Sinperium, I have experienced euphoria several times in my younger life when my emotions were in control of almost everything … then I grew up and reality established itself. I was forcibly raised (three years) by maniacal nuns from hell continuously condemning me to visit them at lunch in their domain simply because I was uneducated in their ‘evil ways’ and would not kiss their ‘feet’. I acted like the child I was and … a death sentence was all I got … and we never really got over this sore point and consequently, I rarely went Home on weekends. To me the RCC was religion … one in the same. Try to keep this in mind when I make my arguments as often my real frustrations more applicably reflect on the RCC and their CCC … not religion in general. I will try to watch for this too as I do get carried away at times, hahaha.

Missed me what?

People often assert that Atheism is a religion, which of course it isn't. Saying that atheism is a religion is rather like saying 'not' collecting stamps is a hobby. Atheists are often associated with scientific thinking and Critical thinking, while religions demand belief without supporting empirical evidence. Scientists have shown how scientific thinking leads to atheism but besides brainwashing, they are clueless as to what leads one to theism.

This post demonstrates the argumentative aspect that accompanies most religious discussions. The topic of atheism is only brought into the conversations by the Christians whenever it can be used as a distraction. Give them a place to go to actually discuss the issue and they all scurry away like dogs after a kill when the lions show up. Whenever a conversation ventures into the self-proclaimed realm of Christianity, the topic of atheism is sure to follow. From a purely analytical view, an atheist is anyone who doesn’t follow the absolute dictates of the RCC. Or in other words … it includes everyone in the world who is not Catholic (by their choice) … even other Christians and this is as bizarre as it gets, to say the least. I understand this post started out with a jest on my part, but I have been trying to get these religious vagabonds to at least explain the ‘Religion of Atheism’ … and they remain silent. This is no different than trying to get anything definitive from them … they live and survive in a religious stupor that transcends common sense, logic or proof of any real kind. It is a make-believe world where all the answers to everything is said to exist inside a book … no need to look for anything anymore as long as you have just the right book I guess. The wisdom and knowledge of the Bronze Age actually controls the complete life structure of most Christians today … is this why it takes a leap of faith to believe in the ridiculous? This is about as real as someone from the first century going into a cave and proclaiming the cavemen had the right of things … absolutely incongruous, IMO. Believe all the imaginary fables your heart desires … just don’t step on my scientific toes in the process.

Now … does anyone want to actually demonstrate their professed knowledge and tell us who are waiting with baited breath … what is the “Religion of Atheism”? I for one just cannot wait for this jewel.

Another pet peeve of mine while I am here … is the disregard and minimization of the importance of scientific theories … often related to guesswork and seemingly viewed as feeble attempts to degrade theological views … pure rubbish. It is like talking to a wall when one tries to explain that science has no theological interests at all simply because there is no common point of concern. The sciences produce results that are verifiable and repeatable and could care less what people use such knowledge for. It has been my experience that it is normally the theologians who try and blend the two together, not to prove their case … only to try and disprove the opposition case??? And this mode of operation necessitates the use of science (our only source of evidence) to be used to defend our position. Sounds pretty catch-22ish to me is all. We are blanketly considered idiots if we try and mount a defense or in some state of denial if we don’t. I am done with allowing religious dogma to control the scope and direction of the discussion anymore because I have no interest in going there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItxVLu8J_d0

Neilo thanks … now to pick out some place for the forget-me-not tattoo.

