Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no

Religions > Atheism > Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 3 of 6

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Paul Robinson"
Date:	13 May 2005 07:32:57 AM
Object:	Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no

First, before some dismiss me, I wish to point out I am attempting a
legitimate inquiry and am not trying to troll just to raise dissention.
I'm sure it will anyway but I am looking at examining the issue
seriously. It will not be settled in this forum but I do want to hear
the responses either way.
I have been having a discussion on another newsgroup which doesn't
really deal with atheism per se as much as it deals with other issues
and as such I feel I probably should start the discussion here because
I'd seriously like to get some feedback on what I see as an issue with
a lot of people who seem to find examining their religion of atheism to
be as distateful to them as those who examine the flaws of those who
believe in God.
For some reason, a number of people seem to be of the opinion that
atheism is not a religion. To me it is clear and obvious that it
qualifies. I think it fits all of the relevant criteria which define
what represents a religion.
If this is the case, then as such the belief in atheism should be
treated the same way, and is entitled to be granted the same level of
respect (which conceivably can be zero if their belief system contains
zero validity) as we would grant to anyone who chose some other
religion, even if some people disagree with it, whether it be a belief
in God (or Allah (peace be on his name), Jehovah or whatever name you
give him (if they believe God is a man) or her (ditto, in reverse), in
the Cargo Cult gods, in the Norse Gods, in the Mythological Gods
(Wotan, Thor, Frigg etc.)) or whatever they believe in, if they believe
in a supernatural entity with power beyond oneself and quite likely
beyond others.
To be simple, I refer to the idea of a deity with some control and
powers over this world, either as a single entity, a single entity
split in multiple parts, a committee, or groups, as the "Master of the
Universe" or more formally as "Master and Commander of the Universe."
I think every religion one claims to believe in is subject to
validation and analysis. The thing I find most hilarious is the number
of people who, in carrying a belief in God, when you point out the
errors they have made, can't see them, or refuse to acknowledge them
(because they'd have to admit maybe what they believe in is wrong or
unsustainable).
So I'd like to hear comments from people as to their position on the
issue, I'm making the claim that atheism is just as much a religious
faith as any other belief. I am not claiming it to be wrong, or
inaccurate, or necessarily right, just that it simply is another
religion.
Full Disclosure: before I became an agnostic I was a Christian. I
realized when I discovered the contradictions in that religion I could
no longer remain one. Now, if you take the Bible as having any
validity, by their rules I can never stop being one (it's like joining
a credit union, once you're a member you're always a member). So
personally I have, to the best of my knowledge and "belief" no biases
either in favor of, or opposed to, a belief in God or a belief in No
God. It also means I'm free to point out errors I see in either belief
because I no longer have preconceived notions favorable or hostile to
either side.
Now, there are some that may argue that being an agnostic is a weak
position as opposed to being an atheist. I disagree. I believe it is
much harder to be an agnostic than an atheist (which is harder than the
really easy case of believing in the Master and Commander of the
Universe, by whatever someone believes that entity to be), and I think
the issue deserves a separate article I'll explain in greater detail
there so as not to go off topic here.
I can, if people want, explain my reasoning in greater detail in
subsequent responses but I'd rather try to shorten this initial message
than lengthen it.
So I will repose the question placed in the header of this message.
Is it reasonable to consider atheism as a religion? Yes or no? If you
wish to offer claims as to why, please feel free to do so. I have my
own opinions about why, and if someone disagrees with me I'd like to
hear some suggestions why. Perhaps I can change your mind. Perhaps
you can get me to change mine. In any case, I think everyone who
participates will learn something, and maybe some of us will discover
something they didn't think about before.
Thank you for your attention
Paul Robinson
"A computer programmer and Notary Public
in and for the Commonwealth of Virginia, at large"
Paul Robinson "Above all else... We shall go on..."
"_...And continue!"
"If the lessons of history teach us anything, they teach us
that nobody ever learns the lessons that history teaches us."
.

User: "Niels van der Linden"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	13 May 2005 05:39:26 PM

Yeah. Sure. Why not, if it floats your boat.

Why not make up our own deity, and let it fight all the others.
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	13 May 2005 08:56:41 AM

In our last episode
<1115987577.484902.153830@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Paul Robinson
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:

Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no

No.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Group website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.

User: "Sorhed"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	13 May 2005 08:00:16 AM

In the great debate about "Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or
no" in alt.atheism, "Paul Robinson" <paul@paul-robinson.us>
catapaulted the following boulder:

First, before some dismiss me, I wish to point out I am attempting a
legitimate inquiry and am not trying to troll just to raise dissention.
I'm sure it will anyway but I am looking at examining the issue
seriously. It will not be settled in this forum but I do want to hear
the responses either way.

I have been having a discussion on another newsgroup which doesn't
really deal with atheism per se as much as it deals with other issues
and as such I feel I probably should start the discussion here because
I'd seriously like to get some feedback on what I see as an issue with
a lot of people who seem to find examining their religion of atheism to
be as distateful to them as those who examine the flaws of those who
believe in God.

For some reason, a number of people seem to be of the opinion that
atheism is not a religion. To me it is clear and obvious that it
qualifies. I think it fits all of the relevant criteria which define
what represents a religion.

If this is the case, then as such the belief in atheism should be
treated the same way, and is entitled to be granted the same level of
respect (which conceivably can be zero if their belief system contains
zero validity) as we would grant to anyone who chose some other
religion, even if some people disagree with it, whether it be a belief
in God (or Allah (peace be on his name), Jehovah or whatever name you
give him (if they believe God is a man) or her (ditto, in reverse), in
the Cargo Cult gods, in the Norse Gods, in the Mythological Gods
(Wotan, Thor, Frigg etc.)) or whatever they believe in, if they believe
in a supernatural entity with power beyond oneself and quite likely
beyond others.

