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

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I keep saying it, you keep ignoring it, atheism can be, and most usually is, much more than a simple lack of belief. Must be a defect in your brain that disallows you from understanding such simple concepts.

Simple concepts like "I'm talking total bullshit"? Yep, that's a defect everyone but you has.

Yes, I doubt that you can understand even that simple concept, much less the one about explicit atheism being a belief, which is only a little more complex.

Gee, Seth, you sure are a legend in your own mind. Ego's completely out of control.

[Seth]

I keep saying it, you keep ignoring it, atheism can be, and most usually is, much more than a simple lack of belief. Must be a defect in your brain that disallows you from understanding such simple concepts.

Simple concepts like "I'm talking total bullshit"? Yep, that's a defect everyone but you has.

Yes, I doubt that you can understand even that simple concept, much less the one about explicit atheism being a belief, which is only a little more complex.

Gee, Seth, you sure are a legend in your own mind.

Are you kidding? I have an international following of admirers who write to me all the time to tell me how much they enjoy my needling Netwits.

Ego's completely out of control.

Sucks to be you I guess.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Lame even for you, Leth.

[Sisifo]

I keep saying it, you keep ignoring it, atheism can be, and most usually is, much more than a simple lack of belief. Must be a defect in your brain that disallows you from understanding such simple concepts.

Simple concepts like "I'm talking total bullshit"? Yep, that's a defect everyone but you has.

Yes, I doubt that you can understand even that simple concept, much less the one about explicit atheism being a belief, which is only a little more complex.

Gee, Seth, you sure are a legend in your own mind. Ego's completely out of control.

But funny, if you can put yourself into the comedy. His posts remind me very much to Roderick Spode...



Contemplating the ridiculous you can get annoyed or laugh your ass off. I decide to LOL.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The folks who are in love with their own words are the best for lolz. Especially when that love is not returned.

[charlou]

Theists are frightened by people who don't share their delusions.

For very good and rational reasons: Radical Atheists wish to destroy their right to practice their delusions.

Are you referring to the atheists you named earlier ... Dennet, Dawkins, etc?

I've only ever read and heard them approach religion from a position of considered debate. I've never read or heard them express a wish to destroy the right of the religious to practice their faith. I have read and heard them express criticism of various aspects of religious practice, and concern about the imposition of religious beliefs onto society.

[charlou]

BTW, Seth, how can refusing beliefs, refusing rites, refusing groupthink, and refusing to establish structures, hierarchies, or any of the trappings and elements of a religion be regarded as religious?

What are the beliefs that lead one to engage in such activities? Are they held and practiced with devotion as a matter of ethics or conscience?

Svartalf is talking about refusing to engage ...

Do you think refusing to engage = engaging?

[charlou]

I keep saying it, you keep ignoring it, atheism can be, and most usually is, much more than a simple lack of belief. Must be a defect in your brain that disallows you from understanding such simple concepts.

"can be, and most usually is" ... Would you describe the exceptions as a simple lack of belief, then?

[Hermit]

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

That's only because you are mendaciously and truculently holding to the fallacious and evasive claim that most atheist have only a "lack of belief," they don't.

Therefore "lack of belief" equals "belief"? Love your logic. Next I expect you to explain how war is peace and freedom is slavery. Should be easy if you relate the concepts to evil communists, particularly the crypto-communist, Obama.

I keep saying it, you keep ignoring it, atheism can be, and most usually is, much more than a simple lack of belief. Must be a defect in your brain that disallows you from understanding such simple concepts.

It's a defect in your memory. You said: "A rejection of beliefs cannot be other than a belief" I refuse to believe in the existence of a god in the absence of evidence. I go so far as to say that I reject such a belief until evidence is forthcoming. That is what I call a 'lack of belief'. It is clearly the opposite of 'belief', but not according to you.

[Seth]

Theists are frightened by people who don't share their delusions.

For very good and rational reasons: Radical Atheists wish to destroy their right to practice their delusions.

Are you referring to the atheists you named earlier ... Dennet, Dawkins, etc?

Among others.

I've only ever read and heard them approach religion from a position of considered debate. I've never read or heard them express a wish to destroy the right of the religious to practice their faith. I have read and heard them express criticism of various aspects of religious practice, and concern about the imposition of religious beliefs onto society.

