Subforum suggestion

[remediagirl]

[falcon9]

[-more xtian trollling=]

You're still rolling and it still isn't subtle, xtian troll.

[jcribb16]

While there are many who disagree that it's a religion, there are still some good points offered in this blog.   

None of that specious nonsense which avoids logical reasoning indicates that atheism is a religion.  It remains the inherently biased religious opinion of a religious adherent and eschews reasoning, attempting to replace it with 'you can't prove something doesn't exist' arguments.

Not completely.  I don't think remediagirl will mind if we expand on this a little.  Please remember I said in a previous post that I'm not saying that Atheism is necessarily a "religion" but there are some points made that do make some good sense.

 http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2010/07/atheism-is-religion.html
Childs makes the case:

                                     Atheism is a religion.

"Atheism IS a religion. I know that some have made that statement without much evidence. And I know that atheists themselves heatedly deny it. I’ve heard their rejoinders: If atheism is a religion, then not playing baseball is a sport. Or, atheism is to religion what bald is to hair color. Clever. I guess I don’t blame them for denying it, but denying something doesn’t prove it is not there. (I would advise any atheist readers to re-read the previous sentence until BOTH meanings sink in.)
A religion doesn’t have to posit a god who must be identified or worshiped. Some religions are polytheistic (Hinduism, Mormonism), some monotheistic (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), some non-theistic (Buddhism). I’d say the new atheists and their religion are “anti-theistic.” But their atheism is religious nonetheless. Consider this:

1. They have their own worldview.
Materialism (the view that the material world is all there is) is the lens through which atheists view the world. Far from being the open-minded, follow-the-evidence-wherever thinkers they claim to be, they interpret all data ONLY within the very narrow worldview of materialism. They are like a guy wearing dark sunglasses who chides all others for thinking the sun is out.

2. They have their own orthodoxy.
Orthodoxy is a set of beliefs acceptable to a faith community. Just as there are orthodox Christian beliefs, there is an atheist orthodoxy as well. In brief, it is that EVERYTHING can be explained as the product of unintentional, undirected, purposeless evolution. No truth claim is acceptable if it cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny.

3. They have their own brand of apostasy.
Apostasy is to abandon one’s former religious faith. Antony Flew was for many years one of the world’s most prominent atheists. And then he did the unthinkable: he changed his mind. You can imagine the response of the “open-minded, tolerant” New Atheist movement. Flew was vilified. Richard Dawkins accused Flew of “tergiversation.” It’s a fancy word for apostasy. By their own admission, then, Flew abandoned their “faith.”

4. They have their own prophets: Nietzsche, Russell, Feuerbach, Lenin, Marx.
They have their own messiah: He is, of course, Charles Darwin. Darwin – in their view – drove the definitive stake through the heart of theism by providing a comprehensive explanation of life that never needs God as a cause or explanation. Daniel Dennett has even written a book seeking to define religious faith itself as merely an evolutionary development.


5. They have their own preachers and evangelists.
And boy, are they “evangelistic.” Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens (Speaking of which, our prayers goes out to Christopher Hitchens in hopes of a speedy recovery for his cancer, we need more time with him Lord) are NOT out to ask that atheism be given respect. They are seeking converts. They are preaching a “gospel” calling for the end of theism.

6. They have faith.
That’s right, faith. They would have you believe the opposite. Their writings ridicule faith, condemn faith. Harris’s book is called The End of Faith. But theirs is a faith-based enterprise. The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. To deny it takes faith. Evolution has no explanation for why our universe is orderly, predictable, measurable. In fact (atheistic) evolutionary theory has no rational explanation for why there is such a thing as rational explanation.

***There is no accounting for the things they hope you won’t ask:
1. Why do we have self-awareness?
2. What makes us conscious?
3. From what source is there a universal sense of right and wrong?
They just take such unexplained things by … faith.

There are days when evil and suffering are hard to explain, even for the most ardent follower of God. There are questions we cannot answer. There are days when every honest Christian will admit doubt. But we don’t become atheists. It is because our soul JUST KNOWS that God is there. And maybe because atheism is a religion that requires too much untenable faith.

Not only is Atheism a religion, the entire premise is a negative proof fallacy."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do disagree with his one statement that "we don't become atheists."  There are ones I know who have turned their backs on God, and have become atheists. 

Would you answer the questions in blue?  Thanks!

[falcon9]

http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2010/07/atheism-is-religion.html
Childs makes the case:

                                     Atheism is a religion.

"Atheism IS a religion. I know that some have made that statement without much evidence. And I know that atheists themselves heatedly deny it. I’ve heard their rejoinders: If atheism is a religion, then not playing baseball is a sport. Or, atheism is to religion what bald is to hair color. Clever. I guess I don’t blame them for denying it, but denying something doesn’t prove it is not there. (I would advise any atheist readers to re-read the previous sentence until BOTH meanings sink in.)
A religion doesn’t have to posit a god who must be identified or worshiped. Some religions are polytheistic (Hinduism, Mormonism), some monotheistic (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), some non-theistic (Buddhism). I’d say the new atheists and their religion are “anti-theistic.” But their atheism is religious nonetheless. Consider this:

1. They have their own worldview.
Materialism (the view that the material world is all there is) is the lens through which atheists view the world. Far from being the open-minded, follow-the-evidence-wherever thinkers they claim to be, they interpret all data ONLY within the very narrow worldview of materialism. They are like a guy wearing dark sunglasses who chides all others for thinking the sun is out.

