The Religion of Atheism

Yet it is not a religion simply by virtue of being atheistic, and so this lends zero support to your failed claim and failed thread.

 

ah yes cognitive dissonance at its finest.

 

Clearly you cannot recognize it from inside.

 

You clearly misread the statement. You are claiming atheism is a religion. The church of satan is not considerd a religion simply because it is atheistic, but for other reasons entirely. So you wasted all that time copy pasting a bunch of nonsense that does not support your failed point or your failed thread.

 

Does that mean I don’t exist?

 

Of course! Glad to see you finally agree that atheism is a subset of religion and satanism is an officially recognized religion that is an integrated part of atheism, created owned and operated by atheists for atheists.

 

There are so many contradictions in this theological mess it’s impossible to know where to start untangling it. Almost as muddled as Thomas Aquinas speculations on the existence of God and the ‘five ways’.

 

I wouldnt say contradictions, but after a few thousand years of philosophy shreding everything that labyrinth does get a bit dicey to navigate.

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-secular-life/201607/is-atheism-just-another-religion

 

"
First off, the question is usually posed as a sly put-down. Its pejorative. At worst, it is meant to somehow put atheists in their place (You think religion is so stupid? Well, your atheism is just another religion, so you are also stupid! Hah!), or to expose atheists as hypocrites (You condemn religious people but you atheists are not so different, so there!), or at best, it is meant to be snarkily clever (Bet you didn't think of that mister secular smarty pants!).

But let's go ahead and assume that the question is actually put forth in complete earnestness. If that is the case, then yes, one can see some striking similarities between atheists and religious people. For example:

* Like religious people (at least religious fundamentalists), atheist are pretty convinced that they are right about God—that there isn’t one. So there is a dogmatic or “uber-convinced” quality to the conviction of atheism that seems strikingly similar to religious conviction. That is, both the atheist and the religious fundamentalist are sure that they know the truth and everyone else is wrong, at least about God."

While there is accuracy here, it is important to note context here in that "Religion" tends to involve one particular version of it rather than the concept (though either can be used). Atheism in the United States pretty much means not Christian and even Christianity can be "Atheist" to another Christian who believes in God differently. Everyone is Atheist in that they do not believe in someone elses "God".

 

Philosophy is not a single body of learning/knowledge. Some if it shines a light on the human condition nothing else can but sadly most of it is over tossed word salad dressed in gibberish. The French de-constructionsists come to mind. But then we have biblical apologetics, the name says it all I’m afraid.

 

Philosophy has important and useful aspects in thought but is only useful in reality based thinking or scientific thought as a springboard of hypothesis. Many discoveries have roots at the base that sprand from "Thought Experiments" which is basically the same thing.

 

Same thing as what? I’m unsure what your saying here.

 

Philosophy is the use of thought experimentally and thus leads to tangible results at times.

 

in theory objectively, in theory that is.

 

where did that loony tune nutter garbage come from?

You are only an atheist if you believe zero Gods exist, and you are a theist if you believe at least one God exists.

Try this:

Zaehner, "it is perfectly possible to be a good Hindu whether one's personal views incline toward monism, monotheism, polytheism, or even atheism." He goes on to say that it is a religion that neither depends on the existence or non-existence of God or Gods.
Nontheistic religion - Wikipedia


as usual the brits are insulting everyones intelligence with their ****ed up continual oppression regarding religious rights of the individual.

 

So...Atheism indeed revolves around being a Non-Christian in the U.S. and it seems you are upset that you agree with this because you are one of the real Christians but don't want to admit it for some reason. The persecution complex Christianity has adopted is quite hypocritical if not completely disingenuous. I am Atheist and do not "Believe" in any God as I have not noted or experienced any reason to do so. I am also bright enough to know I do not know so am open to being convinced...all it needs to do is show up in some way.

I suppose this makes me Agnostic/Atheists or something....I don't really care.

 

it revolves around the belief no deity exists what so ever christian or otherwise

once you say that, you are atheist, your reasons or lack thereof are completely irrelevant.
Agnostics abstain from a vote either way since they require evidence unlike atheists and theists who merely require faith.

 

Memory lapses indicate existence..

 

'Zaehner used a comparative-religion approach in his several discussions of Communism. He compared its practical, political-economic organization to that of the Catholic Church.[160] Features in common were an authoritarian command structure (similar to the military) which, according to its orthodox interpretation, was guided by an abstract and articulated theory or dogma.
Communist ideology was analogized to various religious creeds. Here Zaehner took an interest in the materialist element in the Hegelian dialectic as developed by Marx. Zaehner compared it with the role of the Spirit in the Christian concept of the trinity, deriving various analogies

n his last three books, Zen, Drugs and Mysticism (1972), Our Savage God (1974), and City within the Heart (1981) [posthumous], Zaehner turned to address issues in contemporary society, drawing on his studies of comparative religion. He explored the similarities and the differences between drug-induced experiences and traditional mysticism. As an academic he had published on such issues before.[164][165][166]In the meantime, a widesrpead counterculture had arisen, which included artists, rebels, and college youth. Their psychedelic experiences were often self-explained spiritually, with reference to zen and eastern mysticism.[167][168] Consequently, Zaehner wanted then to reach this "wider public".[169]

Zaehner described various ancient quests to attain a mystical state of transcendence, of unification. Therein all contradictions and oppositions are reconciled; subject and object disappear, one passes beyond good and evil. That said, such a monist view can logically lead to excess, even to criminal acts.[170] If practiced under the guidance of traditional religious teachers, no harm usually results.[171][172][173] The potential for evil exists, however, through subtle misunderstanding or careless enthusiasm, according to Zaehner. After arriving at such a transcendent point, a troubled drug user may go wrong, feel licensed to do anything, with no moral limit. The misuse of a mystical state and its theology eventually can lead to horror.[174][175]

Zaehner warned of the misbehavior propagated by LSD advocate Timothy Leary,[176][177] the earlier satanism of Aleister Crowley, and ultimately the criminal depravity of Charles Manson.[178][179][180] His essay "Rot in the Clockwork Orange" further illustrates from popular culture the possible brutal effects of such moral confusion and license.[181] Yet Zaehner's detailed examination and review was not a witch hunt. His concluding appraisal of the LSD experience, although not without warning of its great risks and dangers, contained a limited, circumscribed allowance for use with a spiritual guide.[182][183]'

It seems that he relates even drugs and drug abuse to religious experiences.

 

As usual you assume to know my mind and beliefs better than I do and then place your own drivel into it. I am painfully ware of your OPINIONS concerning Atheism and what I think.....they are opinions and are treated as such rather than the fact you present it as. Though I am not positive about the reasoning (if any) behind this disingenuous personality disorder I assume it involves some sort of inherent or leaned habit of purposeful ignorance....you have my pity, a tiny chunk of it.

 

For many, drugs are definitely a religion...

 

Ditto

 

Which, of course, as anyone who has watched your dishonest, embarrassing behavior throighout this thread would guess, is precisely the opposite of what I said.

 

that would be using it metaphorically, sure, then anything can be a religion