Try this on for size. It's the late Daniel Dennett expounding his nefarious plan to extirpate religion entirely:

Tufts University Free Thought Society,

My proposal, a 4th “R”

This would be compulsory. And my idea is that it would cover history, creed, rituals, music, symbols, ethical commands and prohibitions. That's it. Just raw, tested, non-controversial facts that everybody can agree to about the world's religions and that should be a curriculum that starts in grade school goes into middle school and high school. Now, I believe as strongly as anybody in the principle freedom of religion, so notice that this in no way violates freedom of religion. As long as you teach your children this curriculum you can teach them anything else you want. Anything else you want provided it doesn't disable them from further informing themselves. So it honors the principle of freedom of religion.

Now I’ve been discussing this proposal since I put it in my book, for a year and a half now and I’ve had the support actually of a lot of even right wing Christian leaders. They say “this is great, this is great, yeah, we’re all for it.” But Dinesh is on record as opposing it. Here’s what he has to say, “Daniel Dennett urges that the schools teach religion as a purely natural phenomenon.” And then he goes on to say, “By this he means that religion should be taught as if it were untrue.”

That’s not what it means and I’ve never said that. And this is simply a misrepresentation by Dinesh. I expanded on my point on the blog on faith, which some of you may have seen, and I though that it was such an obvious implication that I put it in parentheses. I said, “Notice that the truth or falsity of any religious doctrines would not be included in the curriculum since not a single point of religious doctrine is agreed upon as straightforward fact by the world community.”

So Dinesh has misrepresented my position. And maybe that’s why he is opposed to it. I don’t know, maybe now that he understands it better he’ll be in agreement with it. We’ll see.

Now, my reason for this is not the reason he suggests, he thinks I’m trying to wipe out religion. On the contrary, it's my recommendation for how to preserve the best in religion and get rid of just the stuff that we all want to get rid of, the toxic stuff.

And it’s a rather simple argument. All religions have toxic versions. That is there are anti-social fanatical elements in every major religion, in Hinduism and Islam and the various kinds of Christianity and so forth. And as near as I can see, this isn’t a careful claim, I haven’t done direct research on it but combing the literature it seems to me pretty clear. All toxic versions depend on the enforced ignorance of the young. It's only by keeping your young people ignorant of other religions that you can preserve this. So my, my sort of public health measures say just don't permit that enforced ignorance to go on. By informing the young we inoculate them against toxic forms of religion.

And my understanding of this is as follows. A religion that can survive under this sort of free information deserves to survive, it's a benign form of religion, let it flourish. And a religion that can't survive without the enforced ignorance of the young deserves to go extinct. But I don’t know, maybe Dines disagrees with that, we’ll see.

He quotes me. This is something Dinesh does in his book. He quotes in a context of disparagement but you’re never quite sure if he agrees with what he’s quoting or not. “Parents,” He’s quoting me now, “Parents don’t literally own their children the way slave owners once owned slaves, but are, rather, their stewards and guardians and ought to be held accountable by outsiders for their guardianship, which does imply that outsiders have a right to interfere.”

I stick by that, I think that’s true. And I want to know, does he dissent from this statement. He presents it as if he disagrees, I’d like to know, does he actually dissent from this statement.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oG605U19fE

(emphasis added)

You'll note that he's lying through his teeth when he claims he doesn't want to destroy organized religion. He does. He's just dissembling and obfuscating to conceal his true intentions, which is "inoculation" of youth against ALL forms of religion, which, he hopes, will lead to the extirpation of religion.

Of course, his plan is entirely unconstitutional and he knows it, so he's just talking out his ass to pander to his audience, who loved it. But his idea is not remotely connected to constitutional law, it's entirely a radical religious Atheist's plan to eliminate religion from society by indoctrinating our youth using Atheist propaganda, just like the Marxists like to do.

P.S. I personally transcribed every word from the YouTube video for just such an occasion as this.

[Hermit]

Oh, he is dissembling, is he? Sure, sure. He is dissembling like he's dead. "The late Daniel Dennett" indeed.

[Seth]

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

That's only because you are mendaciously and truculently holding to the fallacious and evasive claim that most atheist have only a "lack of belief," they don't.

Therefore "lack of belief" equals "belief"? Love your logic. Next I expect you to explain how war is peace and freedom is slavery. Should be easy if you relate the concepts to evil communists, particularly the crypto-communist, Obama.

I keep saying it, you keep ignoring it, atheism can be, and most usually is, much more than a simple lack of belief. Must be a defect in your brain that disallows you from understanding such simple concepts.

