uscitizen
Villified User
so? there are extremeists everywhere.
so not believing in Obama being the messiah is a religion ?
the war on christmas BEGINS at FAUX news!
- Thread starter Robdawg
- Start date
so? there are extremeists everywhere.
so not believing in Obama being the messiah is a religion ?
Obama claims to be a Christian, others who adore him have insinuated his messianic powers. I don't ascribe to him any such thing.
uscitizen
Villified User
so you are a member of NOMR (Non Obama Messiah Religion) then.
Just as you are likely a member of ROWHB I imagine.
uscitizen
Villified User
something about Herbert Bush ?
Nope.
It would be, if you made it a point to buy all the non-stamp collecting materials necessary, spent hours arranging the non-stamps into places of importance. Buying and selling the non-stamps over the internet and in shops around the globe. Showing off your collection of non-stamps to others...
See how your analogy fails? You would if you were being honest with yourself. When it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, even makes tracts and other forms of advertisement like a duck, then it's probably a duck....
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
It doesn't fail because most atheists don't do any of that shit, myself included.
Thorn
Member
I think, if it's necessary to put any sort of "label" on it, it's probably best described as a philosophy. That said, however, I doubt really that it even satisfies the criteria for a philosophy either, never mind a religion.
Atheism is an absence of belief in a supernatural being. That's all. If some people feel it necessary to proselytize this then in my own opinion they're simply naive and misguided. This is the sort of ideology that people have to reach on their own if they ever do; you're not going to "enlighten" somebody who either has been indoctrinated into a religion from birth or certainly someone who has chosen a religion later in life. To try to alter that through some sort of reasoning (read more likely browbeating) process simply won't work. Moreover, nobody has the right to do that, from either side.
I absolutely hate the term, "tolerance", too. We should respect others' beliefs, not merely tolerate them. That doesn't mean that we have to adopt them as our own, but we must respect their right to those beliefs, regardless of whether or not we share them.
Hence my direct and pointed remark at the beginning of this that most atheists are not religious, but Evangelical Atheists are. Also, Evangelical Atheists are funny.
Your analogy failed because you failed to even comprehend the conversation before jumping in with your inanity.
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
I understand the conversation very well. The idea that atheism is a religion is retarded, and I think you know it.
No, I think you don't understand the conversation at all.
It would be like calling Theravada Buddhists people who were not "religious". They wouldn't be insulted by it, but it doesn't change that they are part of one of the big three religions.
Atheists who proselytize their philosophy as the only real truth are just as religious as any other person proselytizing their assurance onto you of their own religion, whether it be Buddhism (shouldn't proselytize, not supposed to) Wicca, Christianity... so forth.
Some people make Atheism into a religion. They print up tracts to convert you, they buy ads on buses to convince you, they'll talk forever and constantly about their absolute certainty of how wrong other people are... They are religious in their belief.
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
There's actually quite a bit of debate as to whether or not Buddhism is actually a religion in academic circles.
The thing that I think makes Buddhism a religion is the existence of rituals and a common thread of beliefs and teachings. Atheism exhibits no such trends and its clearly, to the non-retarded, not a religion in the least.
The thing that I think makes Buddhism a religion is the existence of rituals and a common thread of beliefs and teachings. Atheism exhibits no such trends and its clearly, to the non-retarded, not a religion in the least.