Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I was about to get angry and snap back at you, but then I read the bit about the zombie games and had to laugh.

sirlynchmob wrote:
How many people need to tell you atheism is not a religion.

One or two is enough:



Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili



Mao Zedong



There are plenty of others.
Its what they do with that doctrine that matters, and explains why it ought to be resisted.

Plenty of nice atheists out there who can carry on with their choice without interference from me, but others use their choice in the same way a religious fundamentalist uses it. Atheism can take formal place of a state religion. 'Reason' becomes the call to progress, removing all other faith options in favour of the one espoused, and those who resist suffer the fate of those opposing empowered religious fanatics in world history.

The only difference between a theocracy and and the atheist state is that the latter can appear by the back door. Someone wants Islamic law, you can see them coming. Someone wants national atheism, it starts small with fair sounding principles like 'separation of church and state', or 'demystifying education', or establishing 'reason'.
The average Moslem isn't reponsible for Jihad, relgion even Islam isn't the problem, people are. People like being in power, and some people like being in power by any measn necessary. Religious fervour is one such means, atheist fervour is handled exactly the same way as religious.

No atheism is not a religion, on a personal level its a choice of faith group. Like other faith choices it can get very personally important and triggers deep set emotional triggers, just like a religion does. People can let slide that we prefer different flavours of food or different colours, but sporting teams can raise a bit of bother, but nothing compared to a religious choice. In this respect atheism is no less a danger than any other, its as useful to a demagogue to take control, if not more so, because if atheism is considered separate from religion its fundamentialist elements can be successfully disguised. One doesnt need to be a bloody dictator to do that either, Blair managed it quite well as a tool to disenfranchise the incumbent establishment.

Atheism isn't a religion.
Howeever atheism is a faith choice, I get a lot of disagrerement over that, however we can tell because atheists behave like religious people and are emotionally engaged like religious people. Atheism fills the religion shaped hole in the human psyche, which means it can act as the catalyst for our belief structures. Hence we get atheist apologists, atheist martyrs and shining beacons of atheist doctrine, many of whom are transparently charged people who would be called holy if their fervour was fueled by a different faith choice. However you also have atheist variants of hate preachers, demagogues and fanatics, this is why atheism should be categorised firmly alongside religious choices.

This is not unfair. Some militant Christians want Christianity cartegorised away from other religious choices, because Christianity isn't as 'religion', its a 'faith relationship with God'. I wont go into the reasons behind that, for a start I dont agree and even if the actual definition of religion and faith are different normally they both dovetail, especially amongst Christians who claim to be faith filled but not religious.
Its far safer to categorise all whether its belief in Allah, Jehovah, Buddha, Jesus or any other God or no-God at all actively or passively as a personal preference regarding religion, and those preferences should have equal weighting in law and in human scrutiny. Fanaticism should not be tolerated, and under any form of cloak. This includes formally identifying atheists as a religious group(s) for terms of human classification and for monitoring against the rise of fanatics who wish to forcibly beat their faith system into others, whether they choose to put on a cassock or a lab coat as their authority.

I wouldn't post this if I didn't feel it important. I have no problem with you being an atheist, or anyone else. Why get upset if I want to see you categorised like religious people are, we have good reason. Noone has no right to interfere with anyones religious preferences. If they think they have a reason, like saving an unbelievers soul, or freeing them from superstitious mumbo jumbo, let them try gentle persuasion without coercion, and one gets to ignore them or argue back. If one isn't interested and wants to disengage and prosthelitization persists to the point its a nuisance, then its harassment, like any other.

Carry on.

Orlanth wrote:some words

How many times must you be told, a lack of belief is not the same thing as a belief, a lack of faith is not faith.

I will leave this here.

Nobody asserts that Hitler or Pol Pot's policies were based on their religious belief, because they weren't. Neither were Mao's or Stalin's, to claim that because of such people you get to call atheism a religion is just another example of you shakily justifying your position based on tenuous arguments that only you see.

dæl wrote:

Orlanth wrote:some words

How many times must you be told, a lack of belief is not the same thing as a belief, a lack of faith is not faith.