To be simple, I refer to the idea of a deity with some control and
powers over this world, either as a single entity, a single entity
split in multiple parts, a committee, or groups, as the "Master of the
Universe" or more formally as "Master and Commander of the Universe."

I think every religion one claims to believe in is subject to
validation and analysis. The thing I find most hilarious is the number
of people who, in carrying a belief in God, when you point out the
errors they have made, can't see them, or refuse to acknowledge them
(because they'd have to admit maybe what they believe in is wrong or
unsustainable).

So I'd like to hear comments from people as to their position on the
issue, I'm making the claim that atheism is just as much a religious
faith as any other belief. I am not claiming it to be wrong, or
inaccurate, or necessarily right, just that it simply is another
religion.

Full Disclosure: before I became an agnostic I was a Christian. I
realized when I discovered the contradictions in that religion I could
no longer remain one. Now, if you take the Bible as having any
validity, by their rules I can never stop being one (it's like joining
a credit union, once you're a member you're always a member). So
personally I have, to the best of my knowledge and "belief" no biases
either in favor of, or opposed to, a belief in God or a belief in No
God. It also means I'm free to point out errors I see in either belief
because I no longer have preconceived notions favorable or hostile to
either side.

Now, there are some that may argue that being an agnostic is a weak
position as opposed to being an atheist. I disagree. I believe it is
much harder to be an agnostic than an atheist (which is harder than the
really easy case of believing in the Master and Commander of the
Universe, by whatever someone believes that entity to be), and I think
the issue deserves a separate article I'll explain in greater detail
there so as not to go off topic here.

I can, if people want, explain my reasoning in greater detail in
subsequent responses but I'd rather try to shorten this initial message
than lengthen it.

So I will repose the question placed in the header of this message.

Is it reasonable to consider atheism as a religion? Yes or no? If you
wish to offer claims as to why, please feel free to do so. I have my
own opinions about why, and if someone disagrees with me I'd like to
hear some suggestions why. Perhaps I can change your mind. Perhaps
you can get me to change mine. In any case, I think everyone who
participates will learn something, and maybe some of us will discover
something they didn't think about before.

Thank you for your attention
Paul Robinson
"A computer programmer and Notary Public
in and for the Commonwealth of Virginia, at large"

Paul Robinson "Above all else... We shall go on..."
"_...And continue!"
"If the lessons of history teach us anything, they teach us
that nobody ever learns the lessons that history teaches us."

Atheism is the absence of belief in the possibility of a God or gods.
Gods are supernatural beings who transcend the laws of nature. The
very idea that they might exist is an oxymoron, that's logic, not
faith.
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N. aa #2208
.

User: "Paul Robinson"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	20 May 2005 03:02:33 PM

Atheism is the absence of belief in the possibility of a God or
gods. Gods are supernatural beings who transcend the laws of
nature. The very idea that they might exist is an oxymoron,
that's logic, not faith.

Thank you. This is a reasonable response.
Now, is it possible for someone to have a belief in "God" that is a
non-supernatural being? Some entity beyond this universe who *is*
subject to the laws of nature? And who does not or cannot interfere in
how the world works?
I'm not arguing either way, I just want to raise the issue to show
something.
I think it is possible to carry such a belief. And it would be just
another religious opinion, same as the one in which someone believes in
a God who does have supernatural powers.
Now, I also wish to ask: would such a person who believed that still
"qualify" as an atheist or does the term atheist exclude belief in any
existence beyond what is present here on earth?
Now, what is the argument to rule out a non-supernatural God? Please
note I am not claiming that one does exist, I am simply asking, "what
is the logical argument to exclude it?"
.

User: "Rally_Round"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	20 May 2005 03:21:41 PM

"Paul Robinson" <paul@paul-robinson.us> wrote in message
news:1116619353.377042.95270@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Atheism is the absence of belief in the possibility of a God or
gods. Gods are supernatural beings who transcend the laws of
nature. The very idea that they might exist is an oxymoron,
that's logic, not faith.

Thank you. This is a reasonable response.

Now, is it possible for someone to have a belief in "God" that is a
non-supernatural being? Some entity beyond this universe who *is*
subject to the laws of nature? And who does not or cannot interfere
in
how the world works?

I'm not arguing either way, I just want to raise the issue to show
something.

I think it is possible to carry such a belief. And it would be just
another religious opinion, same as the one in which someone believes
in
a God who does have supernatural powers.

Now, I also wish to ask: would such a person who believed that still
"qualify" as an atheist or does the term atheist exclude belief in any
existence beyond what is present here on earth?

Now, what is the argument to rule out a non-supernatural God? Please
note I am not claiming that one does exist, I am simply asking, "what
is the logical argument to exclude it?"

Here are some definitions of god:
1.. God
2.. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient
originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and
worship in monotheistic religions.
3.. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
4.. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and
worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some
part of nature or reality.
5.. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
6.. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their
god.
7.. A very handsome man.
8.. A powerful ruler or despot
Now, up to number six, the definitions exclude your non-supernatural
god, and, might I add, it is the traditional understanding of what we
mean when we speak of a god or gods - a supernatural being.
So, until we call a bicycle a chair, then the word or idea of "god" is
not a regular Joe.
As far as the question of whether atheism is a religion, I offer the
following URL:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v29/CyberJim/shitagain.jpg
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.

User: "John Baker"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	21 May 2005 10:05:55 AM

On 20 May 2005 13:02:33 -0700, "Paul Robinson" <paul@paul-robinson.us>
wrote:

Atheism is the absence of belief in the possibility of a God or
gods. Gods are supernatural beings who transcend the laws of
nature. The very idea that they might exist is an oxymoron,
that's logic, not faith.

