So Neo, did you know that Atheism is a religion?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Seth, I do understand where you're coming from. I will grant there is a similarity between a theist who behaves like a dick, because of his religion and an atheist who behaves like a dick. The commonality isn't religion, it's that they're both dicks.

It's easy to get confused like that when indulging in sweeping generalizations.

[Seth]

Evidently you don't understand the meaning of the term "non sequitur." Which makes your rebuttal the argument ad rectum here, not to mention argumentum ad hominem.

Non sequitur - a logical fallacy where a stated conclusion is not supported by its premise. It does not follow that because god could be natural but unknown that no possible rigorous proof is possible. All it means is that, with current scientific understanding, no rigorous proof has been presented. It precludes nothing.

Ah, I see. Yes, I grant you that, you are correct in that regard.

Seth, I do understand where you're coming from. I will grant there is a similarity between a theist who behaves like a dick, because of his religion and an atheist who behaves like a dick. The commonality isn't religion, it's that they're both dicks.

True, insofar as dick-like behavior is concerned. But Atheism is still a religion to some people.

And I point out that dicks who happen to be theists generally aren't dicks because of their religious beliefs, they tend just to be dicks in general, and generally misuse and misinterpret religion to support their dickness.

[Seth]

Seth, I do understand where you're coming from. I will grant there is a similarity between a theist who behaves like a dick, because of his religion and an atheist who behaves like a dick. The commonality isn't religion, it's that they're both dicks.

It's easy to get confused like that when indulging in sweeping generalizations.

Which is something that Atheists do regarding religion very often...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Seth, I do understand where you're coming from. I will grant there is a similarity between a theist who behaves like a dick, because of his religion and an atheist who behaves like a dick. The commonality isn't religion, it's that they're both dicks.

It's easy to get confused like that when indulging in sweeping generalizations.

Which is something that Atheists do regarding religion very often...

[charlou]

Problem is that the dynamics of atheists show that the definition, neither clause, fails to apply to them. Even when they band together to try and get strength in numbers to resist attacks from religious nuts, they are more fractious than communist trends, and have even less common ground between them.

Well put.

Also, "there is no god" is not a proper description. there may be people who hold to that like a chretin to its creed, but others just go "gods have no place in our world", or even "gods are fucktard who don't deserver worship even if they really are out there"

The bit I've bolded ... I hold that all things are natural, even things we don't know about or can't explain, that there is nothing supernatural, that therefore there is no supernatural entity - no god.

Right, you hold the BELIEF that all things are natural, and that nothing supernatural exists. But you cannot subject your confidence in this proposition to immediate rigorous proof, therefore it is a belief, upon which you can build an edifice of religion...like naturalistic science...that you follow devotedly as a matter of ethics or conscience. IE: a religion.

I don't deny that in my case it's a belief.

My atheism is an active belief, yes.

Not everyone's atheism is an active belief.

Not all atheists believe there is no god.

Many atheists simply don't believe there is a god (for various reasons of their own).

This is a difference that you don't seem to understand, or are unwilling to accept.

Shrug.

[charlou]

Evidently you don't understand the meaning of the term "non sequitur." Which makes your rebuttal the argument ad rectum here, not to mention argumentum ad hominem.

Non sequitur - a logical fallacy where a stated conclusion is not supported by its premise. It does not follow that because god could be natural but unknown that no possible rigorous proof is possible. All it means is that, with current scientific understanding, no rigorous proof has been presented. It precludes nothing.

Ah, I see. Yes, I grant you that, you are correct in that regard.

Seth, I do understand where you're coming from. I will grant there is a similarity between a theist who behaves like a dick, because of his religion and an atheist who behaves like a dick. The commonality isn't religion, it's that they're both dicks.

True, insofar as dick-like behavior is concerned. But Atheism is still a religion to some people.

And I point out that dicks who happen to be theists generally aren't dicks because of their religious beliefs, they tend just to be dicks in general, and generally misuse and misinterpret religion to support their dickness.

Since "dickness" isn't genetic, I'd say a religious culture has at least some impact on said "dickness".

I do agree, though, that there are "dicks" to be found in all sorts of cultures, religious or not.



"dicks" aside, I like dicks, by the way ...

[Svartalf]

Isn't dickyness usually dictated by the presence of a Y chromosome and the appendant genes?

[charlou]

Isn't dickyness usually dictated by the presence of a Y chromosome and the appendant genes?

[Seth]

Problem is that the dynamics of atheists show that the definition, neither clause, fails to apply to them. Even when they band together to try and get strength in numbers to resist attacks from religious nuts, they are more fractious than communist trends, and have even less common ground between them.

Well put.

Also, "there is no god" is not a proper description. there may be people who hold to that like a chretin to its creed, but others just go "gods have no place in our world", or even "gods are fucktard who don't deserver worship even if they really are out there"

The bit I've bolded ... I hold that all things are natural, even things we don't know about or can't explain, that there is nothing supernatural, that therefore there is no supernatural entity - no god.

Right, you hold the BELIEF that all things are natural, and that nothing supernatural exists. But you cannot subject your confidence in this proposition to immediate rigorous proof, therefore it is a belief, upon which you can build an edifice of religion...like naturalistic science...that you follow devotedly as a matter of ethics or conscience. IE: a religion.

I don't deny that in my case it's a belief.

My atheism is an active belief, yes.

Not everyone's atheism is an active belief.

Not all atheists believe there is no god.

Many atheists simply don't believe there is a god (for various reasons of their own).

This is a difference that you don't seem to understand, or are unwilling to accept.

Shrug.

Sophistry. Bordering on pettifoggery. It's the same thing, a belief about the existence of god. Upon that belief a religion may be built.

[MrJonno]

I'm am atheist, so is my cat, so is my shoe, so is a rock. Even the pope's hat is an atheist

Being an atheist doesnt even require you to be conscious never mind being alive, unlike being a Christian which requires an active effort to be so.

Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief system.

There are obviously people who don't like religion and thats an important part of their politics but thats nothing to do with atheism

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm am atheist, so is my cat, so is my shoe, so is a rock. Even the pope's hat is an atheist

Being an atheist doesnt even require you to be conscious never mind being alive, unlike being a Christian which requires an active effort to be so.

Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief system.

There are obviously people who don't like religion and thats an important part of their politics but thats nothing to do with atheism

Good try, but Seth's a religious, so facts don't enter into the debate. (At least not from his end.)

[Hermit]

I'm am atheist, so is my cat, so is my shoe, so is a rock. Even the pope's hat is an atheist

Being an atheist doesnt even require you to be conscious never mind being alive, unlike being a Christian which requires an active effort to be so.

Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief system.

There are obviously people who don't like religion and thats an important part of their politics but thats nothing to do with atheism

Good try, but Seth's a religious, so facts don't enter into the debate. (At least not from his end.)

There's no point debating with someone about religion who says that "lack of belief" equals "belief".

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm am atheist, so is my cat, so is my shoe, so is a rock. Even the pope's hat is an atheist

Being an atheist doesnt even require you to be conscious never mind being alive, unlike being a Christian which requires an active effort to be so.

Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief system.

There are obviously people who don't like religion and thats an important part of their politics but thats nothing to do with atheism

Good try, but Seth's a religious, so facts don't enter into the debate. (At least not from his end.)

There's no point debating with someone about religion who says that "lack of belief" equals "belief".

No shit. But this thread goes on and on and on and on.

[Feck]

...Because we keep posting

[Gawdzilla Sama]

...Because we keep posting