the war on christmas BEGINS at FAUX news!

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.
Except those people that exhibit, as I have listed, those things which make it into a religion.

You assume I mean you. As you used your own non-religious atheism as an example. The only reason you could possibly have done that is if you had failed to actually comprehend the earlier statements.
 
I believe you're confusing zealousness with religiousness.
I believe that you are confusing what constitutes Faith.

Most Atheists do not proselytize because they realize, however remotely, that they may be wrong. Those who believe without any doubt, just as a Christian does to the positive, the non-existence of any supernatural power and use that Faith to "zealously" attempt to convert others are religious, even if you don't want them to be.

They have groups, meet regularly, make tracts, promote their Faith, speak as if they have the One Truth...

Everything that makes other religions religion, they have it.

Again. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims and eats like a duck, it is very likely a duck.
 
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.

You think we don't have the right to debate religion?
 
Except those people that exhibit, as I have listed, those things which make it into a religion.

You assume I mean you. As you used your own non-religious atheism as an example. The only reason you could possibly have done that is if you had failed to actually comprehend the earlier statements.

Debating the appropriateness of certain labels and classifications is an exercise in stupidity. Our society spends way to much time uselessly doing that.
 
Now you're confusing faith and religion.

Faith ≠ Zeal ≠ Religion

The one truth bullshit doesn't show up anywhere in the definition of religion. Neither does the worth faith. Religion has specific tenants (rituals, etc) that need to be met in order for a philosophy to qualify. Atheism, aside from you trying to confuse the issue with semantics, is not a religion despite the fact that some atheists exhibit zeal, faith that they are right in their philosophy, and go about trying to sell their philosophy on youtube.

It's the same tired, worn out argument made by idiots who say belief in global warming is a religion.
 
You think we don't have the right to debate religion?

I think that if both parties (or all if more than two) are willing to discuss it then fine, but I don't think that we have the right to browbeat people who believe things different from us, simply because we think they're misguided.

We both live in different parts of the Bible Belt. You know just what I mean, I suspect! :)
 
I plan to send Wild Bill a Happy Saturnalia or a Sol Invictus card everyday of December!

Maybe a couple of Happy Holidays, too, just for good measure!
 
Why would they need to be enlightened?

As I said, I find it funny. If they believe themselves to be Enlightened in the religious sense then they believe themselves a Buddha and are not Atheists, per se.

I never told them to stop, just that I find it funny that they find the spread of indifference to be vital enough to purchase ads.

Neither are "more noble", both are just Faiths. In order to become evangelical you must be certain and use Faith. You take what is simply, for most, a belief that they are worshiping a myth and turn it into the "Truth" that must be spread.

Its clear (or enlightened) they purchase ads because they have an agenda.... to spread atheism. A spade is a spade ....
 
Now you're confusing faith and religion.

Faith ≠ Zeal ≠ Religion

The one truth bullshit doesn't show up anywhere in the definition of religion. Neither does the worth faith. Religion has specific tenants (rituals, etc) that need to be met in order for a philosophy to qualify. Atheism, aside from you trying to confuse the issue with semantics, is not a religion despite the fact that some atheists exhibit zeal, faith that they are right in their philosophy, and go about trying to sell their philosophy on youtube.

It's the same tired, worn out argument made by idiots who say belief in global warming is a religion.
This is an inane argument.

I compare how they are the same and tell you why I think that some people make Atheism into a religion, then you pretend that Faith isn't necessary for a certain belief in a Deity, or the same perfect certainty of the absence of all possibility of a Deity?

You are now producing fallacies, desperately trying to avoid what I have stated.

I stated why I think they are a religion, I showed where they even meet the same criteria that makes Buddhism into a religion as well as the similarities with things that make Christianity into a religion (faith). They have all the things that make all the others "religion".

You keep saying, "You meant that Faith=Religion"... I didn't. It is one of the criteria, not the only criteria. Or you come up with some inane other "statement" that I didn't say, because you deliberately ignore what I actually say. Zealotry doesn't equal religion, it is again only one of the criteria easily demonstrated.

It's weak, you act as if it is personal, somehow necessary for you to convince me not to consider Evangelical Atheism a religion.
 
Back
Top