I suppose it's possible for someone to have a belief in such a being.
But why call it a god, since it's essentially powerless?

I'm not arguing either way, I just want to raise the issue to show
something.

I think it is possible to carry such a belief. And it would be just
another religious opinion, same as the one in which someone believes in
a God who does have supernatural powers.

Now, I also wish to ask: would such a person who believed that still
"qualify" as an atheist or does the term atheist exclude belief in any
existence beyond what is present here on earth?

Now, what is the argument to rule out a non-supernatural God? Please
note I am not claiming that one does exist, I am simply asking, "what
is the logical argument to exclude it?"

User: "Mushinronsha"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	21 May 2005 06:53:27 PM

Paul Robinson wrote:

Atheism is the absence of belief in the possibility of a God or
gods. Gods are supernatural beings who transcend the laws of
nature. The very idea that they might exist is an oxymoron,
that's logic, not faith.

Are you referring to someone like Superman? I'm not sure if the planet Krypton
is beyond this universe, but it is surely beyond our star system. Superman
can't interfere in the way our world works, even though his super powers are far
beyond what any human can achieve. Do you think if someone like Superman (a
visitor from another planet) showed up, it would invalidate atheism?
Mushy

I think it is possible to carry such a belief. And it would be just
another religious opinion, same as the one in which someone believes in
a God who does have supernatural powers.

Now, I also wish to ask: would such a person who believed that still
"qualify" as an atheist or does the term atheist exclude belief in any
existence beyond what is present here on earth?

Now, what is the argument to rule out a non-supernatural God? Please
note I am not claiming that one does exist, I am simply asking, "what
is the logical argument to exclude it?"

User: "The Great Hairy One"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	23 May 2005 04:24:15 AM

In article <dbKdneVOe9eAVxLfRVn-tA@comcast.com>,
mushinronsha_no_spam@bigmailbox.com says...
Hey Mushy!
How you doing, dude? How's things going?
Cheers,
TGHO
--
The Great Hairy One,
BAAWA all night long
SMASHing it to the masses
====================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
Roleplay. Just do it.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	13 May 2005 08:08:00 AM

Sorhed wrote:

Atheism is the absence of belief in the possibility of a God or gods.

Is it necessarily even that much? I think your sentence,
minus "the possibility of a" is sufficient.
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.

User: "Don Kresch"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	13 May 2005 09:57:06 AM

No.
.

User: "Mark Richardson"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	14 May 2005 12:06:47 AM

On 13 May 2005 05:32:57 -0700, "Paul Robinson" <paul@paul-robinson.us>
wrote:

So you have already decided that "it will not be decided in this
forum". You know ahead of time our answer is going to be "no" and yet
you ask anyway.
Its good to have these things dealt with in such an up-front manner.

I have been having a discussion on another newsgroup which doesn't
really deal with atheism per se as much as it deals with other issues
and as such I feel I probably should start the discussion here because
I'd seriously like to get some feedback on what I see as an issue with
a lot of people who seem to find examining their religion of atheism to
be as distateful to them as those who examine the flaws of those who
believe in God.

For some reason, a number of people seem to be of the opinion that
atheism is not a religion. To me it is clear and obvious that it
qualifies. I think it fits all of the relevant criteria which define
what represents a religion.

To me it is clear and obvious that atheism is not a religion - it
doesnt meet more than one of the relavent criteria to qualify.
Most religions meet 5, 6 or 8 of the usual criteria.

So I'd like to hear comments from people as to their position on the
issue, I'm making the claim that atheism is just as much a religious
faith as any other belief. I am not claiming it to be wrong, or
inaccurate, or necessarily right, just that it simply is another
religion.

You may claim to be the Emperor Napolion or to be able to swallow cows
whole.
To be able to back claims up with reasoned argument is rather more
difficult than just claiming stuff.

Is it reasonable to consider atheism as a religion? Yes or no?

No.
A religion is a system of beliefs and practices (eg worship, prayer,
ritual) - that defines a worldview - that gives set of beliefs and
pratices that *define* a believers relationship to the divine.
Atheism is at *most* a single belief - gods (including God and Isis
and Thor) dont exist.
One belief does not a religion make.
Mark.
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	16 May 2005 03:23:39 PM

On 13 May 2005 05:32:57 -0700, "Paul Robinson" <paul@paul-robinson.us>
wrote:

(sigh) Ignoramouses like you are dismissed as they should be. It's
the same drooling idiocy day in and day out.
Atheism is merely the lack of the theist 'facet.' Deal with it, or
not-it's your personal problem.
[snip the rest of the drooling idiocy]
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.

User: "Kate "
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	13 May 2005 09:20:02 AM

On 13 May 2005 05:32:57 -0700, "Paul Robinson" <paul@paul-robinson.us>
wrote:

If you are going to insist that people define atheism as a religion
then of course people are going to stop you. You are starting off
with an assumption and like the theists want people to let that
assumption stand before going on to the next conclusion.

For some reason, a number of people seem to be of the opinion that
atheism is not a religion. To me it is clear and obvious that it
qualifies. I think it fits all of the relevant criteria which define
what represents a religion.

Which you think is what? You never defined religion. You have to have
an agreement on that point before you can go on to the next one.

If this is the case, then as such the belief in atheism should be
treated the same way, and is entitled to be granted the same level of
respect (which conceivably can be zero if their belief system contains
zero validity) as we would grant to anyone who chose some other
religion, even if some people disagree with it, whether it be a belief
in God (or Allah (peace be on his name), Jehovah or whatever name you
give him (if they believe God is a man) or her (ditto, in reverse), in
the Cargo Cult gods, in the Norse Gods, in the Mythological Gods
(Wotan, Thor, Frigg etc.)) or whatever they believe in, if they believe
in a supernatural entity with power beyond oneself and quite likely
beyond others.

