying to drag atheists down with it. Hence, the "atheism is a religion too" arguments.

Rollyn01
04-06-2015, 06:59 PM
No one's trying to get SJ to abandon his faith. His issue is that he knows what what religion has done, what it's doing, and where it's going... and he's trying to drag atheists down with it. Hence, the "atheism is a religion too" arguments.

I wonder if that applies to being agnostic too. If so, I'm a bit scared. Fuck it, I'm throwing my lot in with the other atheists. Or, at the very least, I'll throw it in the Flying Spaghetti Monster crowd. That religion has beer and strippers in the afterlife.

Besides, if they want to argue that atheism is a religion too, they would have to contend with the notion that everyone has a right to their own religious practice and therefore no one can claim to have the "right" religion.

Rainmaker
04-06-2015, 07:56 PM
I wonder if that applies to being agnostic too. If so, I'm a bit scared. Fuck it, I'm throwing my lot in with the other atheists. Or, at the very least, I'll throw it in the Flying Spaghetti Monster crowd. That religion has beer and strippers in the afterlife.

Besides, if they want to argue that atheism is a religion too, they would have to contend with the notion that everyone has a right to their own religious practice and therefore no one can claim to have the "right" religion.

So, Rollyn, the agnostic view is probably the most sensible. But, the truth doesn't answer to reason (see jesting pilate)

As a follower of the teachings of JC Rainmaker call himself a Christian but would never subject himself to the endless stream of hypocrisy he witnessed in the organized churches. (It's a lot like the socialist/ ivory tower academia in that sense).

so, you see... the NWO views devout Christianity as the only credible impediment to their Illuminated plans. Therefore, any areas of national cohesion (i.e Military, boy scouts, bible study groups, raw milk producers.. etc.) must be systematically attacked in the courts...

But, on the other hand, the Mohomats are to be given carte Blanche which on the surface, seems to fly in the face of their feminist manifesto....

It's very confusing to us Amateur Ancient Astronaut Theorists. But, fortunately, All we really have to know is that Jesus is risen and he'll take care of the rest. Good news. Nomsayin..

Rainmaker
04-06-2015, 08:12 PM
No one's trying to get SJ to abandon his faith. His issue is that he knows what what religion has done, what it's doing, and where it's going... and he's trying to drag atheists down with it. Hence, the "atheism is a religion too" arguments.

yes Bitchez, SJ is hitting on something when he refers to atheism as a religion. All the functions that the church used to provide have been abdicated to socialists, just look who has the biggest buildings today. (governments and banks).

American values of Rugged individualism and self-reliance have been replaced with the "It takes a village", collective mindset.

Only individuals are able to live freely. If you don't believe this. Just try to be part of an independent mass.

All atheists and lesbians are lying to themselves.... and Deep down inside, They all know I'm right when I try to tell em!

Rainmaker
04-06-2015, 08:30 PM
I'm more of the opinion that power and violence are just human nature...and religion is just a convenient excuse for violent, power-seeking people. If it weren't religion, they would cloak their violence in something else.


I think we all know and realize that there are different Christians who don't all believe in the same things. I guess it gets confusing for me when someone says "I am Christian", but then declares they don't believe in eternal life. That seems, to me, more like someone saying "I am Atheist, but I believe in God."...doesn't meet the definition. But many Christians have disagreements about more minor points of the faith.



Okay, I'm getting it.



We can also hope that people of faith will be a little less smug in generalizing all atheists, but that is unlikely also.

Yes, it is and yes, they have cloaked it in something else....Called Secular Socialist Government....and Bos Mutus?? ......so, what gives with the new name??...NSA troll mail server must've crashed!!...Yakety Yak....

Rollyn01
04-06-2015, 08:59 PM
So, Rollyn, the agnostic view is probably the most sensible. But, the truth doesn't answer to reason (see jesting pilate)

As a follower of the teachings of JC Rainmaker call himself a Christian but would never subject himself to the endless stream of hypocrisy he witnessed in the organized churches. (It's a lot like the socialist/ ivory tower academia in that sense).

so, you see... the NWO views devout Christianity as the only credible impediment to their Illuminated plans. Therefore, any areas of national cohesion (i.e Military, boy scouts, bible study groups, raw milk producers.. etc.) must be systematically attacked in the courts...

But, on the other hand, the Mohomats are to be given carte Blanche which on the surface, seems to fly in the face of their feminist manifesto....

It's very confusing to us Amateur Ancient Astronaut Theorists. But, fortunately, All we really have to know is that Jesus is risen and he'll take care of the rest. Good news. Nomsayin..

I would only call myself Agnostic due to not believing in any god and yet, wanting to believe. It's rather confusing. I think it would be better to call myself Gnostic, but I'm not into ascribing to God doing the work for me or even that the only reason that I succeed is because of God and thinking God's purpose is unkowable. If I was to agree to that, it would mean that I have no free will. It would also mean that I didn't really cared about anyone in my life and that the motivations of my actions was "God's will". I'll pass on all of that.

Rainmaker
04-06-2015, 09:09 PM
I would only call myself Agnostic due to not believing in any god and yet, wanting to believe. It's rather confusing. I think it would be better to call myself Gnostic, but I'm not into ascribing to God doing the work for me or even that the only reason that I succeed is because of God and thinking God's purpose is unkowable. If I was to agree to that, it would mean that I have no free will. It would also mean that I didn't really cared about anyone in my life and that the motivations of my actions was "God's will". I'll pass on all of that.

+ 1- The "Religion" Rainmaker find most plausible is the one that does not force conversion to it by a government decree or tax.

And Now Ladies and Gentleman Rainmaker proudly presents: "Heathenry" ... http://www.thetroth.org/

Don't laugh...Jefferson was a follower.....

"for such the judges have usurped in their repeated decisions, that Christianity is a part of the common law. The proof of the contrary, which you have adduced, is incontrovertible; to wit, that the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet Pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had ever existed"- Thomas Jefferson.

technomage1
04-06-2015, 09:17 PM
Wrong. The law we are discussing defines Atheism as a religion. It gives protection to Atheists as a religious group.

Welcome to the fight.

The law itself is called the "Equal Opportunity Ordinance" and refers specifically to "religion or nonreligon" as a protected class. It most certainly does not define atheism as a religion.

Read it for yourself. https://madison.legistar.com/ViewReport.ashx?M=R&N=Text&GID=205&ID=2094766&GUID=39E017BD-BD9A-4551-B275-43784519B98B&Title=Legislation+Text

Ive no idea where you're getting the idea the law defines atheism as a religion. The law itself certainly does no such thing.

sandsjames
04-06-2015, 09:28 PM
The law itself is called the "Equal Opportunity Ordinance" and refers specifically to "religion or nonreligon" as a protected class. It most certainly does not define atheism as a religion.

Read it for yourself. https://madison.legistar.com/ViewReport.ashx?M=R&N=Text&GID=205&ID=2094766&GUID=39E017BD-BD9A-4551-B275-43784519B98B&Title=Legislation+Text

ive no idea where you're getting the idea the law defines atheism as a religion. The law itself certainly does no such thing.

Don't be embarrassed to be religious. You share the beliefs of many others around you. Most of you have the common goal of discrediting other religions. Some of you even spend your entire lives on research to disprove much of what other religions believe in.

It's not a bad thing to be part of a religious group like that. Just as with any religious group, you've got your fanatics, though I realize that it's just a small minority, so I'll try not to lump you all together.

technomage1
04-06-2015, 09:33 PM
Don't be embarrassed to be religious. You share the beliefs of many others around you. Most of you have the common goal of discrediting other religions. Some of you even spend your entire lives on research to disprove much of what other religions believe in.

It's not a bad thing to be part of a religious group like that. Just as with any religious group, you've got your fanatics, though I realize that it's just a small minority, so I'll try not to lump you all together.

Have you been watching Fox "News" again or have you turned into a troll while I haven't been reading the boards? Read the law. It's prety plain your claim is incorrect.

sandsjames
04-06-2015, 09:38 PM
Have you been watching Fox "News" again or have you turned into a troll while I haven't been reading the boards? Read the law. It's prety plain your claim is incorrect.

So are you claiming that you don't have a shared belief to other Atheists? I'm pretty sure that having a group of people who has a particular belief about deities is pretty much the definition of religion.

Unfortunately, people attribute religion only to a belief in a God, or several Gods. That would be theism, but theistic religions are not the only religions. That is why Atheism is still considered a religion.

You're not A-religion, you're A-theistic. It's right in the name. So I'm not sure why you're so afraid of having Atheism recognized as a religion.

edit: And I don't think this story has been covered on Fox "News". That's a pretty boring effort at trying to criticize. You're better than that.

technomage1
04-06-2015, 10:28 PM
So are you claiming that you don't have a shared belief to other Atheists? I'm pretty sure that having a group of people who has a particular belief about deities is pretty much the definition of religion.