It's a defect in your memory. You said: "A rejection of beliefs cannot be other than a belief"

No memory defect, I stand by that statement and have proven it's logical and rational strength on several occasions in this thread, and on hundreds, if not thousands of occasions on other forums.

I refuse to believe in the existence of a god in the absence of evidence.

Right. You have examined the evidence, made a judgment about it's veracity and accuracy, found it wanting, and have confidence in the proposition that there is insufficient evidence upon which to justify a belief in God. That proposition, however, is not subject to immediate rigorous proofs, which makes it a belief.

I go so far as to say that I reject such a belief until evidence is forthcoming. That is what I call a 'lack of belief'. It is clearly the opposite of 'belief', but not according to you.

It's not a lack of belief, it's the very essence of a belief, it's a belief that evidence supporting the existence of god is absent.

Classical atheism, as a technical dictionary term, is commonly cited as a belief:

a·the·ism
 
 /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ [ey-thee-iz-uhm]
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2011.

World English Dictionary
atheism (ˈeɪθɪˌɪzəm)
— n
rejection of belief in God or gods

[C16: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos godless, from a- 1 + theos god]

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009

Cultural Dictionary
atheism [( ay -thee-iz-uhm)]

Denial that there is a God. ( Compare agnosticism.)
The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

A pure "lack of belief" implies that there was never any information or proposition presented to the mind that would be the basis for confidence in some proposition not subject to immediate rigorous proofs.

One cannot have a belief about something that one is utterly ignorant of, something one has never heard of, cannot understand and has no exposure whatsoever to any concept having to do with the subject.

You have a lack of belief in the existence of Grblfmz. You are an implicit a-Grblfmzist. You are utterly, completely ignorant about Grblfmz. You have no idea what it is, what it means, whether it's animal, vegetable or mineral, or if it has existence at all.

But if I say to you that Grblfmz is a blue unicorn who lives on the back side of Pluto and can speak directly to our brains through supernatural powers and guides our every thought and movement, you now have some knowledge of Grblfmz, and based on other prior knowledge, you have almost instantly accepted the information about Grblfmz, parsed the information, evaluated it, compared it against other information you have regarding the color blue, unicorns, the Solar System, telepathy, supernaturalism, divine will, predestination and individual liberty and many other things, and you have assigned a level of confidence to a proposition about the existence, nature and abilities of Grblfmz, none of which are subject to immediate rigorous proofs, which makes that thought pattern a belief. You couldn't help doing so, it was automatic. Your brain performed the functions without you directing it to and without you're even realizing it happened, and you most likely came to some conclusion (belief) such as Grblfmz is a crock of horseshit residing in Seth's fevered imagination. That's a belief, and potentially you can build a religion on that slender reed.

Welcome to being an explicit a-Grblfmzist. You can never, ever be an implicit a-Grblfmzist again. It's too late, you've been infected with the Grblfmz data and you'v'e thought about it, even for an instant, and formed a belief.

Since it's perfectly obvious that you have deep knowledge and understanding of theistic god claims, and you have not only rejected them as insufficiently scientifically robust, you cannot claim to have a mere "lack of belief" about theist god claims. You do have a belief, and that is that they are insufficiently supported and are therefore likely false, in the absence of further confirmatory evidence.

This is not, contrary to your continued protestations, a "lack of belief," It's a very firm set of well-formed beliefs about god claims that actively rejects them.

[Seth]

Oh, he is dissembling, is he? Sure, sure. He is dissembling like he's dead. "The late Daniel Dennett" indeed.

Oh golly, that was my bad, I was thinking of Hitchens and writing about Dennett.

I have such a hard time keeping track of all these radical religious Atheists, they all sound and look alike to me.

Sorry Mr. Dennett.

[Seth]

BTW, Seth, how can refusing beliefs, refusing rites, refusing groupthink, and refusing to establish structures, hierarchies, or any of the trappings and elements of a religion be regarded as religious?

What are the beliefs that lead one to engage in such activities? Are they held and practiced with devotion as a matter of ethics or conscience?

Svartalf is talking about refusing to engage ...

Do you think refusing to engage = engaging?

No, refusing to engage is an activity. I'm asking what beliefs lead to this activity and what place in the person's live do those beliefs and activities hold?

[Feck]

I believe we have run out of coffee that a religion as well now ?