Atheism is an opinion about gods, so in many respects - legal ones,
yes it deserves the same legal support as an opinion that god or gods
exist. Agnostism which is also an opinion, also deserves the same
respect.

To be simple, I refer to the idea of a deity with some control and
powers over this world, either as a single entity, a single entity
split in multiple parts, a committee, or groups, as the "Master of the
Universe" or more formally as "Master and Commander of the Universe."

I think every religion one claims to believe in is subject to
validation and analysis. The thing I find most hilarious is the number
of people who, in carrying a belief in God, when you point out the
errors they have made, can't see them, or refuse to acknowledge them
(because they'd have to admit maybe what they believe in is wrong or
unsustainable).

So I'd like to hear comments from people as to their position on the
issue, I'm making the claim that atheism is just as much a religious
faith as any other belief. I am not claiming it to be wrong, or
inaccurate, or necessarily right, just that it simply is another
religion.

Full Disclosure: before I became an agnostic I was a Christian. I
realized when I discovered the contradictions in that religion I could
no longer remain one. Now, if you take the Bible as having any
validity, by their rules I can never stop being one (it's like joining
a credit union, once you're a member you're always a member). So
personally I have, to the best of my knowledge and "belief" no biases
either in favor of, or opposed to, a belief in God or a belief in No
God. It also means I'm free to point out errors I see in either belief
because I no longer have preconceived notions favorable or hostile to
either side.

Agnostism requires a lack of belief in god/s. Agnostism by definition
is a subset of atheism or as you later noted, is often referred to as
soft atheism. Hard atheists say that the total lack of evidence of
god/s is evidence in itself. A claim that I find far more credible
than that of theists.

Now, there are some that may argue that being an agnostic is a weak
position as opposed to being an atheist. I disagree. I believe it is
much harder to be an agnostic than an atheist (which is harder than the
really easy case of believing in the Master and Commander of the
Universe, by whatever someone believes that entity to be), and I think
the issue deserves a separate article I'll explain in greater detail
there so as not to go off topic here.

I'm an agnostic too. Agnostism is really about the morality of belief
without proof. Atheism is about belief. They are not really talking
about the same thing.

I can, if people want, explain my reasoning in greater detail in
subsequent responses but I'd rather try to shorten this initial message
than lengthen it.

So I will repose the question placed in the header of this message.

Is it reasonable to consider atheism as a religion? Yes or no? If you
wish to offer claims as to why, please feel free to do so. I have my
own opinions about why, and if someone disagrees with me I'd like to
hear some suggestions why. Perhaps I can change your mind. Perhaps
you can get me to change mine. In any case, I think everyone who
participates will learn something, and maybe some of us will discover
something they didn't think about before.

It's reasonable to classify atheism as a religion when what you are
really talking about is an opinion about god/s. Many people don't
quite get that.

Thank you for your attention
Paul Robinson
"A computer programmer and Notary Public
in and for the Commonwealth of Virginia, at large"

Paul Robinson "Above all else... We shall go on..."
"_...And continue!"
"If the lessons of history teach us anything, they teach us
that nobody ever learns the lessons that history teaches us."

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	13 May 2005 08:05:38 AM

On 13 May 2005 05:32:57 -0700, "Paul Robinson" <paul@paul-robinson.us>
wrote:

You're trolling. Why deny it?

What "religion of atheism", deliberately nasty, button-pushing,
trolling liar?

For some reason, a number of people seem to be of the opinion that
atheism is not a religion.

Because it isn't, moron.

To me it is clear and obvious that it
qualifies.

Then you're an idiot.

I think it fits all of the relevant criteria which define
what represents a religion.

Then you think wrong.
Why is it so hard for you in-your-face idiots to grasp that all an
atheist is, is somebody who isn't theist.
You idiots invent positions we don't have, based on presumptions that
only apply inside your religion.
I have no idea why you do it, other than the fact that it is both
stupid and extremely rude.
It's a simple demographic label, not the -ism you liars pretend.
Atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby.
That's hardly rocket science, but then you're no rocket scientist.
I'm sure glad I've got two assholes: one to ***** from and another to
tell me what I do or don't believe.
.

User: "Paul Robinson"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	20 May 2005 02:51:39 PM

You're trolling. Why deny it?

I am trying to understand the issue. The issue has been argued about
for thousands of years and will not be settled here. I do not expect a
settlement of the issue. But I want to hear reasonable comments. A
particular practice you seem to be incapable of making.

be as distateful to them as those who examine the flaws of those who
believe in God.

What "religion of atheism", deliberately nasty, button-pushing,
trolling liar?

If you disagree with my points, that's one thing and it should be
trivial to say so. Since you are apparently reduced to ad-hominem
insults and name-calling, it indicates you have lost the ability to
make any reasonable argument to support your position.

For some reason, a number of people seem to be of the opinion that
atheism is not a religion.

Because it isn't, moron.

Apparently I have struck a nerve, since apparently my questioning of
your religion reduces you to insults. You, unlike some of the other
people here, are incapable of providing any evidence or even logic to
support your opinion, which apparently means that you are incapable of
providing any.
If what I am saying is wrong, all that is necessary is to say, "This
point is wrong because," and give a logical explanation. That's all.
You, on the other hand, are apparently incapable of saying so. This
seems to confirm my hypothesis, because if atheism is not a religion,
why are (some of) those who believe in it so touchy about questions
about their belief instead of being able to logically dismiss the
(presumably inaccurate) claim that it is a religion?

To me it is clear and obvious that it qualifies.

Then you're an idiot.

Your tone and commentary have the flavor and vituperitiveness of
someone who is afraid to admit he supports a religious opinion because
he does not want to face the consequences.
You're sounding just as angry and sensitive as those whose beliefs in
God are challenged.