2. They have their own orthodoxy.
Orthodoxy is a set of beliefs acceptable to a faith community. Just as there are orthodox Christian beliefs, there is an atheist orthodoxy as well. In brief, it is that EVERYTHING can be explained as the product of unintentional, undirected, purposeless evolution. No truth claim is acceptable if it cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny.

3. They have their own brand of apostasy.
Apostasy is to abandon one’s former religious faith. Antony Flew was for many years one of the world’s most prominent atheists. And then he did the unthinkable: he changed his mind. You can imagine the response of the “open-minded, tolerant” New Atheist movement. Flew was vilified. Richard Dawkins accused Flew of “tergiversation.” It’s a fancy word for apostasy. By their own admission, then, Flew abandoned their “faith.”

4. They have their own prophets: Nietzsche, Russell, Feuerbach, Lenin, Marx.
They have their own messiah: He is, of course, Charles Darwin. Darwin – in their view – drove the definitive stake through the heart of theism by providing a comprehensive explanation of life that never needs God as a cause or explanation. Daniel Dennett has even written a book seeking to define religious faith itself as merely an evolutionary development.


5. They have their own preachers and evangelists.
And boy, are they “evangelistic.” Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens (Speaking of which, our prayers goes out to Christopher Hitchens in hopes of a speedy recovery for his cancer, we need more time with him Lord) are NOT out to ask that atheism be given respect. They are seeking converts. They are preaching a “gospel” calling for the end of theism.

6. They have faith.
That’s right, faith. They would have you believe the opposite. Their writings ridicule faith, condemn faith. Harris’s book is called The End of Faith. But theirs is a faith-based enterprise. The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. To deny it takes faith. Evolution has no explanation for why our universe is orderly, predictable, measurable. In fact (atheistic) evolutionary theory has no rational explanation for why there is such a thing as rational explanation.

***There is no accounting for the things they hope you won’t ask:
1. Why do we have self-awareness?
2. What makes us conscious?
3. From what source is there a universal sense of right and wrong?
They just take such unexplained things by … faith.

There are days when evil and suffering are hard to explain, even for the most ardent follower of God. There are questions we cannot answer. There are days when every honest Christian will admit doubt. But we don’t become atheists. It is because our soul JUST KNOWS that God is there. And maybe because atheism is a religion that requires too much untenable faith.

Not only is Atheism a religion, the entire premise is a negative proof fallacy."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do disagree with his one statement that "we don't become atheists."  There are ones I know who have turned their backs on God, and have become atheists. 

Would you answer the questions in blue?  Thanks!

Already did when a former xtian member of FC brought up the same invalid 'arguments' under the same invalid premise.  Further, they aren't 'your' arguments and none of your have shown any intention of debating these points.  Maybe another non-xtian would like to address those "points" they missed from being discussed a few months ago. Btw, each of those "points" was thoroughly-refuted by logical, pont-by-point.

[falcon9]

Maybe another non-xtian would like to address those "points".....

Wow..that's kinda lazy. Guess he didn't have an answer. What's new!

As stated, those "points" were already addressed and refuted.  Just because you're too lazy to look up those refutations, (and manifestly uninterested in presenting your own counter-arguments), why should I bother reposting the whole thing just for you blind faithers to dodge again?

[remediagirl]

Maybe another non-xtian would like to address those "points".....

Wow..that's kinda lazy. Guess he didn't have an answer. What's new!

As stated, those "points" were already addressed and refuted.  Just because you're too lazy to look up those refutations, (and manifestly uninterested in presenting your own counter-arguments), why should I bother reposting the whole thing just for you blind faithers to dodge again?

Sounds like you are the one doing the dodging...but of course don't you always!

[remediagirl]

Maybe another non-xtian would like to address those "points".....

Wow..that's kinda lazy. Guess he didn't have an answer. What's new!

As stated, those "points" were already addressed and refuted.  Just because you're too lazy to look up those refutations, (and manifestly uninterested in presenting your own counter-arguments), why should I bother reposting the whole thing just for you blind faithers to dodge again?

[jcribb16]

http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2010/07/atheism-is-religion.html
Childs makes the case:

                                     Atheism is a religion.

