'Splain this one Atheists...

[Hermit]

Anti-Semitism is inherently religious persecution.

If Hitler was inherently anti-religious, tens of millions of Aryan Christians would have finished up in the gas chambers alongside the Jews. The fact that they did not makes a mockery out of your claim that Hitler was inherently out to suppress religion. He did not destroy synagogues because he was out to repress religion. He destroyed them because he was out to wipe out the Jews as (what he thought a race of) Untermenschen. To him Untermenschen were not just Jews either. Hitler had no qualms about wiping out other ethnicities, ethnicities that did not believe in a Jewish God. He wanted to get rid of all, Roma and Slavs. Little known fact: While we are well aware of the six million civilian Jews he killed, people are not aware that he equally systematically killed eleven million civilian Roma and Slavs, and they were predominantly Christians.

[cronus]

Then there's the Jehovah's Witnesses. They don't vote so you could say it's a partially self-inflicted wound, though.

[Seth]

Anti-semitism is not persecuting religion in general, which should be the hallmark of atheist persecution.

Why "should" it be so?

Persecution of one specific religion is typical of hatred deriving from a competing religion.

Exactly. Like the competing religion of Atheism.

[JimC]

Anti-semitism is not persecuting religion in general, which should be the hallmark of atheist persecution.

Why "should" it be so?

Sheer logic. Atheism doesn't discriminate; to an atheist, all religions are equally delusional. If your contention that atheism motivates atheist dictators to acts of violence is correct, then all religions should be targets. Hitler's persecution of the Jews alone amongst religious groups shows that the motivation was not atheistic, as does Hermit's point about the Nazi atrocities against other ethnic groups without regard to religion or lack of it.

[Seth]

Anti-semitism is not persecuting religion in general, which should be the hallmark of atheist persecution.

Why "should" it be so?

Sheer logic. Atheism doesn't discriminate;

Who gave you that silly idea?

to an atheist, all religions are equally delusional.

Except for the ones they don't think are delusional, like Atheism and Science, among others...like Socialism.

If your contention that atheism motivates atheist dictators to acts of violence is correct, then all religions should be targets.

Who ever said that Atheist despots are not likely to oppress some religions more than others for purely political reasons?

Hitler's persecution of the Jews alone amongst religious groups shows that the motivation was not atheistic, as does Hermit's point about the Nazi atrocities against other ethnic groups without regard to religion or lack of it.

Well, except for those Catholics, and Roma and gays and bunches of other people, groups and religions that he had no problem fucking with.

That he may have paid lip-service to some religions as a political expedient to gain the trust and obedience of the members of his society he needed to obey him doesn't mean atheism wasn't a prime motivator for his actions. It was. He just wasn't stupid enough to try to take on every single religion at the same time. Had he prevailed, he'd have moved on to other religions in due time, just as Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot did.

[surreptitious57]

to an atheist all religions are equally delusional

Except for the ones they dont think are delusional like Atheism and Science

I know you do not think this is true but atheism is not a religion for we do not worship an imaginary being commonly referred to as God
And you appear to be confusing scientism and science. One is the belief that science is the perfect discipline for answering any question
pertaining to observable physical phenomena. The other is not as absolute in scope for it simply defines science as an inductive discipline
which uses evidence to determine the validity of a hypothesis by subjecting it to potential falsification. So it does not suggest this method
can answer all questions pertaining to physical phenomena nor does it suggest it cannot. It simply has nothing to say on it. I do not subscribe
to scientism as a philosophy but I do subscribe to science. And so from my perspective you are wrong on both counts here since I treat neither
atheism or science as a religion. And you will be hard pressed to find anyone here who actually does. For none of us worship atheism or science

[Ian]

Well said.

[Seth]

to an atheist all religions are equally delusional

Except for the ones they dont think are delusional like Atheism and Science

I know you do not think this is true but atheism is not a religion for we do not worship an imaginary being commonly referred to as God

You make the extremely common error of confusing theism and religion. Atheism can be, and in most cases I've seen, is absolutely a religion, albeit an "atheistic" one like Jainism.