I think it fits all of the relevant criteria which define what
represents a religion.

Then you think wrong.

Now, you have a legitimate response.

Why is it so hard for you in-your-face idiots to grasp that all an
atheist is, is somebody who isn't theist.

Why is it that you seem to be unable to face questions about your
religion other than through hostility and viciousness? If what you
believe in is not a religion, why do you find questions about it so
troubling that your only capacity is to resort to namecalling and
insults?
Perhaps it's because you are incapable of making a reasonable argument
in a logical manner. Otherwise, why are you getting so upset unles it
is a religious opinion? Perhaps because you fear to admit it, or
because you cannot allow yourself to admit it, your only response is to
insult the person who reasonably asks a question.

You idiots invent positions we don't have, based on presumptions
that only apply inside your religion.

Well, I don't know what your religious opinions are other than that you
don't like people questioning the atheist religion, since you
apparently are unable to offer an explanation of anything that is a
response to the question, and your only capacity for response is an
insult. This is almost always the hallmark of someone who lacks a
rational support for their position.

I have no idea why you do it, other than the fact that it is both

stupid and

extremely rude.

I have proposed a theory. I proposed it in a reasonable and logical
argument, such that, if there are flaws in my argument, it should be
trivial to point out what the flaws are. I also pointed out that,
(correctly) that because this is an issue that has gone on and been
discussed by millions of people over hundreds of years, nothing here
will settle the issue.
Your response, instead of a calm and rational dissection of error
points in my argument and premises - if you had any - was to invoke
insult and ad-hominem argument. This is usually the practice of those
who believe in God who get upset when people point out the flaws in
their arguments.
If this is the entire capacity of your ability to explain the argument,
no wonder too many people consider those who believe in the atheist
religion to be something strange.

It's a simple demographic label, not the -ism you liars pretend.

To use the term "liar" implies there is an issue of truth involved. If
atheism is a belief that there is no God, it is simply a belief in the
lack of a concept, or the non-belief in a concept. This makes it an
opinion, no more and no less.
Issues of truth do not arise in the matter of an opinion. If someone
believes in the existence of UFOs and extraterrestrials, and someone
else does not, neither opinion is true or false, they simply are
opinions. Especially when they are not validatable. Thus the issue of
truth or falsity does not enter into the issue.
If someone says that UFOs exist, or they say they don't, the issue
isn't validatable and thus remains an opinion. If someone says it's
raining outside, the issue is validatable and thus becomes a fact,
which *is* either true or false.

Atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Now, that's a reasonable argument. It's incorrect, but it's a
reasonable argument. The belief that there is no "God" - or the belief
that there is - is an opinion regarding a metaphysical concept, which
cannot be proven either way.
An opinion regarding a metaphysical concept is a religious opinion.

That's hardly rocket science, but then you're no rocket scientist.

At least I'm willing to admit I don't have the answers and have to
remain on the fence because I can't accept either side's arguments.
You have chosen the answer you believe in, and when I call you on the
point that you believe in something, rather than try to show that you
are not carrying a belief, you insult me for making the point.
"But the emperor has no clothes!"
And they didn't like his comment much, either.

I'm sure glad I've got two assholes: one to ***** from and
another to tell me what I do or don't believe.

I simply asked the question and explained, to a degree, why I
understand it to be the case. You, apparently are unable to refute the
question and since you are unable to do so, your only resource left is
to deflect the issue and throw insults in the hope no one will notice
the emptiness of your response.
I pity your weakness and your unfortunate intellectual incapacity.
Having to live with such seething hatred of truth must really burn you
inside. This may explain why you have such problems in making a
rational response.
.

User: "Robibnikoff"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	20 May 2005 03:01:55 PM

"Paul Robinson" <paul@paul-robinson.us> wrote in message
news:1116618699.211585.54770@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

You're trolling. Why deny it?

Holy crap, you actually responded.
And in answer to the subject at hand, no.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	20 May 2005 04:41:24 PM

On 20 May 2005 12:51:39 -0700, "Paul Robinson" <paul@paul-robinson.us>
wrote:

You're trolling. Why deny it?

There isn't an issue - outside the imagination of theists. Let alone
one that has "been argued about for thousands of years".
The problem is that sociopathic theists won't let us have the position
we actually do, because they can't think outside the box that is their
religion.
You heard reasonable comments, but you got them in the vein you should
have expected them by your pretence that atheism is a religion.
And why do you you lie about me? Is it because liketoo many other
theists you imagine you can lie about atheists and their atheism, and
expect us to put up with that *****?

be as distateful to them as those who examine the flaws of those who
believe in God.

What "religion of atheism", deliberately nasty, button-pushing,
trolling liar?

I only called you a liar for calling atheism my religion. If you
don't like it, the solution is easy: stop lying.
Which word are you pretending not to understand?
Is your not believing in Santa Claus a religion? If not then why
pretend thet not believing in WHAT YOU ALREADY KNOW IS MUCH THE SAME
TO US is a religion?
We don't derive a worldview around the irrelevent belief objects of
somebody else's religion.
AND WE WOULDN'T GIVE A FLYING ***** WHAT THEISTS BELIEVED IF THEY KEPT
IT TO THEMSELVES AND COULD ONLY LIVE AND LET LIVE.
And again, why lie about me, to me?
All this does is confirm you are trolling.

For some reason, a number of people seem to be of the opinion that
atheism is not a religion.

Because it isn't, moron.