Unfortunately, people attribute religion only to a belief in a God, or several Gods. That would be theism, but theistic religions are not the only religions. That is why Atheism is still considered a religion.

You're not A-religion, you're A-theistic. It's right in the name. So I'm not sure why you're so afraid of having Atheism recognized as a religion.

edit: And I don't think this story has been covered on Fox "News". That's a pretty boring effort at trying to criticize. You're better than that.

Rusty already conclusively proved that atheism doesn't fit the dictionary definition of religion. It was back in post 25. http://forums.militarytimes.com/showthread.php/9183-Atheists-now-become-a-protected-class-of-people?p=352814&viewfull=1#post352814
Call us "brights" instead if that still continues to confuse you.

If Atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. It doesn't combine a set of beliefs, traditions, rituals, and community structures like religions do. It's not a world view. It's not a system. It's a single belief about one thing - there are no gods.

I think a better question is why, despite all the evidence to the contrary, is that you (or anyone) persists as defining atheism as a religion?

sandsjames
04-06-2015, 10:42 PM
Rusty already conclusively proved that atheism doesn't fit the dictionary definition of religion. It was back in post 25. http://forums.militarytimes.com/showthread.php/9183-Atheists-now-become-a-protected-class-of-people?p=352814&viewfull=1#post352814
Call us "brights" instead if that still continues to confuse you. No, there was more than one definition in there that fits Atheism just fine.


If Atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. It doesn't combine a set of beliefs, traditions, rituals, and community structures like religions do. It's not a world view. It's not a system. It's a single belief about one thing - there are no gods. The difference is that non-stamp collectors don't have a name to describe them as a group, where as Atheists do.


I think a better question is why, despite all the evidence to the contrary, is that you (or anyone) persists as defining atheism as a religion?

And why is it that you (or anyone) persists as Atheism not being defined as a religion? Why would it matter to you if it was or not?

garhkal
04-06-2015, 11:25 PM
Actually, yes.

I recall a teacher in Idaho/Iowa/Indiana (it started with an "I") who was fired for declaring her lack of faith. She worked at a religious school (not sure the denomination). Now, we could argue whether her lack of faith inhibited her ability to teach; if she made atheist statements in the classroom to students etc.; in the end I think that since it was a private and not a public school they were within their right (if that was somehow a condition of employment) to fire her.

Now i remember that one (had to look it up), but i don't consider that discrimination. If you are working at a Catholic school, then imo you should be Catholic to teach there, so being an Atheist was making her "Not the right worker"..
BUT That's me.



I also did hear about this in MI last month(not really something loosing a job but an example of discrimination against atheists):

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2015/03/warren_must_pay_100000_for_den.html

In sum, an atheist noticed a prayer station in city hall, he petitioned to have a 'reason station' in the same space. He went court, he won, the city owes him $100k.

Again, not being fired/refused a job. BUT i also could have sworn we had a thread ON that here.
But point made.


I wonder if that applies to being agnostic too. If so, I'm a bit scared. Fuck it, I'm throwing my lot in with the other atheists. Or, at the very least, I'll throw it in the Flying Spaghetti Monster crowd. That religion has beer and strippers in the afterlife.


I want my religion recognized as a protected group.
LONG live the all mighty Cthulhu!

technomage1
04-07-2015, 12:37 AM
No, there was more than one definition in there that fits Atheism just fine.

The difference is that non-stamp collectors don't have a name to describe them as a group, where as Atheists do.



And why is it that you (or anyone) persists as Atheism not being defined as a religion? Why would it matter to you if it was or not?


You can just as easily describe non stamp collectors as astamp collectors. That's all the "a" means. Non or without. The fact that a specific word exists for one group and not the other doesn't negate the concept. Atheists didn't create the word - theists did, and it was originally a term of contempt. Again, if that confuses you, use the word bright instead. By your logic, if you did, then theists could be "abrights", and then they'd be "brights" - which makes no sense.

You made a claim. It's up to you to back it up, not up to me to prove a negative. You've been repaetedly and conclusively shown incorrect in your "facts", first in your definiton of religion by Rusty and secondly by me in your claim the law in Madison made atheism a religion.

I'm not a stamp collector, I'm not a basketball fan, and I'm not a theist. Why continue to insist that, somehow, calling someone an "a" or "non" anyone of those things makes them one? That makes zero sense.

But hey, if you want to stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and ignore the facts, that's entirely up to you. Your have been watching Fox "News" too much if think repeatedly and loudly making a claim, contrary to all facts, make that claim true.

sandsjames
04-07-2015, 01:24 AM
You can just as easily describe non stamp collectors as astamp collectors. That's all the "a" means. Non or without. The fact that a specific word exists for one group and not the other doesn't negate the concept. Atheists didn't create the word - theists did, and it was originally a term of contempt. Again, if that confuses you, use the word bright instead. By your logic, if you did, then theists could be "abrights", and then they'd be "brights" - which makes no sense.

You made a claim. It's up to you to back it up, not up to me to prove a negative. You've been repaetedly and conclusively shown incorrect in your "facts", first in your definiton of religion by Rusty and secondly by me in your claim the law in Madison made atheism a religion.

I'm not a stamp collector, I'm not a basketball fan, and I'm not a theist. Why continue to insist that, somehow, calling someone an "a" or "non" anyone of those things makes them one? That makes zero sense.

But hey, if you want to stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and ignore the facts, that's entirely up to you. Your have been watching Fox "News" too much if think repeatedly and loudly making a claim, contrary to all facts, make that claim true.

Why are you so afraid of it? Honestly, I can't see how you could describe it any other way. If I ask a group of people the question "What religion are you?" the answers might resemble this:

"I'm Christian"
"I'm Muslim"
"I'm Jewish"
"I'm Atheist"

And rarely do you hear (can't think of a time I've ever heard the phrase) "I'm not religious". It's always, "I'm Atheist" in response to what religion a person is.

technomage1
04-07-2015, 02:21 AM
Why are you so afraid of it? Honestly, I can't see how you could describe it any other way. If I ask a group of people the question "What religion are you?" the answers might resemble this:

"I'm Christian"
"I'm Muslim"
"I'm Jewish"
"I'm Atheist"

And rarely do you hear (can't think of a time I've ever heard the phrase) "I'm not religious". It's always, "I'm Atheist" in response to what religion a person is.

My answer is usually "I'm not religious". In any event, "I'm an Athiest" = "I'm not religious"*.

*Most of the time. Buddhists are the exception. They're atheists but religious. But they'd answer your question with I'm a Buddist" not "I'm an atheist". In our culture, with its extreme minority of Buddists, for all practical intents and purposes, the statements "I'm an atheist" and "I'm not religious" are the same as the vast, vast majority of atheists are not religious.

Why is it so important to you that you leap and and down with glee when you think (incorrectly) that a law is passed about it? And also stick your head in the sand about the truth? I'm simply pointing out your facts are wrong. Big difference between the two.

Rollyn01
04-07-2015, 02:44 AM
Why are you so afraid of it? Honestly, I can't see how you could describe it any other way. If I ask a group of people the question "What religion are you?" the answers might resemble this:

"I'm Christian"
"I'm Muslim"
"I'm Jewish"
"I'm Atheist"

And rarely do you hear (can't think of a time I've ever heard the phrase) "I'm not religious". It's always, "I'm Atheist" in response to what religion a person is.

How about "I'm not in a religion. I'm Atheist."? The ignorance you demonstrate about Atheism is very sad. You seem to think that if someone is Atheist, they're part of a religious group. You seem to be projecting the qualities of your religion on other people because you yourself are incapable to understand the absence of religion. If you can't imagine a person who can go on with their life without the need of God, or any other deity for that matter, then maybe you reevaluate your need to identify them in such a manner. They fall outside your range of thinking and it seems like your brain can't handle it.

You don't want to give up God. Fine, keep him. Just don't they to project your need for God on someone else. Don't try to group everyone in the same framework of your religion. It's not helping you to understand them. It won't. Atheist is not a religion. It will never be a religion. It can't be a religion. If it was, it would be a sham used to convert those who don't believe in God. That is in poor taste and is very weak to convert others just to reduce the free will of those who chose "none of the above".

Tell me though, you did know that religious test for public office is against the law, right?

Rusty Jones
04-07-2015, 03:37 AM
Well, shit, where's my letterman jacket? I never played a sport in high school or college, but I guess I'm still an athlete. Shit, maybe I should have looked into an athletic scholarship for not playing a sport!

technomage1
04-07-2015, 04:22 AM
Well, shit, where's my letterman jacket? I never played a sport in high school or college, but I guess I'm still an athlete. Shit, maybe I should have looked into an athletic scholarship for not playing a sport!

Rusty, Rusty, if we're going to redefine reality, the best you can come up with is high school athlete? Expand your horizons into the things we aren't but are. Man, I was never a porn star, president of Microsoft, an astronaut, or a ninja but, apparently, I am all those things and more! I have to admit, of all he awesome things I've never been, high school athlete wouldn't rate too highly on the list. :)

Mjölnir
04-07-2015, 11:24 AM
What's the law?