As many times as I tell you the opposite.
You wont drown me out, I gave reasons why I disagree with the above. So you just repeat it, that isn't progress.

dæl wrote:
Nobody asserts that Hitler or Pol Pot's policies were based on their religious belief, because they weren't. Neither were Mao's or Stalin's, to claim that because of such people you get to call atheism a religion is just another example of you shakily justifying your position based on tenuous arguments that only you see.

Mao and Stalin used atheism as their tool, they never tried to hide it. Quotes like 'religion is poison' and others. Just as Torquemada and other monsters like him used the church, what they queitkly beleived in person wasnt relevant, their actions were. Nevertheless the atrocities happened and need be guarded against happening again just as we guard against a rise of the far right. The dogmatised atheist state is a genocidal nightmare compressing the horrors of other faith system dogmas used as tools of leadership into under a hundred years. The Communists in all likelihood slaughtered as many people under their form of progress than the Crusades did under their dogma, maybe more, maybe less.

These arguments arent 'tenuous', nor visible only to me. To claim so flies in the face of recorded history and is revisionism of a moral repugnance equal to Holocaust denial.

Orlanth wrote:To claim so flies in the face of recorded history and is revisionism of a moral repugnance equal to Holocaust denial

My argument is as morally repugnant as Holocaust denial?
That has left me in almost tears of laughter. Well done sir, well done.


Please provide an outline of "atheist dogma" (and actually do this time, rather than your "proof" of militant atheists that I'm still waiting to see), after all I should probably learn this stuff. I mean you'd have thought that being an atheist I'd know such things, so please, enlighten us all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

As many times as I tell you the opposite.
You wont drown me out, I gave reasons why I disagree with the above. So you just repeat it, that isn't progress

Actually if you read my post, there is a link there which provides a number of reasons why you (and only you mind, I don't see anyone else arguing your opinion) are wrong. Or do you not read links? The very thing you accused me of when you didn't even provide one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:The dogmatised atheist state is a genocidal nightmare compressing the horrors of other faith system dogmas used as tools of leadership into under a hundred years.

Yes ok, faith based dogma has provided only leadership and has never been the cause of a single atrocity anywhere, ever. I think you will find that social control based on fear isn't "leadership." And there is no such thing as a "dogmatised atheist state."

dæl wrote:And there is no such thing as a "dogmatised atheist state."

I should have realised the parallels between your position and that of a holocaust denier earlier. It would have saved a lot of wasted time.

Orlanth wrote:

dæl wrote:And there is no such thing as a "dogmatised atheist state."

I should have realised the parallels between your position and that of a holocaust denier earlier. It would have saved a lot of wasted time.

So daring to claim that Stalin's motivations were political rather than religious makes me equivalent to a holocaust denier does it? I guess there are a lot of equivalents to holocaust deniers in the world then, probably everyone other than you.

Do you even realise how ridiculous you claiming me the moral equivalent of a holocaust denier is? It is a level of idiocy I though unreachable even by the likes of yourself, and is really quite offensive.

There is no such thing as a "dogmatised atheist state." There have been communist states, their dogma was political, not religious, or lack thereof.

Frazzled wrote:Excellent. The one thing Dakka OT was missing was an anti religion thread. I fell complete now.

Agreed.

It would seem that we have even covered all of the bases by this point as well. Why, we're even debating whether or not Atheism is a religion!

Yes ok, faith based dogma has provided only leadership and has never been the cause of a single atrocity anywhere, ever. I think you will find that social control based on fear isn't "leadership." And there is no such thing as a "dogmatised atheist state."

*USSR
*China
*North Korea
*Communist Cambodia

noticing a trend yet?