Apparently I have struck a nerve, since apparently my questioning of
your religion reduces you to insults. You, unlike some of the other

What "religion", liar?
How is calling a liar a liar for lying, "reducing me to insults",
liar? Hint: IF YOU HADN'T TALKED ABOUT "YOUR RELIGION" YOU WOULDN'T
HAVE BEEN TREATED LIKE A BUTTON-PUSHING LIAR. Was that clear enough
even for you?
But thank you for confirming you are trolling, and that your pretence
that you weren't was a transparent lie.

people here, are incapable of providing any evidence or even logic to
support your opinion, which apparently means that you are incapable of
providing any.

Why do you lie, trolling liar?
What do you pretend is so difficult to understand about not believing
your deity in exactly the same way you don't believe in Zeus,
Misthras, Osiris, Odin etc? Are those also religions?
You're just the latest arrogant theist to come here and tell us what
our point of view is. You could have asked. But instead you used
button-pushing falsehoods. And now you lie about the reaction.

If what I am saying is wrong, all that is necessary is to say, "This
point is wrong because," and give a logical explanation. That's all.
You, on the other hand, are apparently incapable of saying so. This
seems to confirm my hypothesis, because if atheism is not a religion,
why are (some of) those who believe in it so touchy about questions
about their belief instead of being able to logically dismiss the
(presumably inaccurate) claim that it is a religion?

I did. Stop pretending.
What "their belief", liar?
WE ARE TOUCHY ABOUT ASSHOLES WHO INVENT POSITIONS WE DON'T HAVE,
RELIGIONS WE DON'T HAVRE, BELIEFS WE DON'T HAVE, WHO INSIST WE DO,
DEMAND THAT WE START FROM THAT PRESUMPTION AND ALSO THAT WE DEFEND
SOMETHING WE AREN'T.
Are you honestly incapable of grasping that the rest of the world
doesn't revolve around the hypothetical object of your religion's
deity belief? Or just how irrelevent that is outside your religion?
Is it really so hard to grasp that all the word "atheist" is, is a
convenient demographic label to say that we're not something? In
exactly the same way that asymmetric, asynchrononous, apolitical etc
are labels for what somebody or something isn't?

To me it is clear and obvious that it qualifies.

Then you're an idiot.

Your tone and commentary have the flavor and vituperitiveness of
someone who is afraid to admit he supports a religious opinion because
he does not want to face the consequences.

Why do you lie, liar?
If it is "clear that it [atheism] qualifies [as a religion]" then you
are an idiot.
Because it is no more a religion than not following a baseball team
is.
And it takes a deliberately nasty button-pushing jerk to
amateur-psychologise the reaction into even further falsehoods.
Your attitiude and language confirm that you were lying when you
claimed you weren't trolling.

You're sounding just as angry and sensitive as those whose beliefs in
God are challenged.

And you're sounding like a deliberately nasty, button-pushing liar.

I think it fits all of the relevant criteria which define what
represents a religion.

Then you think wrong.

Now, you have a legitimate response.

How the ***** can not believing in Santa Claus be a religion? Or its
equivalent, not believing in the deity of your religion?

Why is it so hard for you in-your-face idiots to grasp that all an
atheist is, is somebody who isn't theist.

Why is it that you seem to be unable to face questions about your
religion other than through hostility and viciousness? If what you

What religion, liar? What hostility and viciousness, liar?
Here's a clue, trolling liar: IF YOU HADN'T USED DELIBERATE FALSEHOODS
LIKE "YOUR RELIGION" TO ATHEISTS YOU WOULD NOT HAVE GOT THE REACTION
THAT YOU AMATEUR-PSYCHOLOGISE INTO EVEN NASTIER LIES.

believe in is not a religion, why do you find questions about it so

What is it that you imagine and insist that I believe?

troubling that your only capacity is to resort to namecalling and
insults?

How is calling a liar a liar for lying "namecalling and insult",
troll?

Perhaps it's because you are incapable of making a reasonable argument
in a logical manner. Otherwise, why are you getting so upset unles it
is a religious opinion? Perhaps because you fear to admit it, or
because you cannot allow yourself to admit it, your only response is to
insult the person who reasonably asks a question.

Yet more amateur-psychologised deliberate falsehoods and nastiness.

You idiots invent positions we don't have, based on presumptions
that only apply inside your religion.

Well, I don't know what your religious opinions are other than that you
don't like people questioning the atheist religion, since you

WHAT FUCKING "ATHEIST RELIGION", BUTTON-PUSHING LIAR?

apparently are unable to offer an explanation of anything that is a
response to the question, and your only capacity for response is an
insult. This is almost always the hallmark of someone who lacks a
rational support for their position.

I did, liar. But you ignored it and focussed on the response to your
button-pushing falsehoods.

I have no idea why you do it, other than the fact that it is both
stupid and
extremely rude.

No you haven't, liar - you have repeatedly talked about "my religion
of atheism" which is no different than your religion of not collecting
stamps.
When people tell you they haven't got a religion it is arrogantly,
nastily rude to talk to them as though they did - you know,
deliberately button-pushing nastiness like your "since apparently my
questioning of your religion reduces you to insults".
When you know perfectly well that I don't have a religion, and that I
am merely treating you with the same contempt you *initially* showed
atheists.
[rest of the troll's deliberate nastiness snipped]
.