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/6/69852/4214387-zzrbh6u.gif

sandsjames
04-07-2015, 11:37 AM
You see how all the Atheists are banding together, as a group, to dispute what I am saying and protect what Atheism is about? Sounds pretty familiar, doesn't it?

Rusty Jones
04-07-2015, 11:41 AM
Rusty, Rusty, if we're going to redefine reality, the best you can come up with is high school athlete? Expand your horizons into the things we aren't but are. Man, I was never a porn star, president of Microsoft, an astronaut, or a ninja but, apparently, I am all those things and more! I have to admit, of all he awesome things I've never been, high school athlete wouldn't rate too highly on the list. :)

Or, we can look to the bigger picture that affects us all... we need to get rid of Stolen Valor. All these videos of fakers being caught? Why? There's no such thing as a "faker." We're all veterans! Sure, one may not have served in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, or Coast Guard. Hell, maybe not even the commissioned corps of Public Health Service or National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration. But his or her lack of joining a service IS a service, so everyone in America is a vet! Be sure to thank EVERYONE you see as you walk down the street for their service. Oh, look... there's a guy with tattoos and piercings all over his face walking out of the city jail... lemme go run up to him and thank him for his service...

Rusty Jones
04-07-2015, 11:43 AM
You see how all the Atheists are banding together, as a group, to dispute what I am saying and protect what Atheism is about? Sounds pretty familiar, doesn't it?

Nope. What I see here is a man's reaction to seeing how invalid his point is.

Hey, did you not play sports in high school either? Yeah, those jocks are really something, aren't they? If we share the same views on jocks, I guess we were jocks too, right?

sandsjames
04-07-2015, 12:06 PM
Nope. What I see here is a man's reaction to seeing how invalid his point is.

Hey, did you not play sports in high school either? Yeah, those jocks are really something, aren't they? If we share the same views on jocks, I guess we were jocks too, right?

Your analogies are so far off the mark. "non-jocks" and "stolen valor" are not groups of people who claim to "not be jocks" or "not be veterans". They are not a collective of people with a similar set of beliefs. For instance, a "non-jock" could be a nerd, could be a cowboy, could be a musician. However, an Atheist is an Atheist. Buddhism has already been pointed out as a non-theist religious group.

I don't understand your fear. Does it somehow change your beliefs with the classification of Atheism as a religion? Does it somehow hurt you? Not at all. So just accept it and move on. Quit being so religiophopic.

Rusty Jones
04-07-2015, 12:21 PM
Your analogies are so far off the mark.

Well, let's see:


"non-jocks" and "stolen valor" are not groups of people who claim to "not be jocks" or "not be veterans".

Uh, yes they are. I never played sports. I claim to not be a jock. Therefore, your point is invalid.


They are not a collective of people with a similar set of beliefs. For instance, a "non-jock" could be a nerd, could be a cowboy, could be a musician. However, an Atheist is an Atheist. Buddhism has already been pointed out as a non-theist religious group.

Since when have atheists been a "collective of people?" Let me help you out: never. Oh, an atheist can be a Buddhist, Confuscianist, etc. Therefore, your point is invalid.


I don't understand your fear. Does it somehow change your beliefs with the classification of Atheism as a religion? Does it somehow hurt you? Not at all. So just accept it and move on. Quit being so religiophopic.

"Fear?" Nice attempt at shaming language, but this all boils down to the inferiority complex of the religious. I.e., "YOU'RE religious too! Stop thinking you're better than us!"

Rollyn01
04-07-2015, 01:00 PM
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/6/69852/4214387-zzrbh6u.gif

I fucking love this... So... If you don't mind... :stolen:

Rollyn01
04-07-2015, 01:12 PM
Your analogies are so far off the mark. "non-jocks" and "stolen valor" are not groups of people who claim to "not be jocks" or "not be veterans". They are not a collective of people with a similar set of beliefs. For instance, a "non-jock" could be a nerd, could be a cowboy, could be a musician. However, an Atheist is an Atheist. Buddhism has already been pointed out as a non-theist religious group.

I don't understand your fear. Does it somehow change your beliefs with the classification of Atheism as a religion? Does it somehow hurt you? Not at all. So just accept it and move on. Quit being so religiophopic.

Yes, it does. Atheist do not believe in gods. What is so hard for you to understand? We grouped together? Because we are part of a group that makes us a religion? Seriously, you case of projection needs serious attention. You should seek a medical professional about that. You're a vet (or non-vet to use your ridiculous argument), it should be free.

sandsjames
04-07-2015, 01:22 PM
Well, let's see:



Uh, yes they are. I never played sports. I claim to not be a jock. Therefore, your point is invalid.



Since when have atheists been a "collective of people?" Let me help you out: never. Oh, an atheist can be a Buddhist, Confuscianist, etc. Therefore, your point is invalid.



"Fear?" Nice attempt at shaming language, but this all boils down to the inferiority complex of the religious. I.e., "YOU'RE religious too! Stop thinking you're better than us!"

Here's the problem with your analogy. Jocks are a subgroup of a school, ie:

Jocks = Muslims
Nerds = Christians
Goth = Jews
Hipsters = Buddhists


They are all subgroups, or cliques, that make up the overall school. So instead of comparing religion to jocks, which doesn't work, you have to compare religion to the school. Everyone in that school is part of the school, attending the school, whether they identify with any of the other groups or not.

However, I believe that you are not Atheist, you are anti-theist. That does not fall into a group of religions.

sandsjames
04-07-2015, 01:24 PM
Yes, it does. Atheist do not believe in gods. What is so hard for you to understand? We grouped together? Because we are part of a group that makes us a religion? Seriously, you case of projection needs serious attention. You should seek a medical professional about that. You're a vet (or non-vet to use your ridiculous argument), it should be free.

All religions don't believe in gods. Just the theistic ones. So I'm not the one having trouble understanding.

Ahhh, yes, the usual response from a religious person, making it personal, challenging the mental health and sanity of others, if they don't believe the same way. Right on queue.

Rusty Jones
04-07-2015, 01:32 PM
Here's the problem with your analogy. Jocks are a subgroup of a school, ie:

Jocks = Muslims
Nerds = Christians
Goth = Jews
Hipsters = Buddhists

They are all subgroups, or cliques, that make up the overall school. So instead of comparing religion to jocks, which doesn't work, you have to compare religion to the school. Everyone in that school is part of the school, attending the school, whether they identify with any of the other groups or not.

Wrong. Although "jock" normally refers to a high school or college athlete, it doesn't have to do so necessarily. A professional athlete can still be referred to as a jock. Similarly, one doesn't have to be in school to be a nerd, goth, or hipster. I was referring to them as self-contained groups which, as I've demonstrated, can still be done. Therefore, your point is invalid.


However, I believe that you are not Atheist, you are anti-theist. That does not fall into a group of religions.

"Anti-theist" can refer to different things. What are you referring to in this case?

Rusty Jones
04-07-2015, 01:34 PM
This conversation is getting stupid. SJ is taking this conversation through a bunch of twists and turns like a rollercoaster, in order to insist that atheism is a religion.

sandsjames
04-07-2015, 01:39 PM
Wrong. Although "jock" normally refers to a high school or college athlete, it doesn't have to do so necessarily. A professional athlete can still be referred to as a jock. Similarly, one doesn't have to be in school to be a nerd, goth, or hipster. I was referring to them as self-contained groups which, as I've demonstrated, can still be done. Therefore, your point is invalid.



"Anti-theist" can refer to different things. What are you referring to in this case?

What I'm referring to is that an anti-theist is against the idea of there being a god, while an atheist just doesn't believe. It's the difference between someone who doesn't eat meat and someone who goes and protests outside a slaughterhouse. The anti-theists enjoy protesting other's belief in a god, any mention of god in public, etc. An Atheist is like the Christian who prays at the dinner table with his family but doesn't publicize the fact the he Christian. The anti-theist is the Christian with the cross around the neck, complaining that they don't get to pray in school, the Jesus bumper sticker on the car, looking to get a reaction out of others.

sandsjames
04-07-2015, 01:39 PM
This conversation is getting stupid. SJ is taking this conversation through a bunch of twists and turns like a rollercoaster, in order to insist that atheism is a religion.

And yet here you are, still taking part. I feel your pain. I have a hard time backing away when someone challenges my religious beliefs, too.

Rusty Jones
04-07-2015, 01:47 PM
What I'm referring to is that an anti-theist is against the idea of there being a god, while an atheist just doesn't believe. It's the difference between someone who doesn't eat meat and someone who goes and protests outside a slaughterhouse. The anti-theists enjoy protesting other's belief in a god, any mention of god in public, etc. An Atheist is like the Christian who prays at the dinner table with his family but doesn't publicize the fact the he Christian. The anti-theist is the Christian with the cross around the neck, complaining that they don't get to pray in school, the Jesus bumper sticker on the car, looking to get a reaction out of others.