"Atheism IS a religion. I know that some have made that statement without much evidence. And I know that atheists themselves heatedly deny it. I’ve heard their rejoinders: If atheism is a religion, then not playing baseball is a sport. Or, atheism is to religion what bald is to hair color. Clever. I guess I don’t blame them for denying it, but denying something doesn’t prove it is not there. (I would advise any atheist readers to re-read the previous sentence until BOTH meanings sink in.)
A religion doesn’t have to posit a god who must be identified or worshiped. Some religions are polytheistic (Hinduism, Mormonism), some monotheistic (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), some non-theistic (Buddhism). I’d say the new atheists and their religion are “anti-theistic.” But their atheism is religious nonetheless. Consider this:

1. They have their own worldview.
Materialism (the view that the material world is all there is) is the lens through which atheists view the world. Far from being the open-minded, follow-the-evidence-wherever thinkers they claim to be, they interpret all data ONLY within the very narrow worldview of materialism. They are like a guy wearing dark sunglasses who chides all others for thinking the sun is out.

2. They have their own orthodoxy.
Orthodoxy is a set of beliefs acceptable to a faith community. Just as there are orthodox Christian beliefs, there is an atheist orthodoxy as well. In brief, it is that EVERYTHING can be explained as the product of unintentional, undirected, purposeless evolution. No truth claim is acceptable if it cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny.

3. They have their own brand of apostasy.
Apostasy is to abandon one’s former religious faith. Antony Flew was for many years one of the world’s most prominent atheists. And then he did the unthinkable: he changed his mind. You can imagine the response of the “open-minded, tolerant” New Atheist movement. Flew was vilified. Richard Dawkins accused Flew of “tergiversation.” It’s a fancy word for apostasy. By their own admission, then, Flew abandoned their “faith.”

4. They have their own prophets: Nietzsche, Russell, Feuerbach, Lenin, Marx.
They have their own messiah: He is, of course, Charles Darwin. Darwin – in their view – drove the definitive stake through the heart of theism by providing a comprehensive explanation of life that never needs God as a cause or explanation. Daniel Dennett has even written a book seeking to define religious faith itself as merely an evolutionary development.


5. They have their own preachers and evangelists.
And boy, are they “evangelistic.” Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens (Speaking of which, our prayers goes out to Christopher Hitchens in hopes of a speedy recovery for his cancer, we need more time with him Lord) are NOT out to ask that atheism be given respect. They are seeking converts. They are preaching a “gospel” calling for the end of theism.

6. They have faith.
That’s right, faith. They would have you believe the opposite. Their writings ridicule faith, condemn faith. Harris’s book is called The End of Faith. But theirs is a faith-based enterprise. The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. To deny it takes faith. Evolution has no explanation for why our universe is orderly, predictable, measurable. In fact (atheistic) evolutionary theory has no rational explanation for why there is such a thing as rational explanation.

***There is no accounting for the things they hope you won’t ask:
1. Why do we have self-awareness?
2. What makes us conscious?
3. From what source is there a universal sense of right and wrong?
They just take such unexplained things by … faith.

There are days when evil and suffering are hard to explain, even for the most ardent follower of God. There are questions we cannot answer. There are days when every honest Christian will admit doubt. But we don’t become atheists. It is because our soul JUST KNOWS that God is there. And maybe because atheism is a religion that requires too much untenable faith.

Not only is Atheism a religion, the entire premise is a negative proof fallacy."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do disagree with his one statement that "we don't become atheists."  There are ones I know who have turned their backs on God, and have become atheists. 

Would you answer the questions in blue?  Thanks!

Already did when a former xtian member of FC brought up the same invalid 'arguments' under the same invalid premise.  Further, they aren't 'your' arguments and none of your have shown any intention of debating these points.  Maybe another non-xtian would like to address those "points" they missed from being discussed a few months ago. Btw, each of those "points" was thoroughly-refuted by logical, pont-by-point.

Thank you for showing your refusal to answer the questions in blue.  Your right to do so.  By the way, I disagree that each of those "points" were thoroughly refuted; some are only partially refuted.

I agree they aren't my arguments, because I even said that I was not saying Atheism is a religion - I was showing that the points made were sensible, because of the loyalty and devotion to Hawkins, Darwin, etc., and the goal of ridding the world of Christianity.  

[falcon9]

Wow..that's kinda lazy. Guess he didn't have an answer. What's new!

As stated, those "points" were already addressed and refuted.  Just because you're too lazy to look up those refutations, (and manifestly uninterested in presenting your own counter-arguments), why should I bother reposting the whole thing just for you blind faithers to dodge again?

Sounds like you are the one doing the dodging...but of course don't you always!

No, that would be the xtian zealots; as a massive number of archived posts in evidence shows.  If you're too lazy to look up those refutations of the illogical xtian 'arguments', (which the member "jcribb16" had partly participated in/is aware of), then that's your lazy choice.

[falcon9]

"... denying something doesn’t prove it is not there."  

Requesting that the xtian claimant provide evidence to substantiate their claim that something is there doesn't mean it is when they can't.

[remediagirl]

[falcon9]

[remediagirl]

[falcon9]

Exactly; which means it's not a "religion" like those who have so-called "prophets", (though these have been demonstrated to actually be pseudo-prophets in that nothing "prophesized" has come about, even with various specious stretching of them to try covering non-prophesy).

[remediagirl]

NON PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS: