Atheist Churches, For Real?

So you insist on taking it out of context, then using your measuring stick its crystal clear that Christianity isnt religion by any stretch of the imagination either.

Sorting out the fallacies of those who would distort meanings and defy logic and reason has no motive unless you wish to insist being correct is some sort of nefarious motive.

What you really did is shifted the goal posts from the intent of the thread, which is ok with me frankly because I put you back on course and in doing so exposed another method od intellectual dishonesty used by atheists used to argue their corrosive nonsequitur politics.

 

I think there's a significant difference between the core set of beliefs that are the foundation of all Christian faiths an the singular element that is atheism (or theism) but yes, I'd already said that Christianity can't really be called a religion either.

The stated point of the thread was whether the existence of these "atheist churches" supported the claims of those who would say atheism is a religion. I feel I answered that quite clearly (to be clear, "No" ).

 

Wow, that is the most contradictory post I have seen in a while.

You totally contradict yourself when you see churches and people governing their lives practicing their atheist beliefs which are diametrically opposed to and the antithesis to the practice of Christianity, which is what this thread is about.

You can see this because the OP shows people PRACTICING their atheist beliefs. Its ok if you want to disect one word but there are many words and videos that make up the substance of the OP, your point was not the central issue and trying to force it to be the central issue is intellectual dishonesty.

I am sure you didnt intend to do anything intellctually dishonest so for your convenience here is the OP, where you can see your conclusion is so microscopically narrow to the point of the OP its totally inapplicable in any sense:

 

I honestly don't see any connection between the corruption within some (purportedly) Christian churches and the various "atheist church" organisations that have been promoted recently, especially not in relation to your other questions.

Or are you claiming that any example of greed or corruption is somehow implicitly "practising atheism"?

You can't practice a belief. You believe a belief and practice a practice. This isn't disecting words, it's applying the fundamental meaning of the English language.

Maybe you should be clearer with what you were actually asking then. I simply addressed your last question directly.

 

no its not, it only proves complete lack of comprehension of meaning when words are joined to form a sentence that requires the meaning of several words to be understood as a single point.

It goes, or should have went without saying that if an atheist believes life is meaningless concluding murder is a-ok the atheist gets up on the 32nd floor and wastes people for the pleasure of watching them die. That is 'practicing' your belief. Simply it means putting a belief that life is meaningless when its put into action, or acting upon a believe in other words governing yourself according to your beliefs, aka religion.

What I said is perfectly clear, not sure why this is so difficult for you but I am happy to explain it anyway.

 

And an atheist who doesn't believe life is meaningless and murder is OK won't. There have been loads of atheists throughout history who haven't murdered anyone and a fair few theists who have. The simple fact of believing or not believing in gods doesn't directly lead to any specific behaviours.

What is becoming clear is that you believe all atheists are fundamentally evil. I'm not convinced I want to have a discussion with someone who holds me in such contempt for a characteristic I have no control over.

 

Is it a religion?

I guess nihilistic hedonism could be. Atheism in itself is not.

 

nihilists have beliefs and govern their lives according to their beliefs, broadly speaking.

Joe was to atomize the issue by assigning one part to the whole and classifing the whole as the same as his microscopic part. Chasing his tail and wants me to follow.

Joe, please read for comprehension, the take away point is atheism is a religion, that is the proof and in your world atheism is a subset of secular humanists in which the supreme court agrees is in fact a religion.

I only explained it.




This is very simple, when something has all the ingredients it is what the ingredients made it.

Broadly:
Belief+Conviction+Action (practice) = religion
Likewise
Flour+Water+Yeast+appropriate heat = bread

No way around it, no deity required.

 

Black is not a shade of White, Night is not a dark Day, Rocks are not a life form and Atheism is not a religion.

 

Thats really cute but I cant even imagine how you put all that in one sentence, since none of that rhetoric is applicable and and the conclusion doesnt follow in any sense I can think of.

Oh did you mean for that to be purely political? ....not philosophical within the bounds of logic and reason?

 

I was just giving my personal opinion. I wasn't commenting on anyone else's post. I personally would want to see all of the similarities between the religion of Atheists and that of other traditional religions.

On a side note, I thought Kung Fu was based on Buddhist beliefs or Hindus, if you want to go back that far. I believe both have deities. I could be mistaken. Even Buddhists believe in a god king, I thought. Oh well, doesn't matter to me. Believe as you will, as long as you don't infringe upon my rights.

I'm guessing the real issue is tax avoidance, not religion.

 

Oh thats what it turned into, then the bulk of the money being spent for personal gain, refusing to open their books so to a good degree I agree with the tax angle.

Any funds not used to donate to the poor should be taxed at 95% with the preachers salary capped at median income which is what about 30 - 40?

Buddism talks about gods but does not believe in them.

The whole point is that Joe was pulling one word out of a sentence intended to be understood by the incorporation of all the words in the sentence not just one. I can accpet that if someone feels a word is being used inappropriately but not just to derail the thread using a faulty premise or intellectual dishonesty in the conclusion. I think he may have missed the word 'if'

 

By forcing the government to recognize no beliefs as beliefs, atheists force the government to take a look at tax reform for traditional religious organizations, but they fail to realize they are also going to bring nonprofits like hospitals into the mix, whether those are St. Jude's for children with terrible afflictions, or the local quick mart style urgent care facilities which will probably close under the pressure.

 

Okay...How's this.

I am an Atheist and I have no church or religion.

Either I am lying or telling the truth......HINT.....I'm not lying.

 

So what a lot of Christains have no church, but a lot do,

So are you going to file a complaint against the supreme court? I cant imagine what is so had to grasp about something so simple, or maybe its just because atheists have been using improper framing for their arguments for years and its all falling down around them before their eyes?

 

Actually....I don't really care what you or SCOTUS says. I simply do not wish to be in any way associated with Religion. I feel it is an insult.

 

then you arent an atheist you are a nihilist.

 

Why do you continue to make false assumptions and pretend thy are truth. It seems you are simply ignorant of the terms you use. I do not appreciate these insults or the fact you seem to enjoy using them.

 

Well they been claiming that 'there is no god' is more logical than 'there is a God' despite precisely the same amount of proof (zero) either way for some time now. Gathering to worship their lack of beleif, establish their own doctrine and shell out cash in exchange for someone to tell them how to believe was merely a matter of time.

Not surprised in the slightest.

 

you said you have no beliefs your words have meanings dont blame me for articulating that meaning as the rest of the world understands it.

nihilist

a person who believes that life is meaningless and rejects all religious and moral principles.

 

There are tons of atheists on this forum now that claim it is not a religion. Secular Humanism IS a religion according to the supreme court and that would include situational ethics, moral relativity, and atheism to a tee!

 

Life has great meaning without religion and your Nietzschelist commentary was meant as insult. The word "And" carries meaning regardless of your ability to understand this.

 

They think they can change the meanings using political rhetoric by evangelizing their bogus arguments and definitions all they want, academia will destroy it for them.

 

That doesnt make any sense what so ever since its only a matter of taking what you said:

all I need do is match the pegs to the holes, sorry if you feel insulted because I understand what you are really saying.

nihilist

a person who believes that life is meaningless and rejects all religious and moral principles.

religious and moral principles are the same in practice. A persons religion is composed of their morals, you said you have no morals because you said you have no religion. very simple.

 

I dont think they realize the purpose of 501c3... There is great power in the social controls that established religion institutes, and by trading tax exemption for manipulative power in that doctrine, the govt is able to direct that power to a degree.

Conservatives get much of their foundational beleifs from religious ideology. Individual freedom (as opposed to the collective) morals over ethics, rugged individualism and antiestablishmentarianism all have Biblical basis. See the 'black robed regiments and american revolution' for a glimpse into Protestantism's influence in the culture of liberty and rebellion. Classical Liberalism (aka Tea Party, go ahead and look up the terms), the Renaisance and the emergence of The West from feudalism was a direct result of Luther's schism from the establishment 'Roman' Catholicism and its corrupt, symbiotic relationship with medievil authoritarian states, the creation and institution of Protestantism. The controls that the establishment currently have in protestant doctrine rely on the 501c3 tax exemptions that promote a 'non-political' atmosphere in most churches. Remove the tax exemption and watch protestants become fanatically anti-establishment.

I truly wish the atheists God's speed in their pursuit here