So does that make anti-theism and atheism two separate religions? What about your two groups of Christians? Are they separate religions too? Which one has to stop calling themselves Christian?

Rusty Jones
04-07-2015, 01:48 PM
And yet here you are, still taking part. I feel your pain. I have a hard time backing away when someone challenges my religious beliefs, too.

No, because I see that you're actually starting to confuse yourself in all this talk.

sandsjames
04-07-2015, 01:49 PM
So does that make anti-theism and atheism two separate religions? What about your two groups of Christians? Are they separate religions too? Which one has to stop calling themselves Christian?

They are different sects of the same religion, I suppose. You know, Baptists, Methodists, etc?

sandsjames
04-07-2015, 01:52 PM
No, because I see that you're actually starting to confuse yourself in all this talk.

There you go. When you've ran out of points to make and have no leg to stand on, change the discussion from the actual point of the conversation to the structure of it. Typical move on forums when someone has nowhere else to go with their argument. Always trying to catch someone backtracking or contradicting themselves instead of paying attention to the topic at hand.

Rusty Jones
04-07-2015, 01:52 PM
They are different sects of the same religion, I suppose. You know, Baptists, Methodists, etc?

So what is the name of the religion that both atheists and antitheists fall under?

Rusty Jones
04-07-2015, 01:54 PM
There you go. When you've ran out of points to make and have no leg to stand on, change the discussion from the actual point of the conversation to the structure of it. Typical move on forums when someone has nowhere else to go with their argument. Always trying to catch someone backtracking or contradicting themselves instead of paying attention to the topic at hand.

No, the problem is that this conversation has turned into one big semantics game... and I'm not playing it.

sandsjames
04-07-2015, 02:02 PM
No, the problem is that this conversation has turned into one big semantics game... and I'm not playing it.

Seems like you are to me.

Rusty Jones
04-07-2015, 02:07 PM
Seems like you are to me.

Your reasoning for believing so, no doubt, is probably the same reasoning behind why you think atheism is a religion.

Mjölnir
04-07-2015, 02:33 PM
Don't forget the Odinists

**Don't mind me, just attempting to lighten things up with humor.

http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m495/derk_digler24/VikingPrayer2_zpsc58b35ab.png

Rainmaker
04-07-2015, 02:48 PM
SJ, Unfortunately Rainmaker must agree with these Hethens. A-theism is NOT a Religion. A religion for most people has its main value as a community/ social event. Whenever these A-theists do get toghether, It's more like group therapy for the clinically depressed than a Religion.

But, anyhow Leaving Religion out of it.... It's plain to see ...You either have a personal relationship with your maker, or you don't.

If you look at the 10 commandments, God's morality has its foundation in rational thought..... Don't fuck over your own neighbors and the society works better. Most kids used to be taught two things growing up. Work hard. Tell the truth. Simple as that. Usually it works pretty well..... until the shepard starts flocking the flock.

So, Rainmaker have no problem with A-theists personally. But, it does seem that most of them do love to constantly vilify the Christian God. Why? Because, living with standards is hard.

Rainmaker
04-07-2015, 02:55 PM
Don't forget the Odinists

**Don't mind me, just attempting to lighten things up with humor.

http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m495/derk_digler24/VikingPrayer2_zpsc58b35ab.png

They say Lagertha will explore her "sexual freedom" in Season 3 of 'Vikings.' Boing!!! NomSayin??

Mjölnir
04-07-2015, 03:19 PM
They say Lagertha will explore her "sexual freedom" in Season 3 of 'Vikings.' Boing!!! NomSayin??

Say thee nay!

Rainmaker
04-07-2015, 04:18 PM
Say thee nay!

Her lips may say nay nay nay. but her body say yeeeeeeheeeess!
http://geekshizzle.com/2014/07/30/vikings-star-katheryn-winnick-photo-gallery/

sandsjames
04-07-2015, 04:40 PM
SJ, Unfortunately Rainmaker must agree with these Hethens.Well, if you say so then it must be so.

Rusty Jones
04-07-2015, 04:58 PM
SJ, Unfortunately Rainmaker must agree with these Hethens. A-theism is NOT a Religion. A religion for most people has its main value as a community/ social event. Whenever they do get toghether, It's more like group therapy for the clinically depressed than a Religion.

But, anyhow Leaving Religion out of it.... It's plain to see ...You either have a personal relationship with your maker, or you don't.

If you look at the 10 commandments, God's morality has its foundation in rational thought..... Don't fuck over your own neighbors and the society works better. Most kids used to be taught two things growing up. Work hard. Tell the truth. Simple as that. Usually it works pretty well until the shepard starts flocking the flock.

So, Rainmaker have no problem with A-theists personally. But, it does seem that most of them do love to constantly vilify the Christian God. Why? Because, living with standards is hard.

You're talking specifically about American atheists, or atheists from any country that's predominantly Christian. When one of the majority Muslim countries starts allowing and protecting freedom speech to the same extent that the US does, you'll start seeing more atheists that vilify Allah as worshipped in Islam.

By the way, interesting thing about those Ten Commandments: they can't be applied in a secular way. Hell, look at the very first commandment. Or, how about coveting your neighbor's wife? Well, shit, don't worry... I'm not gonna fuck my neighbor's wife... but I damn sure would if I was single! I mean, I would make an effort to, but if she initiated it... I'd tear that ass up!

If you're Christian, though... you'd better put some salt peter in your water if your neighbor has a hot wife.

sandsjames
04-07-2015, 05:12 PM
You're talking specifically about American atheists, or atheists from any country that's predominantly Christian. When one of the majority Muslim countries starts allowing and protecting freedom speech to the same extent that the US does, you'll start seeing more atheists that vilify Allah as worshipped in Islam.

You describe, perfectly, the anti-theist.

Rusty Jones
04-07-2015, 05:27 PM
You describe, perfectly, the anti-theist.

As you prefer to use it. "Anti-theist" can also be used to describe those who are against gods, but doesn't necessarily mean that they don't believe in them.

Anyhow, if that's how you're using "anti-theist," I think AA is your man. I may say things about god as worshipped by Christians, but out of nothing more than to get a rise out of Christians every now and then, and then I'll leave it alone. I'm not out here calling God all kinds of cuss words over kids starving in Africa. I WILL, however, call out Christians how think that "praying" for someone in a time of need is going to do anything. As an atheist, I don't put my hands together in prayer and hope something happens. I prefer put my hands to WORK and MAKE things happen. If you don't want to do anything for kids starving in Africa, or for your neighbor down the street who lost his job and wasn't able to pay his electric bill in time; that's your business. But when you say you're going to "pray" for them... you're just adding insult to injury.

Mjölnir
04-07-2015, 05:35 PM
By the way, interesting thing about those Ten Commandments: they can't be applied in a secular way.

1.You shall have no other gods before Me.
-Probably correct

2.You shall not make idols.
-Probably correct

3.You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
-Probably correct
4.Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
-Probably correct

5.Honor your father and your mother.
-Can be applied secularly; be a good son or daughter is not a religious only thing.

6.You shall not murder.
-Can be applied secularly.

7.You shall not commit adultery.
-In it's purest sense, you are probably right. From what I have read about 'alienation of affection' laws, I would say that is a secular interpretation of this one.

8.You shall not steal.
-Can be applied secularly.

9.You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
-Can be applied secularly (don't commit purgery, false official srtatements etc.)

10.You shall not covet.
-Probably correct.

sandsjames
04-07-2015, 05:41 PM
As you prefer to use it. "Anti-theist" can also be used to describe those who are against gods, but doesn't necessarily mean that they don't believe in them.



Atheists don't believe in God, anti-theists don't want anyone else to believe in God.

It's the difference between me not watching TV shows with gay characters or me lobbying to have all gay characters removed from television because I don't agree with the lifestyle. It's separating my personal beliefs from what I think everyone else should believe.

I don't mind Atheists. I have several Atheist friends and coworkers. I don't tell them that they should believe in my God and they don't tell me that I shouldn't. Of course, there are the occasional anti-theists who insist on using words like "fairy-tale" and all that, but they are easily dismissed.

hustonj
04-07-2015, 06:00 PM
Atheists don't believe in God, anti-theists don't want anyone else to believe in God.

By definition, agnostics don't BELIEVE in God. They just don't know what to believe. Atheists believe there is not a God. That's different than not believing in one, and is the justification for saying that Atheism is a belief system.

Rusty Jones
04-07-2015, 06:06 PM
By definition, agnostics don't BELIEVE in God. They just don't know what to believe. Atheists believe there is not a God. That's different than not believing in one, and is the justification for saying that Atheism is a belief system.

"There is no god." Yep, one sentence. That's hardly enough substantiate a "system" of any kind. But even if it was, SJ is flat out calling it a "religion."