Frazzled wrote:

Yes ok, faith based dogma has provided only leadership and has never been the cause of a single atrocity anywhere, ever. I think you will find that social control based on fear isn't "leadership." And there is no such thing as a "dogmatised atheist state."

*USSR
*China
*North Korea
*Communist Cambodia

noticing a trend yet?

There is no such thing as a "dogmatised atheist state." There have been communist states, their dogma was political, not religious, or lack thereof.

Religiously motivated violence and secular violence both exist, and it really isn't a contest to know which was the bigger donkey-cave as they both win and get a trophy. Gold stars all around! Both have massive body counts attributable to them, and neither get to have the moral high ground on the subject.

dæl wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Yes ok, faith based dogma has provided only leadership and has never been the cause of a single atrocity anywhere, ever. I think you will find that social control based on fear isn't "leadership." And there is no such thing as a "dogmatised atheist state."

*USSR
*China
*North Korea
*Communist Cambodia

noticing a trend yet?

There is no such thing as a "dogmatised atheist state." There have been communist states, their dogma was political, not religious, or lack thereof.

Horse gak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:Religiously motivated violence and secular violence both exist, and it really isn't a contest to know which was the bigger donkey-cave as they both win and get a trophy. Gold stars all around! Both have massive body counts attributable to them, and neither get to have the moral high ground on the subject.

Ahtman has the way of it.

I am forced to agree with Frazzled and Orlanth on this one.

We all know that Comunist states practised their religious persecutions because of political motives (they found the churches to be in direct competition to their power), but they did it in the name of Atheist Marxist doctrine.

That is the exact same thing as the Inquisition, the Crusades and every other case of religious based atrocities. They were done for political reasons but used Religious doctrine as their excuses.

Frazzled wrote:

dæl wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Yes ok, faith based dogma has provided only leadership and has never been the cause of a single atrocity anywhere, ever. I think you will find that social control based on fear isn't "leadership." And there is no such thing as a "dogmatised atheist state."

*USSR
*China
*North Korea
*Communist Cambodia

noticing a trend yet?

There is no such thing as a "dogmatised atheist state." There have been communist states, their dogma was political, not religious, or lack thereof.

Horse gak.

Not really, no. Their dogma, as said, was not religious. It may well have been anti-religious, but that's not the same thing.

Orlanth wrote:
Usual ignorant rant

But if thats the best you have, people who've been dead for years. well if thats the way we're going, then you get hitler. The last time the had a religious government we called it the dark ages. The inquisitions, the crusades, and you're still way ahead on the death count.

But lets talk recent news.
You have pastors kidnapping kids:
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/lower_swatara_township_churchs.html

You have christians kidnapping kids of disaster victims.
http://crooksandliars.com/logan-murphy/10-american-baptists-charged-child-ki

Then the usual christian terrorists blowing up clinics and killing doctors.
just two out of many examples
priests asking their followers to kill doctors:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/27/abortion-docs-wanted-posters-bait-murder/

clinic bombing
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9S2Q6A80.htm
"Two young local couples were convicted of the Christmas bombings, saying it was "a gift to Jesus on his birthday."

Now on top of all that you have your church who thinks since they have a majority in the US they can pass laws to discriminate against any minorities they want.

So speaking of monitoring fanatics, we should be monitoring the christians more than any other group in the US.

Why get upset if I think all christians should be labeled a terrorist organization?

Its still not a faith choice, I'm basically calling you a liar. You claim some gods and souls exist, I say prove it. the best you can offer is a book of metaphors, ie fiction. Which is like saying "hey look, hogwarts is real its in this book" Do you have faith hogwarts isn't real? does it take faith to say hogwarts isn't real? Is not believing in hogwarts a religion to?



You mean christians here right? You're projecting the faults of your religion onto others again.

Orlanth wrote:
"This includes formally identifying atheists as a religious group(s) for terms of human classification and for monitoring against the rise of fanatics who wish to forcibly beat their faith system into others, whether they choose to put on a cassock or a lab coat as their authority. "

Can you not see your own hypocracy?