Any atheists want to chime in hahaha … seems the Christians are just speechless. All of the hullabaloo they create elsewhere is simply argumentative and predetermines a failed discourse. Strange, but the most betwixt us defining issues are their belief in god without proof … and our disbelief in god without proof. From this simple enigma … we have reached our current dysfunctional state of affairs. Maybe it is because whatever we do have in the way of evidence … like ALL of it from every field … points to anything BUT an all knowing creator in any classical sense. No matter … the religion of atheism is just beyond me … assuming of course my intro clip failed to sway everyone. In all honesty, I think they are just incapable of corresponding in any other way than by following some religious protocol. If we atheists weren’t all conveniently lumped into a religious box why … they would have to deal with us as the individuals we are, go figure. Well, they couldn’t have that … so we just have to (MUST) represent some opposing religion against which to throw their mystical names, sticks and stones. Thus the religion of atheism is manufactured born … best I can do

. . .always remember that god works in his own way.

GrilFriendTess,

Why is it when someone attempts to be making fun of something there is always someone out there that just doesn't get it. . .

HMMMMMMMMMM! for some reason my "Quote" button does not work; oh well.

GirlFriendTess,

We will not argue the case of religious believes seeing that we are both on the same page. . .  

@Boobztwo, GirlFriendTess, Neilo

Oh my, where to start?  Rather than individual quotes I'll try to lump them for saving time and space.  Uh, this is going to be long and my throbbing head is tapioca right now.  Sure what the hell why not?

It has been my experience that it is normally the theologians who try and blend the two together, not to prove their case … only to try and disprove the opposition case???

It has been my experience that it is normally the atheists who try and blend the two together, not to prove their case … only to try and disprove the opposition case???

Steven Hawking

Hawking guest starring for a chat with us on Joe User?  I'd love that!  Count me in. +1

So Hawking, when asked about why he believes in the nonpossibility of God despite factors like The Big Bang, humanity's continued existence versus xenolife and mathematical Chaos Theory calculating God does exist, he answered that he doesn't believe that such a God if existed could care about our small existence therefor must not exist.  His answer was very brief, short and simple though in that special S.Hawking genius sort of way.  Remarkable how he sums up so much into so little.

Maybe Hawking is a bitter old man who despite the physical failings that helped propel him to greatness is still bitter about it causing his views to reflect that.  Is that an ad-hominess attack?  Admittedly yes and I did so because here it was very relevant to this argument and I apologize in advance, nor was is it directed at anyone here.

Sadly I've lost respect for the man save his accomplishments because he has publicly endorsed a website that utilizes an illegitimate system removing discussion through downvoting, reducing all thinking to a human hivemind.  A mind that continuously censors itself to the point of self destructiveness and has no place in an open forum.  I fear having such a system in any decision making process for society's future.  That is not something you endorse unless you don't want any open discussion with any thoughts not in agreement to your own.  That has no place for an open forum.

Why is this subject not popularly discussed?

At this point what else is there to talk about?

Boobztwo, I can't speak for the others but IIRC I was the first one to bring it up and eventually we both mutually disagreed on the matter and agreed it was too much a boring subject that should stay on JoeUser. Lately you brought it back up and all I can do is reiterate points that have already been said.  Since you stepped up once again, called us out again, I'll dance with you.

The purpose of my last thread on the subject was to start discussion to teach Theists and Atheists alike about the scientific mind and its relation to Agnosticism.  Throughout my life, the message heard by Atheist preachers is how smart, scientific and intelligent they are above those who disagree and that makes them right, see below.  Atheism is a very proud viewpoint, resultingly it's also an obnoxiously loud one.  Agnosticism by comparison is a bit more humble by taking the scientific route of not completely ruling out the possibility.  That attitude is a big turn off.  "Oh noes, there they go again."

Nobody here really wants to be loud unless a nerve has been touched.  I'll be the first to admit it happens to me at times.

"Man upon inventing the megaphone found he had nothing to say." -G.K. Chesterton

Atheism is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby?

Way way too much time, resources and energy is spent here on not collecting stamps.  It's like saying to someone how in the world can you work so hard to be so lazy?  Maybe a more accurate statement would be collecting stamps versus collecting blank stamps.