Rainmaker
04-07-2015, 06:22 PM
Well, if you say so then it must be so.

SJ, your heart is in the right place. But, as usual.... You're confused (it's ok)... So, Let Rainmaker break it down in simple terms you can understand....

Now, wrap your little Pea sized brain around this statement SJ : "Atheism is a religion like baldness is a hair color".....

Were you're getting confused is that Atheism is itself based on an act of faith. Faith in the idea that there is nothing beyond our own perceptions of existence.

what we are witnessing with all this atheistic/secular fairness/liberal- pansy assed stuff. Is a deliberately Engineered Cultural implosion (Thank you ACLU)

Social equality is not what the Republic was founded on. The Republic was founded on the government leaving you the hell alone (as much as possible) to govern ourselves (self regulate). Until, it becomes habitual Most people will need a certain amount of fear or guilt in order to do that (which is were religion comes in) Americans need to grow a big set of hairy balls and root this communist cancer out of our society.

Bos Mutus
04-07-2015, 06:46 PM
I don't mind Atheists.

You mean, except for the fact that they're smug and all...

sandsjames
04-07-2015, 06:51 PM
You mean, except for the fact that they're smug and all...

There's plenty of smugness out there. It's not exclusive to Atheists. Most of that comes from the food side of things. You know, the vegetarians, the non-gluten eaters, the anti-aspartame crowd, etc.

Rainmaker
04-07-2015, 06:54 PM
You know, the vegetarians, the non-gluten eaters, the anti-aspartame crowd, etc.

who “coincidentally” just happen to be, ALL ATHEISTS!

Rusty Jones
04-07-2015, 06:59 PM
There's plenty of smugness out there. It's not exclusive to Atheists. Most of that comes from the food side of things. You know, the vegetarians, the non-gluten eaters, the anti-aspartame crowd, etc.

Clearly, your motive behind calling atheism a "religion" shows in this post.

This may come as a shock to you, SJ, but not everyone who does things differently than the mainstream views those in the mainstream as being "beneath" them.

hustonj
04-07-2015, 07:17 PM
"There is no god." Yep, one sentence. That's hardly enough substantiate a "system" of any kind. But even if it was, SJ is flat out calling it a "religion."

Is there a belief system out there that does NOT have a simple, central statement of the core of their belief?

The statements designed to distinguish between various Protestant Christian faiths (as an example) isn't what I'm talking about, because those are attempts to display differences, NOT provide a simple, core statement of their belief.

You not liking a perspective has nothing to do with the perspective's validity.

Edit: Are there not atheist evangelists, trying to convert people to the faith? To save them from the wrong belief system?

Rainmaker
04-07-2015, 07:23 PM
If you're Christian, though... you'd better put some salt peter in your water if your neighbor has a hot wife.

Serious Question Rusty: Which do you prefer?....The Blonde Viagra girl in the blue dress (with the British accent) or the Brunette one?

Rusty Jones
04-07-2015, 07:24 PM
Is there a belief system out there that does NOT have a simple, central statement of the core of their belief?

The statements designed to distinguish between various Protestant Christian faiths (as an example) isn't what I'm talking about, because those are attempts to display differences, NOT provide a simple, core statement of their belief.

You not liking a perspective has nothing to do with the perspective's validity.

Christianity is a "system." One that takes 66 books of information (or more, depending on your denomination) to lay out. THAT is a "system." How do you compare one sentence to that?

Certainly, simply believing that God exists alone doth not a Christian make. Christians say it all the time - Satan believes in God too. It takes a whole "system" - not, simply believing "God exists."

Rusty Jones
04-07-2015, 07:26 PM
Edit: Are there not atheist evangelists, trying to convert people to the faith? To save them from the wrong belief system?

Why would an atheist believe that that's even possible? It takes religion to believe in an afterlife in the first place. Whether you're an atheist or not, wouldn't matter to another atheist.

hustonj
04-07-2015, 07:27 PM
Christianity is a "system." One that takes 66 books of information (or more, depending on your denomination) to lay out. THAT is a "system." How do you compare one sentence to that?

Certainly, simply believing that God exists alone doth not a Christian make. Christians say it all the time - Satan believes in God too. It takes a whole "system" - not, simply believing "God exists."

Only uneducated Christians. Educated ones know that Satan is (effectively) a Christian, too. Otherwise, his position in the theology would go unfilled.

Are you done trying to be insulting, yet, or is that the only way you know to get people to stop pointing out that your prejudice is preventing clear thought?

hustonj
04-07-2015, 07:28 PM
Why would an atheist believe that that's even possible? It takes religion to believe in an afterlife in the first place. Whether you're an atheist or not, wouldn't matter to another atheist.

Your assumptions are preventing clear thought.

Saving somebody doesn't have to have anything to do with an afterlife, and can be all about how time is spent in this life.

Rusty Jones
04-07-2015, 07:37 PM
Only uneducated Christians. Educated ones know that Satan is (effectively) a Christian, too. Otherwise, his position in the theology would go unfilled.

Are you done trying to be insulting, yet, or is that the only way you know to get people to stop pointing out that your prejudice is preventing clear thought?

Right... Satan rejects God/Jesus/whatever, and is in hell. Yet, he's Christian? Nope. You ignored what I said earlier - the system of belief in Christianity is laid out in at least 66 books. It takes more than just a belief in God, or that Jesus was the son of God, or that belief in him is required for salvation. That what those 66+ books are there for.

Seems to me like you're hell bent on making atheism into a "system," and your frustration that it's not working is showing.

Rusty Jones
04-07-2015, 07:39 PM
Your assumptions are preventing clear thought.

Saving somebody doesn't have to have anything to do with an afterlife, and can be all about how time is spent in this life.

You might want to be a bit more clear in your explanations. If SJ is a Christian, and I'm an "evangelical" atheist, what exactly would I be trying to save him from? If I'm not able to have "clear thought," then please lay it out. You appear to be the only person who knows what you're talking about.

Rainmaker
04-07-2015, 07:44 PM
Your assumptions are preventing clear thought.

Saving somebody doesn't have to have anything to do with an afterlife, and can be all about how time is spent in this life.


Rainmaker used to be an Atheist, then he grew up and realized we humans don't really know jack shit in the big picture.

Rainmaker
04-07-2015, 08:19 PM
Right... Satan rejects God/Jesus/whatever, and is in hell. Yet, he's Christian? Nope. You ignored what I said earlier - the system of belief in Christianity is laid out in at least 66 books. It takes more than just a belief in God, or that Jesus was the son of God, or that belief in him is required for salvation. That what those 66+ books are there for.

Seems to me like you're hell bent on making atheism into a "system," and your frustration that it's not working is showing.

If Rainmaker's not mistaken, I think He's trying to tell you that...God created Satan for a purpose and so, "he's" redeemable as well. Doubt is the Devil.

It's all an allegorical metaphor of the initiated. Be ye wise as serpents. Pain brings wisdom. who is the morning star? http://www.gotquestions.org/morning-star.html. From the fall of man to his redemption we are evolving.

It's why Henry Kissinger and the rest of the NWO says the earth sucks for you.... Until you WAKE THE FLOCK UP!!! It's a proving ground.....Heaven and Hell is within you....You're welcome and my work is done here.

Holy Dog Shit.!!??...Rainmaker just noticed that the "what's new" icon for the MTF looks eerily like the all seeing eye of providence!!!! Rainmaker's off to the Bunker to prepare for the apocalypse!!!GET THEE BEHIND ME BITCH3ZZZZZ!!![/

Bos Mutus
04-07-2015, 08:32 PM
Certainly, simply believing that God exists alone doth not a Christian make. Christians say it all the time - Satan believes in God too. It takes a whole "system" - not, simply believing "God exists."


Only uneducated Christians. Educated ones know that Satan is (effectively) a Christian, too. Otherwise, his position in the theology would go unfilled.



Right... Satan rejects God/Jesus/whatever, and is in hell. Yet, he's Christian?

The verse you guys are looking for is James 2:19 "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder."

Bos Mutus
04-07-2015, 08:34 PM
You might want to be a bit more clear in your explanations. If SJ is a Christian, and I'm an "evangelical" atheist, what exactly would I be trying to save him from? If I'm not able to have "clear thought," then please lay it out. You appear to be the only person who knows what you're talking about.

I do think there are many atheists that try to "convert" believers...as far as I know, for the simple reason that they believe the world would be a better place with less Religious people.

Bos Mutus
04-07-2015, 09:11 PM
Rainmaker used to be an Atheist, then he grew up and realized we humans don't really know jack shit in the big picture.

Wow...this almost seems like a non-trolling post.

I agree that humans do not know jack shit about the big picture. This fact doesn't make me any more likely to believe "there must be someone up there that knows what's going on."

A common saying among Christians is that they "don't have the faith to be an Atheist, because they can't believe that all of this came from nothing."