User: "Vic Sagerquist"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	13 May 2005 10:54:52 AM

On 13 May 2005, Paul Robinson dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:

Most religious types can't imagine a person not having a religion. Not
that they won't, it's just too abstract of a concept for their tiny
little minds to grasp. These people also, having been brainwashed from
shortly after birth, have grown up with the concept of the god they
worship being real, no room for debate, as real as a tree or the house
next door.
At some point in their lives they will stumble across the concept of
atheism. Once they explore all the rationalizations necessary to explain
how there could be people that deny their fantasy concept of reality,
they once again return to the notion of the faux reality of their god and
state crassly that atheists worship "no god", or that atheists deny the
existence of their god. Some dictionaries even back this up.
What they don't realize that this entire concept begs the question. In
order to properly debate the issue of atheism as it relates to god
belief, we must first define the god in question. And in order to use
the god as a focal point for denial, one must first show that this god
exists, lest one be guilty of the logical fallacy Circulum in
Demonstrando, or circular argument.
By proper definition, atheism means A-THEISM, or "non-god-belief".
That's all it is. Once you get beyond the fantasyland of religion and
step out into the sunshine of reality, you can reason that the only
evidence there is for a god - ANY god in the history of Homo Sapiens - is
in the corresponding religious books. No secular evidence has ever
supported the existence of a god or gods. Atheists know why you have to
have faith in your god, because it is only a belief. Otherwise faith
would not be necessary.
As it has been stated here before, religion is to hair color as atheism
is to baldness. If atheism is a religion, then not collecting baseball
cards is a hobby.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
Lovingly plonked by Roger Pearse
______________
"I'm sickened by all religions. Religion has divided people. I don't
think there's any difference between the pope wearing a large hat and
parading around with a smoking purse and an African painting his face
white and praying to a rock."
[Howard Stern]
.

User: "DianaC"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	13 May 2005 03:58:44 PM

"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96555AE4E762Bvicman@216.196.97.136...

On 13 May 2005, Paul Robinson dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:

As it has been stated here before, religion is to hair color as atheism
is to baldness. If atheism is a religion, then not collecting baseball
cards is a hobby.

Ah, true...but what if what is happening is a little more involved? Such
as....the non-baseball card collector isn't satisfied with simply not
collecting cards; he makes a project out of insisting that baseball cards
are useless, worthless, that those who collect them are fools? What if this
non-collector writes articles about why it's stupid to collect baseball
cards? Books? endless posts on alt.fan.baseball.cards about how ignorant and
idiotic the whole idea of baseball cards is?
Wouldn't you say that THIS man 'had a hobby"?
I think you got the haircolor/baldness/atheism/religion thing a wee bit
mixed up, but hey, you are correct, that's been said. However, a religion
isn't just about what you think of something; it's what you do about it.
Simply believing that there is a god does NOT make you religious. A religion
is a specific belief system, with a specific group of people, acting in a
specific way about that belief.
In other words, your analogy is not only scrambled, it's inaccurate. You
COULD, with logic, say that "Theism is to atheism as haircolor is to
baldness". But religion is one, and only one, of the subsets of theism. You
need to compare subsets to subsets; to compare atheism in its entirety to
religion is a fallacy of composition.
.

User: "No 33 Secretary"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	13 May 2005 04:08:43 PM

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:8y8he.625$5m1.299@trnddc06:

"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96555AE4E762Bvicman@216.196.97.136...

On 13 May 2005, Paul Robinson dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:

As it has been stated here before, religion is to hair color as
atheism is to baldness. If atheism is a religion, then not
collecting baseball cards is a hobby.

You can't win this argument. Part of the religion of atheism is to refuse
to believe it's a religion. Seriously.
(The real answer is, it depends on what you mean by "religion," and what
you mean by "atheism." You *can't* get a straight answer out of most of the
regluars here on either, largely because they don't understand how often
they change definitions, depending on context. So, the answer it, atheism
*can* be a religion, but isn't necessarily.)
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
.

User: "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason Gastrichs effort"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	13 May 2005 05:25:55 PM

DianaC wrote:

"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96555AE4E762Bvicman@216.196.97.136...

On 13 May 2005, Paul Robinson dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:

As it has been stated here before, religion is to hair color as

atheism

is to baldness. If atheism is a religion, then not collecting

baseball

cards is a hobby.

Ah, true...but what if what is happening is a little more involved?

Such

as....the non-baseball card collector isn't satisfied with simply not
collecting cards; he makes a project out of insisting that baseball

cards

are useless, worthless, that those who collect them are fools? What

if this

non-collector writes articles about why it's stupid to collect

baseball

cards? Books? endless posts on alt.fan.baseball.cards about how

ignorant and

idiotic the whole idea of baseball cards is?

Wouldn't you say that THIS man 'had a hobby"?

Sure. His hobby is criticism. Not non-baseball-card-collection.

I think you got the haircolor/baldness/atheism/religion thing a wee

bit

mixed up, but hey, you are correct, that's been said. However, a

religion

isn't just about what you think of something; it's what you do about

it.

Simply believing that there is a god does NOT make you religious.

Of course it does. That *others* might decide that your lack of what
they deem to be appropriate behavior means you aren't religious,
doesn't mean you aren't religious.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=3DDictionary&va=3Dreligious&x=3D=
0&y=3D0
Main Entry: 1re=B7li=B7gious
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French religieus, from Latin
religiosus, from religio
1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged
ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b : FERVENT, ZEALOUS

A religion
is a specific belief system, with a specific group of people, acting

in a

specific way about that belief.

Why, because you say so?
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=3DDictionary&va=3Dreligion&x=3D0=
&y=3D0
Main Entry: re=B7li=B7gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio
supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from
religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b
(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) :
commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes,
beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and
faith

In other words, your analogy is not only scrambled, it's inaccurate.

You

COULD, with logic, say that "Theism is to atheism as haircolor is to
baldness". But religion is one, and only one, of the subsets of

theism. You

need to compare subsets to subsets; to compare atheism in its

entirety to

religion is a fallacy of composition.

Since theism refers to belief in god or gods, what is one of the
non-religious subsets of theism?
.

User: "DianaC"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	13 May 2005 09:00:36 PM

"JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason Gastrich's effort"
<jesshc@phantomemail.com> wrote in message
news:1116023155.024266.44260@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
DianaC wrote:

"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96555AE4E762Bvicman@216.196.97.136...