When Christians get together they talk about us and God.  When Atheists get together they talk about us and God.  One side talks about someone known as God in a positive manner while the other talks about theists and God in a negative manner.  Atheists and Atheism isn't a discussed subject because it is not in the bible and theists feel they have much more important things to talk about (God) instead of Atheists which is central to the bible.  Me?  I'm a jokingly bad Christian.  Hope that clarifies.

The wisdom and knowledge of the Bronze Age actually controls the complete life structure of most Christians today

I'll leave that one for Lula but I'll say this.  Christianity has grown with more experience from many different time periods over a great length.  Judaism included.

This is about as real as someone from the first century going into a cave and proclaiming the cavemen had the right of things

Some Atheists believe in natural laws of the world, not by a divinity but through evolution sometimes referred to as a natural order.

Note: If you're saying anyone who is not progressive is a primitive caveman well...

Religion, Seperation of Church and State. I

-Let's live in a world where Boobztwo, GirlFriendTess, Neilo are right for a moment and see what happens?

Okay let's say for a moment you're right and I'm wrong and the world reoriented itself to meet your vision.  What are the consequences to me and the rest of humanity of you being right that Atheism is not a religion?

Here is a (legal) scenario under the law of separation of Church and State in a USA public institution.

Atheist: There is no God.

Theist: That is nice that you believe that.

Atheist: There is no God.

Theist: *yawn*  I heard you the first time.

Atheist: There is no God

Theist:  Will you just knock it off please?

Atheist: There is no God

Theist: Well I believe there is a God who created the universe.

Atheist: HELP! HE'S PREACHING TO ME!  VIOLATION OF SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!  SOMEONE ARREST THIS PERSON!  I'M BEING OPPRESSED!

Atheist: Ha, I gotcha you theist tard.  I knew if I kept attacking your religion with my non-religion Atheism you would get tired and be stupid enough to defend it, eventually.  Now you're going to jail and I'm gonna sue.

See the problem?  That is the way the law is currently written.

Atheism is a religion and there are consequences otherwise.  It's a silver bullet because if I'm wrong there are serious consequences.  This is why one reason among many why Theists are so adamant that Atheism is a religion.  Anyone who knows this and still supports Atheism is not a religion is suspect in my book.  Something is very wrong there.

Religion, Seperation of Church and State. II

Normally when you start an organization, it first starts with an idea.  Then it goes through a vetting process.  When it becomes an organization it starts generally small, people participate and it builds its way up.  Well that is how it's supposed to be.  Here we have a case where state run mandatory institutions have been hijacked for the purpose of spreading the Atheism.  Even going so far as imposing it on others using a law on the books to make it easier.  No oppositional viewpoints can be made.  The institution is paid for by mandatory taxes whether you use it or not.  You can choose to use an expensive private school but the public school taxes must still be paid.

Atheist States generally assert themselves as the higher power along with the leaders.  Making them both the highest authority and the highest moral authority so any action can be justified.  Part of the process to achieve this is some form of ethnic cleansing.  The Peoples Republic of China did it under Mao, the Soviet Union did it under Stalin and others.  Right now Hugo Chavez of Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is executing a problem starting with little children to indoctrinate into these ideals.

Teacher: Okay class, we will play a game.  Every close your eyes.

Kids: *close eyes*

Teacher: Now pray to God for milk and candy.  Open your eyes.

Kids: no milk, no candy *sad faces*

Teacher: Close your eyes.  Now pray to Hugo Chavez.

Kids: there's candy! there's milk!  *happy faces*  Mmmm, it tastes so good!

Normally all these activities would be a violation of seperation of church and state but since No God Atheism is not a religion it is justified and very beneficial to the common welfare, the greater good of all.

I still prefer the term apathist though, especially when it more accurately describes the feeling of the majority of us that live in Britain. Except for weddings, and discussing which religious loonies are trying to bomb us this year, Protestant, Catholic, or Muslim, religion gets pretty much ignored. So people do not brand themselves atheist mostly because they never really care, talk about it, or think about it.