Contrary to common perception though is that being an atheist does not require one to believe in the Big Bang, or whatever other theory is out there. I have no idea how all this came about or why, or if there is even a reason. I don't think I'll ever know.


If you believe the universe is too complex and ordered to have come about without a creator...then, it would seem, following the same logic one must believe that the creator was created...for the creator must be more complex and ordered than its creation...and so on and so on.

Or else, you're just sort of stuck with "I don't know how and why, He was always just there"...bottom line is being a "believer" doesn't bring you an closer to understanding the big picture.

I particularly find it hard to believe, considering the vastness of space and time, that a personal being who created something that big, could possibly have the span of control to care about who won the basketball game last night

the universe it big...and yes, none of us knows jack shit about it.

Rollyn01
04-07-2015, 09:22 PM
I do think there are many atheists that try to "convert" believers...as far as I know, for the simple reason that they believe the world would be a better place with less Religious people.

That's true in a sense. It's more that Atheists think the would be better off if those who are religious would stop pushing for more religion-centric laws, or even, pushing God/Allah/YHWY as part of the main function of all society. I know that there are many smart people who are religious, but they tend not to push religion as the best way forward. The ignorant, power-seeking, or bloodthirsty ones seem to do nothing but; and this is what is hold us back from properly instituting a "more perfect" union.

Rollyn01
04-07-2015, 09:32 PM
All religions don't believe in gods. Just the theistic ones. So I'm not the one having trouble understanding.

Ahhh, yes, the usual response from a religious person, making it personal, challenging the mental health and sanity of others, if they don't believe the same way. Right on queue.

I'm Atheist, not religious. I don't believe in deities anymore. I really wanted to, but it's not happening, so I gave it up. I would rather place my faith in science than in religion. Sorry to burst your bubble. And as for challenging your mental health, you are projecting. You don't seem to understand that Atheist are not part of any religion. Just because we could be assigned the group label of Atheist doesn't make us a religion. If you can't understand that, then there is something wrong with your mental health that you should seek a professional about. I'm not attacking you religion, I'm attacking your ability to use logic and reason. However, it would seem to me that, to you, it's one and the same.

Rainmaker
04-07-2015, 09:48 PM
Wow...this almost seems like a non-trolling post.

I agree that humans do not know jack shit about the big picture. This fact doesn't make me any more likely to believe "there must be someone up there that knows what's going on."

A common saying among Christians is that they "don't have the faith to be an Atheist, because they can't believe that all of this came from nothing."

Contrary to common perception though is that being an atheist does not require one to believe in the Big Bang, or whatever other theory is out there. I have no idea how all this came about or why, or if there is even a reason. I don't think I'll ever know.


If you believe the universe is too complex and ordered to have come about without a creator...then, it would seem, following the same logic one must believe that the creator was created...for the creator must be more complex and ordered than its creation...and so on and so on.

Or else, you're just sort of stuck with "I don't know how and why, He was always just there"...bottom line is being a "believer" doesn't bring you an closer to understanding the big picture.

I particularly find it hard to believe, considering the vastness of space and time, that a personal being who created something that big, could possibly have the span of control to care about who won the basketball game last night

the universe it big...and yes, none of us knows jack shit about it.

"Do not pray for an easy life, pray for the strength to endure a difficult one. "
Bruce Lee- BAMF

sandsjames
04-07-2015, 09:53 PM
I'm Atheist, not religious. I don't believe in deities anymore. I really wanted to, but it's not happening, so I gave it up. I would rather place my faith in science than in religion. Sorry to burst your bubble. And as for challenging your mental health, you are projecting. You don't seem to understand that Atheist are not part of any religion. Just because we could be assigned the group label of Atheist doesn't make us a religion. If you can't understand that, then there is something wrong with your mental health that you should seek a professional about. I'm not attacking you religion, I'm attacking your ability to use logic and reason. However, it would seem to me that, to you, it's one and the same.

Of course. We disagree about something so I must be mentally ill.

And, again, a deity does not have to be involved for religion to be involved. There are several non-theist religions. Buddhism and Jainism (one of the oldest known religions), are examples of such. I don't think there is anyone who would dispute those as religions, yet they don't believe in a deity. They are "atheistic" in their beliefs.

So not believing in a deity is not a good example of why you are not part of a religion.

sandsjames
04-07-2015, 09:55 PM
Clearly, your motive behind calling atheism a "religion" shows in this post.

This may come as a shock to you, SJ, but not everyone who does things differently than the mainstream views those in the mainstream as being "beneath" them.

Nope, not everyone, no doubt about that.

Bos Mutus
04-07-2015, 10:04 PM
"Do not pray for an easy life, pray for the strength to endure a difficult one. "
Bruce Lee- BAMF

BAMF--Bad Atheist Mo' Fo'


When asked by journalist Alex Ben Block in the summer of 1972 what his religious affiliation was, Lee answered: 'None whatsoever.'
Block then pressed him further, asking him if he then believed in God: 'To be perfectly frank, I really do not.'

http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/Bruce_Lee

Rollyn01
04-07-2015, 10:32 PM
Of course. We disagree about something so I must be mentally ill.

And, again, a deity does not have to be involved for religion to be involved. There are several non-theist religions. Buddhism and Jainism (one of the oldest known religions), are examples of such. I don't think there is anyone who would dispute those as religions, yet they don't believe in a deity. They are "atheistic" in their beliefs.

So not believing in a deity is not a good example of why you are not part of a religion.

Then what are we exactly disagreeing on?

garhkal
04-07-2015, 10:52 PM
All religions don't believe in gods. Just the theistic ones. So I'm not the one having trouble understanding.

Ahhh, yes, the usual response from a religious person, making it personal, challenging the mental health and sanity of others, if they don't believe the same way. Right on queue.

True in some respects. Some religions have many gods (shinto for example) others call nature their god (Wiccans and animists).

technomage1
04-08-2015, 02:12 AM
Let's remember the main point that started this whole thing: that assertion that the law in Madison, WI made atheism a religion. It did not, and plainly defined those with "religion or no religion" as a protected class. I figured as much prior to even doing research on the subject as Madison, WI, home of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) would be that last place on earth where such a law would be passed, at least not without a knock-down, drag out fight.

Anyway, near as I can tell through all the verbal gymnastics, SJs main point is that atheism is a religion because they are a group of people that have an opinion on religion. That opinion is that there are no gods. An atheist would never describe themselves as having a religion because atheism (Buddhists aside) is pretty much the opposite of religion. There are no creeds, no universally recognized symbols, no holy books, or any of the other trappings that a religion has. Even if we did, that broad of a definition of religion would also include sports team fans, gamers, star trek fans, etc. Lets take sports teams fans. If you're a fan of the Ohio State Buckeyes, for example, you have your own symbols (Brutus, the block O, etc), traditions (Script Ohio), songs, venerated figures (Woody Hayes), and literature (books on OSU history, traditions, etc). Yet no one would call a group of people who are the fans of a sports team a religion. We might say "He follows OSU religiously" with a chuckle, but that's as far as we'd go with it, and even then we recognize there is an inherent difference there. We're saying by that chuckle that a sports team fan is not a religion and we know it. Yet theists have no problem classifying atheists - who have less religious trappings than a sports team - a religion.

So why call atheism a religion? What does the theist gain by doing so? It could be as simple as not being able to picture or process someone leading their lives without religion. But I think SJ's vehement defense of his position, verbal gymnastics, and illogic has a deeper reason than that. I think it stems from a one (or both) of two things: a fundamental misunderstanding of the atheist worldview or a desire to "even the playing field". If you classify atheism as a religion, then, by their reckoning, the neutrality that atheists defend becomes a religious viewpoint. And, following that logic, that means their religious faith would have equal opportunity or more opportunity due to being a majority view. Their question becomes, "If it's all a religious view, then why do the atheists get to promote theirs and the theists don't get to?".

Atheists who defend secularism do so to prevent violations of the establishment clause and the civil rights act (prayers before government meetings, preference to religious groups, etc). This is neutral to and not hostile to religion as some theists claim (apparently these people think freedom of religion includes the right to proselytize, bully, intimidate, and ignore other viewpoints, but I digress). It doesn't prevent private people or organizations from worshipping as they see fit. it does prevent them from forcing that belief on anyone else, or using the government to advocate their viewpoint.

By defining atheists as a religion, theists seek to prove that secularism isn't neutral to religion but in fact is favoring the atheist. In fact, it's not favoring anyone - and that's the point. Secularism does not equate to atheism. It doesn't favor one viewpoint over the other. It doesn't say there is a god or that there isn't. It holds that all people are equal before the law.

They fail to see that the law and the neutrality protects both the theist and the atheist. If atheists ever gain the majority of power, the law would prevent us from closing down all churches or stopping private prayer, for example. And I think that's a good thing. If there is one thing we all agree on, or should all agree on, it's the right to believe (or not) as you chose.