On 13 May 2005, Paul Robinson dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:

As it has been stated here before, religion is to hair color as

atheism

is to baldness. If atheism is a religion, then not collecting

baseball

cards is a hobby.

Ah, true...but what if what is happening is a little more involved?

Such

as....the non-baseball card collector isn't satisfied with simply not
collecting cards; he makes a project out of insisting that baseball

cards

are useless, worthless, that those who collect them are fools? What

if this

non-collector writes articles about why it's stupid to collect

baseball

cards? Books? endless posts on alt.fan.baseball.cards about how

ignorant and

idiotic the whole idea of baseball cards is?

Wouldn't you say that THIS man 'had a hobby"?

Sure. His hobby is criticism. Not non-baseball-card-collection.

I think you got the haircolor/baldness/atheism/religion thing a wee

bit

mixed up, but hey, you are correct, that's been said. However, a

religion

isn't just about what you think of something; it's what you do about

it.

Simply believing that there is a god does NOT make you religious.

Of course it does. That *others* might decide that your lack of what
they deem to be appropriate behavior means you aren't religious,
doesn't mean you aren't religious.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=religious&x=0&y=0
Main Entry: 1re�li�gious
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French religieus, from Latin
religiosus, from religio
1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged
ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b : FERVENT, ZEALOUS
.......and all of these refer to actions taken according to a specific belief
system and set of rules, meetings, standards....and you don't know theists
who do claim a belief in deity but do not go to church, nor are they
affiliated with one? C'mon.

A religion
is a specific belief system, with a specific group of people, acting

in a

specific way about that belief.
Why, because you say so?

No, actually, because the definition YOU pulled up says so.
<snipt>
.

User: "Niels van der Linden"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	13 May 2005 05:28:05 PM

Don't agree. One of the main points is: think for yourself, instead of stop
thinking. The debunking is largely about theists trying to supress and
influence others (in a dogmatic and twisting of the facts kind of way).
.

User: "Vic Sagerquist"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	13 May 2005 04:18:10 PM

On 13 May 2005, DianaC dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:

"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96555AE4E762Bvicman@216.196.97.136...

On 13 May 2005, Paul Robinson dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:

As it has been stated here before, religion is to hair color as
atheism is to baldness. If atheism is a religion, then not
collecting baseball cards is a hobby.

Sure, but the reasoning is much different here. Nobody lies about people
who don't collect baseball cards, saying they have no basis for morality,
that Hitler and Stalin never collected baseball cards, or if we don't
begin collecting baseball cards and accept Babe Ruth as our personal
baseball hero, we'll go to Wrigley Field when we die to watch the Cubs
endlessy lose.
My hobby here is refuting religious arguments, not worshipping "nogod".
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
Lovingly plonked by Roger Pearse
______________
"I'm sickened by all religions. Religion has divided people. I don't
think there's any difference between the pope wearing a large hat and
parading around with a smoking purse and an African painting his face
white and praying to a rock."
[Howard Stern]
.

User: "DianaC"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	13 May 2005 08:57:55 PM

"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns965591B4B93A1vicman@216.196.97.136...

On 13 May 2005, DianaC dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:

"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96555AE4E762Bvicman@216.196.97.136...

On 13 May 2005, Paul Robinson dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:

As it has been stated here before, religion is to hair color as
atheism is to baldness. If atheism is a religion, then not
collecting baseball cards is a hobby.

Sure, but the reasoning is much different here. Nobody lies about people
who don't collect baseball cards, saying they have no basis for morality,

You haven't been to many fanatic collector conventions, have you? ;-)

that Hitler and Stalin never collected baseball cards, or if we don't
begin collecting baseball cards and accept Babe Ruth as our personal
baseball hero, we'll go to Wrigley Field when we die to watch the Cubs
endlessy lose.

Except of course that they won....

My hobby here is refuting religious arguments, not worshipping "nogod".

And that makes you, well, 'religious'. Or rather, it makes you the
equivalent of religious. You are an apologist for your opinion on the
existance of deity. You do the same things that religious apologists do, in
very much the same way. Some atheist apologists are nicer than others, just
like theist apologists, (shrug)
This is a CLASSIC 'walk like a duck' scenario, you know.
.

User: "Vic Sagerquist"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	13 May 2005 09:11:06 PM

On 13 May 2005, DianaC dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:

"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns965591B4B93A1vicman@216.196.97.136...

On 13 May 2005, DianaC dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:

"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96555AE4E762Bvicman@216.196.97.136...

On 13 May 2005, Paul Robinson dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:

As it has been stated here before, religion is to hair color as
atheism is to baldness. If atheism is a religion, then not
collecting baseball cards is a hobby.

Sure, but the reasoning is much different here. Nobody lies about
people who don't collect baseball cards, saying they have no basis
for morality,

You haven't been to many fanatic collector conventions, have you? ;-)

Except of course that they won....

My hobby here is refuting religious arguments, not worshipping
"nogod".

And that makes you, well, 'religious'. Or rather, it makes you the
equivalent of religious. You are an apologist for your opinion on the
existance of deity. You do the same things that religious apologists
do, in very much the same way. Some atheist apologists are nicer than
others, just like theist apologists, (shrug)

This is a CLASSIC 'walk like a duck' scenario, you know.

Give it up, Diana. Atheists don't worship anything.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
Lovingly plonked by Roger Pearse
______________
"I'm sickened by all religions. Religion has divided people. I don't
think there's any difference between the pope wearing a large hat and
parading around with a smoking purse and an African painting his face
white and praying to a rock."
[Howard Stern]
.

User: "DianaC"
Title: Re: Is atheism as a type of religion? Yes or no	13 May 2005 09:31:19 PM

"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9655C35E736D3vicman@216.196.97.136...