And you appear to be confusing scientism and science. One is the belief that science is the perfect discipline for answering any question
pertaining to observable physical phenomena. The other is not as absolute in scope for it simply defines science as an inductive discipline
which uses evidence to determine the validity of a hypothesis by subjecting it to potential falsification. So it does not suggest this method
can answer all questions pertaining to physical phenomena nor does it suggest it cannot. It simply has nothing to say on it. I do not subscribe
to scientism as a philosophy but I do subscribe to science. And so from my perspective you are wrong on both counts here since I treat neither
atheism or science as a religion. And you will be hard pressed to find anyone here who actually does. For none of us worship atheism or science

Oh yes, you most certainly do:

religion
[ri-lij-uh n]

noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Science is nothing more or less than a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. While "superhuman agency or agencies" are not included, ritual observances can be, and as the AGW moral code proves, it can also include a "moral code" governing the conduct of human affairs. Atheism obviously has a set of such beliefs largely aligning with the religion of science as to the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, and Atheists have a very firm view of proper Atheist moral behavior which includes the extirpation of theistic thought and worship through force of law and social behavior modification.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:

Science is chock-full of sects, each of which has a very, very specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by the members of the sects. Atheism, the religion, also has a set of fundamental beliefs, the primary one of which is that God does not exist, and a well-known set of practices of that belief, including discussing the non-existence of God on various fora, agitating for political suppression of theistic religion, and disparagement of theists.

3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:

Obviously the body of scientists comprises the religion of science and the body of Atheists comprises the religion of Atheism.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:t o enter religion.

Richard Dawkins is a prime example of a person who has entered the religion of Atheism, as are a good many members here, along with many other notable Atheists.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

Perhaps the most ritualistic observance of the religion of Atheism is the mindless antipathy that Atheists display towards other people who have different beliefs. It's positively pathological in many cases.

6.something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

And this is the most important definition of "religion" that makes both science and particularly Atheism fit squarely within the realm of religion, without any doubt whatsoever.

You are a member of and a believer in the religions of Atheism and science both, and here's the proof.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

Oh yes, you most certainly do:

Don't tell us what we fucking do or don't do.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

Oh yes, you most certainly do:

Don't tell us what we fucking do or don't do.

I'll tell you what I observe, whether you like it or not. If it looks like a religion, and it waddles like a religion, and it quacks like a religion, it's a religion, and both Atheism and Science meet not just one, but ALL of the requisite definitions of religion, as cited.

So yes, you belong to a religion...or two.

Why does that disturb you so much? Are you biased against religion or something?

[JimC]

If you say you don't fuck buffalos, we'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and take your word for it.

Have the courtesy to do the same.

[surreptitious57]

Science is nothing more or less than a set of beliefs

This statement is categorically wrong as science is nothing of the sort. Since what it is is an inductive discipline which investigates
observable phenomena and its properties through rigorous application of the scientific method. Now evidence is what determines
the validity of any hypothesis which has been subject to potential falsification. And without it science could not function. Belief
on the other hand is an article of faith which requires no evidence at all. And belief also pertains to philosophy and particularly
to ontology which is beyond the remit of science. So science and belief are therefore completely independent from each other

[Seth]

If you say you don't fuck buffalos, we'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and take your word for it.

Have the courtesy to do the same.

If you have evidence of the claim, feel free to post it.

[Seth]

Science is nothing more or less than a set of beliefs

This statement is categorically wrong as science is nothing of the sort.Since what it is is an inductive discipline which investigates
observable phenomena and its properties through rigorous application of the scientific method. Now evidence is what determines
the validity of any hypothesis which has been subject to potential falsification. And without it science could not function.

Fair enough, that is true of "science" itself. However, belief in "science" is quite widespread and religious in nature due to the nature of knowledge and belief.

Belief on the other hand is an article of faith which requires no evidence at all.

To begin with, this is simply not true.

belief
[bih-leef]
noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

And belief also pertains to philosophy and particularly to ontology which is beyond the remit of science.

Not quite. While some beliefs may be philosophical or ontological, other beliefs are simply the product of lack of understanding or knowledge and may involve even matters of hard science.

So science and belief are therefore completely independent from each other

That depends on what you mean by "science" I suppose. There is "science," which is the process of observing the physics of the universe, and then there is "science" as an object of cult worship that involves the invocation of beliefs that amount to religious practice.

AGW is a perfect example of what are purported to be "scientific" observations that are actually religious cult dogma and belief. Just because you call it "science" doesn't mean it is. That much should be obvious even to a "scientist."

What "science" is supposed to be, ideally, and what "science" actually is are often, and it seems more and more frequently, two entirely different things.

No person who does not have direct knowledge and understanding of any scientific "fact" or principle and who cannot subject those claims to immediate rigorous proofs is expressing nothing more than a belief in science, as shown by the above definition #2, "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof." In other words, the non-scientific individual is placing trust (i.e. confidence) in the truth of the scientific claim being made by those who purport to have true knowledge. That's the definition of a "belief."

When one holds scientific belief as "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience," then one is investing religious belief in "science" and one is practicing religion.

[JimC]

If you say you don't fuck buffalos, we'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and take your word for it.

Have the courtesy to do the same.

If you have evidence of the claim, feel free to post it.

You have no evidence that the atheist posters on this forum "worship atheism"