Atheists fight a lot of the battles for secularism because we're the largest minority being affected by it. But theists, as I noted in my first post, should be equally concerned about our secular nation and values and be just as upset as atheists when those values and laws are ignored. Historically, they used to be. Baptists, for example, used to be among the biggest supporters of secularism and the separation of church and state because there weren't many Baptists. They were a minority, and felt keenly the lack of secularism. Fast forward 200+ years, there are more Baptists and now they're not so keen on the idea.

Bos Mutus
04-08-2015, 06:14 AM
Let's remember the main point that started this whole thing: that assertion that the law in Madison, WI made atheism a religion. It did not, and plainly defined those with "religion or no religion" as a protected class. I figured as much prior to even doing research on the subject as Madison, WI, home of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) would be that last place on earth where such a law would be passed, at least not without a knock-down, drag out fight.

Anyway, near as I can tell through all the verbal gymnastics, SJs main point is that atheism is a religion because they are a group of people that have an opinion on religion. That opinion is that there are no gods. An atheist would never describe themselves as having a religion because atheism (Buddhists aside) is pretty much the opposite of religion. There are no creeds, no universally recognized symbols, no holy books, or any of the other trappings that a religion has. Even if we did, that broad of a definition of religion would also include sports team fans, gamers, star trek fans, etc. Lets take sports teams fans. If you're a fan of the Ohio State Buckeyes, for example, you have your own symbols (Brutus, the block O, etc), traditions (Script Ohio), songs, venerated figures (Woody Hayes), and literature (books on OSU history, traditions, etc). Yet no one would call a group of people who are the fans of a sports team a religion. We might say "He follows OSU religiously" with a chuckle, but that's as far as we'd go with it, and even then we recognize there is an inherent difference there. We're saying by that chuckle that a sports team fan is not a religion and we know it. Yet theists have no problem classifying atheists - who have less religious trappings than a sports team - a religion.

So why call atheism a religion? What does the theist gain by doing so? It could be as simple as not being able to picture or process someone leading their lives without religion. But I think SJ's vehement defense of his position, verbal gymnastics, and illogic has a deeper reason than that. I think it stems from a one (or both) of two things: a fundamental misunderstanding of the atheist worldview or a desire to "even the playing field". If you classify atheism as a religion, then, by their reckoning, the neutrality that atheists defend becomes a religious viewpoint. And, following that logic, that means their religious faith would have equal opportunity or more opportunity due to being a majority view. Their question becomes, "If it's all a religious view, then why do the atheists get to promote theirs and the theists don't get to?".

Atheists who defend secularism do so to prevent violations of the establishment clause and the civil rights act (prayers before government meetings, preference to religious groups, etc). This is neutral to and not hostile to religion as some theists claim (apparently these people think freedom of religion includes the right to proselytize, bully, intimidate, and ignore other viewpoints, but I digress). It doesn't prevent private people or organizations from worshipping as they see fit. it does prevent them from forcing that belief on anyone else, or using the government to advocate their viewpoint.

By defining atheists as a religion, theists seek to prove that secularism isn't neutral to religion but in fact is favoring the atheist. In fact, it's not favoring anyone - and that's the point. Secularism does not equate to atheism. It doesn't favor one viewpoint over the other. It doesn't say there is a god or that there isn't. It holds that all people are equal before the law.

They fail to see that the law and the neutrality protects both the theist and the atheist. If atheists ever gain the majority of power, the law would prevent us from closing down all churches or stopping private prayer, for example. And I think that's a good thing. If there is one thing we all agree on, or should all agree on, it's the right to believe (or not) as you chose.

Atheists fight a lot of the battles for secularism because we're the largest minority being affected by it. But theists, as I noted in my first post, should be equally concerned about our secular nation and values and be just as upset as atheists when those values and laws are ignored. Historically, they used to be. Baptists, for example, used to be among the biggest supporters of secularism and the separation of church and state because there weren't many Baptists. They were a minority, and felt keenly the lack of secularism. Fast forward 200+ years, there are more Baptists and now they're not so keen on the idea.

Sounds about right

sandsjames
04-08-2015, 11:43 AM
Let's remember the main point that started this whole thing: that assertion that the law in Madison, WI made atheism a religion. It did not, and plainly defined those with "religion or no religion" as a protected class. I figured as much prior to even doing research on the subject as Madison, WI, home of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) would be that last place on earth where such a law would be passed, at least not without a knock-down, drag out fight.

Anyway, near as I can tell through all the verbal gymnastics, SJs main point is that atheism is a religion because they are a group of people that have an opinion on religion. That opinion is that there are no gods. An atheist would never describe themselves as having a religion because atheism (Buddhists aside) is pretty much the opposite of religion. There are no creeds, no universally recognized symbols, no holy books, or any of the other trappings that a religion has. Even if we did, that broad of a definition of religion would also include sports team fans, gamers, star trek fans, etc. Lets take sports teams fans. If you're a fan of the Ohio State Buckeyes, for example, you have your own symbols (Brutus, the block O, etc), traditions (Script Ohio), songs, venerated figures (Woody Hayes), and literature (books on OSU history, traditions, etc). Yet no one would call a group of people who are the fans of a sports team a religion. We might say "He follows OSU religiously" with a chuckle, but that's as far as we'd go with it, and even then we recognize there is an inherent difference there. We're saying by that chuckle that a sports team fan is not a religion and we know it. Yet theists have no problem classifying atheists - who have less religious trappings than a sports team - a religion.

So why call atheism a religion? What does the theist gain by doing so? It could be as simple as not being able to picture or process someone leading their lives without religion. But I think SJ's vehement defense of his position, verbal gymnastics, and illogic has a deeper reason than that. I think it stems from a one (or both) of two things: a fundamental misunderstanding of the atheist worldview or a desire to "even the playing field". If you classify atheism as a religion, then, by their reckoning, the neutrality that atheists defend becomes a religious viewpoint. And, following that logic, that means their religious faith would have equal opportunity or more opportunity due to being a majority view. Their question becomes, "If it's all a religious view, then why do the atheists get to promote theirs and the theists don't get to?".

Atheists who defend secularism do so to prevent violations of the establishment clause and the civil rights act (prayers before government meetings, preference to religious groups, etc). This is neutral to and not hostile to religion as some theists claim (apparently these people think freedom of religion includes the right to proselytize, bully, intimidate, and ignore other viewpoints, but I digress). It doesn't prevent private people or organizations from worshipping as they see fit. it does prevent them from forcing that belief on anyone else, or using the government to advocate their viewpoint.

By defining atheists as a religion, theists seek to prove that secularism isn't neutral to religion but in fact is favoring the atheist. In fact, it's not favoring anyone - and that's the point. Secularism does not equate to atheism. It doesn't favor one viewpoint over the other. It doesn't say there is a god or that there isn't. It holds that all people are equal before the law.

They fail to see that the law and the neutrality protects both the theist and the atheist. If atheists ever gain the majority of power, the law would prevent us from closing down all churches or stopping private prayer, for example. And I think that's a good thing. If there is one thing we all agree on, or should all agree on, it's the right to believe (or not) as you chose.

Atheists fight a lot of the battles for secularism because we're the largest minority being affected by it. But theists, as I noted in my first post, should be equally concerned about our secular nation and values and be just as upset as atheists when those values and laws are ignored. Historically, they used to be. Baptists, for example, used to be among the biggest supporters of secularism and the separation of church and state because there weren't many Baptists. They were a minority, and felt keenly the lack of secularism. Fast forward 200+ years, there are more Baptists and now they're not so keen on the idea.

Keep chasing the worm, my friend. Keep chasing the worm.

Rainmaker
04-08-2015, 01:47 PM
BAMF--Bad Atheist Mo' Fo'

Chuck Norris > Bruce Lee

"I definitely feel I do have God in my corner."
Chuck Norris

hustonj
04-08-2015, 02:09 PM
Right... Satan rejects God/Jesus/whatever, and is in hell. Yet, he's Christian? Nope. You ignored what I said earlier - the system of belief in Christianity is laid out in at least 66 books. It takes more than just a belief in God, or that Jesus was the son of God, or that belief in him is required for salvation. That what those 66+ books are there for.

Seems to me like you're hell bent on making atheism into a "system," and your frustration that it's not working is showing.

Hell-bent. Funny. Still abusive instead of an honest attempt at having a conversation, though. I feel sad for you.

The Christian theologies I have any real familiarity with all say that the primary difference between humans (more specifically the human soul) and angels is that humans have free will. If I have to explain the implications of the entire aspect of Lucifer from there, then you are either really incapable of thought or you don't remember that Lucifer was the first amongst the angels before he took over the role of tempter and deceiver.

Rusty Jones
04-08-2015, 02:16 PM
Hell-bent. Funny. Still abusive instead of an honest attempt at having a conversation, though. I feel sad for you.

When I start acting like a thin-skinned bitch, complaining about "abuse," THEN you can feel sad for me. Until then... I'm just gonna tell you to man the fuck up, chump.