See below.

Let's simply it even further into three categories:

Theism- Believing in the existence of a higher power.  Sometimes referred to as God.

Atheism- Belief in the nonexistance of a higher power.

Agnosticism- Currently unknown but attempting to prove either, preferably in a scientific manner.  Not a religion.

See how easy it is!!!

I would not like to be under a religious theocracy either.  Unfortunately, historically my nation seems to be inching closer and closer into an atheist theocracy all the time.  There is something especially sinister about a leader who demands worship from his citizens.

My world vision?  I thought that was explained in my last point under seperation of church and state and the hypocritical state it's currently in.

I agree.  You'll be stretched to find someone at home who does.  However, that is exactly what is happening now with Atheism in our government and schools.  Try the Agnostic approach instead because it is not a religion.

Hmm, so let me see if I understand this correctly.  You feel one party of (theist) citizens should pay the Atheist institutions for preaching Atheism to them in addition to shouldering the burden of cost for private institutions that get no public help.

This is why the subject has gone dry.  Why even bother trying to communicate with someone when you go to all this trouble and it gets labeled as doubletalk.  Such a statement only succeeds in validating my last post.

RogueCaptain: If communication was of any real interest to you, you would have tried it yourself.  When I think of communication, I think of an exchange of ideas not a one way stuffing of ‘orifices’. You professed to know of this ‘religion of atheism’ but became tongue tied when asked. You could have saved pages of nonsense (the kind of doubletalk that has to be filtered) had you just imparted this insight of yours in the form of a simple answer. One would think some answer should have been presented and it could have been were there actually something to come forward with besides what you used, preconceived dogmatic misconceptions. I just don’t believe in any god, but you insist on bringing him into every discussion no matter how mundane the topic may be. And we never get past the god issue so we never get to discuss anything else, anything exciting or anything knowledgeable. Following is an example I posted somewhere else (?) but seems fitting here too.

Oh the simple life … “Mom, why is the sky blue” why indeed, humm “because god made it that way”. The progressive in the next room gives it a quick thought but decides that was too childish so he sets his kid down and says something like this: “Look for the particulates floating in the air. The Earth’s atmosphere is filled with trillions of tiny dust particles. Most of these particles or particulates are too small to be seen with the human eye. The smallest particulates are by coincidence the same length as the wavelength of blue light. As the light from our Sun shines into the atmosphere most of the colors are able to reach the Earth’s surface uninterrupted. However, because blue light has a wavelength that is the same size as the particulates in the air, this light is scattered in every direction. This blue light bounces from particulate to particulate until it eventually reaches your eyes. For this reason, no matter what direction you look in the sky, it appears to be blue. This blue light originated with the Sun, was bounced around in the sky many times, and then eventually reached your eyes.” or other such scientific nonsense, pat the kid on the head and send him merrily on his way to ponder why water is blue too??? While in the other room all you could hear was “I know mom, god made it that way, too.” Oh yea, the simple life when children (and adults) knew better than to ask such things, where they knew their places indeed.

Tess remember, religion does not necessarily require to be Theist in nature.  Buddhism for example does not have a deity per se.  Although I suppose some might conclude to see it that way.

Christianity teaches us we may understand the laws of the universe, the same laws since creation and prior, if we choose to pursue it.  I see no conflict here, please explain.  Some other religions may not but Christianity, with the exception of a few fringe offshoots, is not one of them.

I've made only two (long) posts here to answer multiple people so far with this one my third and already you're making statements like this?

Edit:  What more of an answer are you looking for from me that I have not already given before?  Atheism is an idea based on faith. It is an organized institution with both internal alongside external funding structures that seek to spread the ideology.  The intention of it's followers is to propagate that ideology and compete, even forcefully, with others opposed to it.  It seeks to offer explanation for the universal existence and is having trouble doing so.  The majority of other present day religions are Theist in nature and Atheism comes into conflict.