Atheism a religion

Sounds like an Archie Bunker malapropism.

 

that's what I've been saying for years, atheist is the theists term for me...I see myself as rational/logical person who lives in the real world of here and now and gives no credibility to the paranormal world of spooks and fairies...

 

I guess not collecting stamps is a hair color. Bald is a hair style. And my fire department is a church.

LOL

Stupidity knows no bounds.

 

I do not imagine many Christians that do not go to church would want to go this for other reasons... like maybe because they are theists

 

Correction:
I guess not collecting stamps is a hobby. Bald is a hair color. And my fire department is a church.

LOL

Stupidity knows no bounds.

 

If atheism is a religion then everything you dislike about it you must admit is born out of religion. All of the people theists parade around to show just how bad they think atheism is like Stalin, Pol Pot, etc are then just another religious zealot helping to prove the inherent dangers of religion.

Theists have a hard time keeping their narratives straight because you do not search for evidence to fit the facts you simply bend ideas until they fit your theories.

As Wolverine always says those damn shoes laces are always tripping you up.

Now the arguement about Stalin and them is equally useless because atheism isn't an ideology and people cannot therefore act in the name of it. Case in point people hate Dawkins for various reasons but his actions are not based on his being an atheist they are based on his being a scientist. The fact that he doesn't believe in God doesn't make teaching kids nonsense in school any more valid simply because you disagree with him. However there is no way for him to approach this conflict without directly addressing the elephant in the room. You know the one that only some of you can see because you're special and that in-an-of-itself is reason enough to affect public policy.

 

We are exactly as high on the "evolutionary ladder" as every other species on the planet.

 

I'll tell that to the next dog or cat who invents an ipad or something.

 

You can learn alot about love from them.
But that is probably a trait far down on the evolutionary scale, huh?

 

Around 1551-1575 French Catholics invented the word "atheist" to describe the Protestants during one of the many religious wars they were fighting against each other. Later on the word was applied to people who don't believe in the religious peoples' favorite deity. It was originally intended as a derogatory curse word.

 

LOL

Seriously though, all species on Earth have been evolving for the same amount of time so we are no more evolved than anything else on Earth.

Now, you may say humans are more advanced, but then that would depend on your criteria. We are certainly the most advanced when it comes to using tools and abstract thinking. But when it comes to biological fitness and perpetuation of the species in the future, there are numerous species, single-cell ones in particular, that have a decided leg up on us.

 

Seems that intent has been revived on PF.

 

Humans are a very hardy and adaptable species. It would take a comet hitting the ocean to wipe out the human race, and even that might not work.

 

or you, when you learn to scratch your ear with your hind leg?

 

I completely agree.But if a comet big enough to wipe humans out did hit, something tells me roaches would still be climbing over our remains.

 

It is, ironically, man's unfitness to survive that has caused him to evolve. Unlike the shark (which was the baddest meat eating machine in the seas so little more was required thus evolution was minimal for the shark) we are slow, weak, it takes seemingly forever for our young to achieve a level of self reliance, etc. But we had the capacity to band together for our hunts. And we had a unique capacity for developing our intelligence. Fact is its even harder than ever for us to survive in our environment. We are no longer hunter gatherers and now need years of formal education to get any job that provides sustenance. And when machines reach a level where they can repair each other and achieve awareness we may just be toast.

 

You think evolution is the same as inventiveness? Because, you know, it's not.

 

Or simply.... "normal".

 

Stance on theism or atheism is mostly a mater of personality , none claims that one group is at the top of the ladder .
When encounter a gigantic machine a theist will ask what it can do while an atheist what it cannot .

Evolution wise intelligence is more of a sub-effect , humans together with hyenas are the most successful hunters on land ( and dolphins are in the sea ) .
Think that humans do not even have to engage game just run after it till it dies from exhaustion (hyenas don't bother to kill game, they just eat it alive ) .

 

No irony there other than that the worlds smartest man doesnt know that is how it works for all life forms.

 

Those damn show laces!

Theists predictably fail to address atheism. They are religious, and they assume that everyone views the world in a religious context. This is not true. Atheists are no more religious than theists adopting the "unicorns do not exist" religion. Of course, such a religion will be dismissed as "silly" and atheists "always bringing up pasta and unicorns", however this is not indicative of an atheistic failure, but a constant failure of theists to understand there own failures to understand their own beliefs and address the issue of atheism.

The constant failure of theistic arguments never cease to amaze me. Using the parameters of religion as defined by the OP, anything and everything would be a religion. Monday night football, book clubs, and my monthly fire department meetings. Absolute stupidity. I would like to see theists address atheism as what it is, instead of something that they must dumb down to such a low level they might actually understand it.

Atheism is extraordinarily simple to understand. I do not understand how people could possibly be too ignorant to understand it and address it properly.

 

It's simply their attempt to level the playing field because where they once ruled the game they are now falling short due to ever increase standards their theology is ill-equipped to handle.

The irony in all of this is that nearly every day we hear them inadvertently point out many of the issues with religion as they attempt to place the very people they are arguing against among their ranks.

It's an argument that basically says, "I think you are but so am I!".

 

eew, I like that...normal..as opposed to abnormal/superstitious...


goodbye atheist hello NORMAL!

 

I wouldn't grant the position even that much credit. What I read in your post implies that they understand atheism and attempt to level the playing field.

I must be extraordinarily biased, because I do not believe they understand atheism in a way I would find meaningful. The treatment of atheism like theism, in my opinion, is the demonstrated inability to look at anything outside of the context of worshiping an idea as if it were a religion. i believe the predictable failure to address atheism accurately is an example of this.

 

Actually we are in agreement here. By leveling the playing field I simply mean in their minds we are actually of the same mind and atheists are simply blind to this "fact". They feel as though they are teaching us something about atheism and if only we could understand it the debate would take on new meaning. We all see it in the threads where they constantly avoid actually seeing the arguments presented against them. In their mind a different conversation is taking place.

They cannot play by these increased standards but it's ok for them because they can't even see them.