The Christian theologies I have any real familiarity with all say that the primary difference between humans (more specifically the human soul) and angels is that humans have free will. If I have to explain the implications of the entire aspect of Lucifer from there, then you are either really incapable of thought or you don't remember that Lucifer was the first amongst the angels before he took over the role of tempter and deceiver.

This is completely irrelevant to the point of whether or not atheist is a religion, or a "system of beliefs." Incapable of thought? Yet, you can't even think your way through your own arguments. I've got a suggestion for you - pathetic attempts to try to sound intelligent at other people's expense seems to be your MO, but it isn't working. Try something else.

Rainmaker
04-08-2015, 02:38 PM
Let's remember the main point that started this whole thing: that assertion that the law in Madison, WI made atheism a religion. It did not, and plainly defined those with "religion or no religion" as a protected class. I figured as much prior to even doing research on the subject as Madison, WI, home of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) would be that last place on earth where such a law would be passed, at least not without a knock-down, drag out fight.

Anyway, near as I can tell through all the verbal gymnastics, SJs main point is that atheism is a religion because they are a group of people that have an opinion on religion. That opinion is that there are no gods. An atheist would never describe themselves as having a religion because atheism (Buddhists aside) is pretty much the opposite of religion. There are no creeds, no universally recognized symbols, no holy books, or any of the other trappings that a religion has. Even if we did, that broad of a definition of religion would also include sports team fans, gamers, star trek fans, etc. Lets take sports teams fans. If you're a fan of the Ohio State Buckeyes, for example, you have your own symbols (Brutus, the block O, etc), traditions (Script Ohio), songs, venerated figures (Woody Hayes), and literature (books on OSU history, traditions, etc). Yet no one would call a group of people who are the fans of a sports team a religion. We might say "He follows OSU religiously" with a chuckle, but that's as far as we'd go with it, and even then we recognize there is an inherent difference there. We're saying by that chuckle that a sports team fan is not a religion and we know it. Yet theists have no problem classifying atheists - who have less religious trappings than a sports team - a religion.

So why call atheism a religion? What does the theist gain by doing so? It could be as simple as not being able to picture or process someone leading their lives without religion. But I think SJ's vehement defense of his position, verbal gymnastics, and illogic has a deeper reason than that. I think it stems from a one (or both) of two things: a fundamental misunderstanding of the atheist worldview or a desire to "even the playing field". If you classify atheism as a religion, then, by their reckoning, the neutrality that atheists defend becomes a religious viewpoint. And, following that logic, that means their religious faith would have equal opportunity or more opportunity due to being a majority view. Their question becomes, "If it's all a religious view, then why do the atheists get to promote theirs and the theists don't get to?".

Atheists who defend secularism do so to prevent violations of the establishment clause and the civil rights act (prayers before government meetings, preference to religious groups, etc). This is neutral to and not hostile to religion as some theists claim (apparently these people think freedom of religion includes the right to proselytize, bully, intimidate, and ignore other viewpoints, but I digress). It doesn't prevent private people or organizations from worshipping as they see fit. it does prevent them from forcing that belief on anyone else, or using the government to advocate their viewpoint.

By defining atheists as a religion, theists seek to prove that secularism isn't neutral to religion but in fact is favoring the atheist. In fact, it's not favoring anyone - and that's the point. Secularism does not equate to atheism. It doesn't favor one viewpoint over the other. It doesn't say there is a god or that there isn't. It holds that all people are equal before the law.

They fail to see that the law and the neutrality protects both the theist and the atheist. If atheists ever gain the majority of power, the law would prevent us from closing down all churches or stopping private prayer, for example. And I think that's a good thing. If there is one thing we all agree on, or should all agree on, it's the right to believe (or not) as you chose.

Atheists fight a lot of the battles for secularism because we're the largest minority being affected by it. But theists, as I noted in my first post, should be equally concerned about our secular nation and values and be just as upset as atheists when those values and laws are ignored. Historically, they used to be. Baptists, for example, used to be among the biggest supporters of secularism and the separation of church and state because there weren't many Baptists. They were a minority, and felt keenly the lack of secularism. Fast forward 200+ years, there are more Baptists and now they're not so keen on the idea.

Techno, You've obviously done your homework. But, can you just give us the cliff notes version? Rainmaker went to Allegany County public schools and would need to pop 3 adderalls just to finish reading this novel. NomSayin?

Bos Mutus
04-08-2015, 04:24 PM
Chuck Norris > Bruce Lee

Now you've really lost my respect.

hustonj
04-08-2015, 05:01 PM
When I start acting like a thin-skinned bitch, complaining about "abuse," THEN you can feel sad for me. Until then... I'm just gonna tell you to man the fuck up, chump.

Actually, as an independent adult, I decide how I feel and when. You have no control or authority to alter those choices. I do feel sad for you.


This is completely irrelevant to the point of whether or not atheist is a religion, or a "system of beliefs.

Maybe, But it is a direct response to the pablum that you threw across the screen. This is another example of you choosing abuse over conversation.


" Incapable of thought? Yet, you can't even think your way through your own arguments. I've got a suggestion for you - pathetic attempts to try to sound intelligent at other people's expense seems to be your MO, but it isn't working. Try something else.

Yep, direct personal insults instead of on topic discussion, even if only on-topic based on where YOU led the discussion away from the main point!

Your behavior indicates that having your respect would be meaningless.

I did try something else. I tried providing statements of fact and supporting them. You refused to discuss either those facts or the support, simply refusing to accept them and then redirected the conversation to be more directly and personally insulting, and I have refused to just let you win at that, either.

THIS is why I feel sad for you.

Edit:

Oh, and atheism is still defined as the BELIEF that there is not a god. It is a belief, whether you like to think of it that way or not.

Rusty Jones
04-08-2015, 05:29 PM
Actually, as an independent adult, I decide how I feel and when. You have no control or authority to alter those choices. I do feel sad for you.

You don't seem to have much control yourself there, chump. That's why you're continuing to act like a thin-skinned bitch. Notice how you're turning this thread into a discussion about ME. That said, you might want to give it a second thought on whether not I have control over how you feel... even if I'm not making a conscious effort to exercise such control.


Maybe, But it is a direct response to the pablum that you threw across the screen. This is another example of you choosing abuse over conversation.

It's not a direct response to anything. It's a red herring. An obvious intent to direct the conversation away from something that you're not winning. If you want to call that "abuse," so be it. You could just stop being a pussy and not do that, but it's up to you.


Yep, direct personal insults instead of on topic discussion, even if only on-topic based on where YOU led the discussion away from the main point!

You know, the post you responded to where you first used the word "abuse" - SJ and I talk to each other like that all the time. Fuck, you should've seen the back-and-forths that AA got into; but at the end of the day... it's all good. Tell me... what does your circle of friends look like? Mostly women? Whiney dudes? A bunch of practicing Christians? I don't think you "hang with the fellas" very often. That just shows in how pussified you are.


Your behavior indicates that having your respect would be meaningless.

Ouch, that hurt. Well, not really, but...


I did try something else. I tried providing statements of fact and supporting them. You refused to discuss either those facts or the support, simply refusing to accept them and then redirected the conversation to be more directly and personally insulting, and I have refused to just let you win at that, either.

THIS is why I feel sad for you.

Too bad those "facts" you tried to state and support weren't relevant to the discussion at hand and were, like I said before, all a red herring. That's why I didn't address them, because there'd be no point!


Edit:

Oh, and atheism is still defined as the BELIEF that there is not a god. It is a belief, whether you like to think of it that way or not.

You said belief system, chump, belief SYSTEM! SYSTEM - you know, something that's complex and made up of a number of components that function together for a particular result? One statement doesn't make a "belief system." It just merely forms a "belief!" Furthermore, even interjecting that claim does nothing to refute what I'm saying to SJ - that atheism is not a religion.

Now, if you want to continue these assaults on each other's characters; I've got all day. But looking at how much you like to bitch about it, I'm not so sure you do.

technomage1
04-09-2015, 12:51 AM
Techno, You've obviously done your homework. But, can you just give us the cliff notes version? Rainmaker went to Allegany County public schools and would need to pop 3 adderalls just to finish reading this novel. NomSayin?

See atheist. See theist. Atheists are not religious. Theists are. Theists try to call atheists religious to advance their own agenda. This makes no sense. Secularism favors no one. Secularism is good.

Kidding aside, I know it's long, but I wanted to be very, very precise with what I was saying to show how conclusive the case really is. And I think SJs response shows I hit the mark on that.

I'm actually thinking of developing it into an article to submit to a publication I read. It needs a few more tweaks but it's a good piece.

Mjölnir
04-09-2015, 02:59 AM
Remember not to make personal insults please.

Thank you

Capt Alfredo
04-09-2015, 10:16 AM
Remember not to make personal insults please.

Thank you

Exactly. It's a stupid idea, not a stupid person. There's a distinction there.