Orlanth wrote:
Plenty of nice atheists out there who can carry on with their choice without interference from me.
This includes formally identifying atheists as a religious group(s) for terms of human classification and for monitoring

No you won't interfer with them, you just want them monitored, and put on lists by the government. Why is that? So the government is watching a peacefull group of americans leaving the christians to carry on with their terrorist plots?

How about you clean up your own house before projecting all your own faults onto others, without cause.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Ditto comes screaming to mind.

Should the atheists decide if its a religion or not? Just because the chrisitans believe it does not make it true.

Frazzled wrote:

Horse gak.

Frazzled you do talk nonsense sometimes, so much so that even someone as ignorant about North Korea as me, can refute you without so much as a google search, I know this gak from pub conversations because it is laugh out loud funny!

How on earth can you claim North Korea is an "atheist state" with a straight face?

This is the country with a regime that claim Kim Jongs Dad WAS(Is?) a God, Kim jong scored 12 hole in ones on his first ever golf game because of the Gods might, and when he died all the birds stopped singing and there was an earthquake.

How in the fething world, does that sound like people who are sceptical about the existence of Gods?

I honestly believe the fervent desire to classify atheism as a religion originates in the subconscious acknowledgement that an argument from reason is inherently superior to an argument from faith. It is insecurity, an attempt to try and, in short, drag atheism down to religion's level and even the playing field.

It provides me with much amusement.

Seaward wrote:I honestly believe the fervent desire to classify atheism as a religion originates in the subconscious acknowledgement that an argument from reason is inherently superior to an argument from faith. It is insecurity, an attempt to try and, in short, drag atheism down to religion's level and even the playing field.

It provides me with much amusement.

I can see their POV if they are talking about people that are 100% convinced, utterly utterly certain of no supreme powers at all, militant douche-bag atheists. If an atheist claims he is that certain, then he is as much filled with faith in his position as a full on baptist creationist who is toppers with Jesus juice! But they are a tiny tiny minority. Definitely a tinier minority than there are Muslims who think that women should be banned from getting an education.

As I said, most atheists, or secularists, or humanists, or general people that don't really give a flying feth either way, can not be tied up with them, because they merely say " It doesn't sound like there is a God to me" so how on earth can they be "making a faith choice" when you are so obviously sitting on the fence, and you are so willing to change your mind if you decide to (maybe some better evidence turns up)

They know it as well, I know for a fact they do. . you cant possibly be as intelligent as people like Orlanth and claim to believe it with a straight face. How can you claim that a hunch is a certainty? You might as well claim that white is black.

But they are desperate to claim that everything is a Religion and everyone is Religious because if that's the case, they sound much more sensible and we are all in the same boat.

Seaward wrote:
I honestly believe the fervent desire to classify atheism as a religion originates in the subconscious acknowledgement that an argument from reason is inherently superior to an argument from faith. It is insecurity, an attempt to try and, in short, drag atheism down to religion's level and even the playing field.

It provides me with much amusement

No. we just get tired of your bs fanaticism.
if you didn't care, you wouldn't care. judging by the weekly anti Jesus freak thread, its clearly wrong on its face.

Other than that, I don't think on atheists at all, other than the fervent hope I'll meet an ardent one one day who isn't a complete donkey-cave. I'm sure they exist (and some on Dakka strike me as that), but, like Diogenese I've never met one in person.

Frazzled wrote:

Other than that, I don't think on atheists at all, other than the fervent hope I'll meet an ardent one one day who isn't a complete donkey-cave. I'm sure they exist (and some on Dakka strike me as that), but, like Diogenese I've never met one in person.

Im sound mate, but as I said, Im hardly an ardent one. I just reckon Gods pretty unlikely, and if there is one, I reckon its even less likely he is the Christian one, and maybe he would get even more pissed at me if he was one of them weird Indian ones or the Muslim one, so I take my chances with scepticism on the off chance I might be getting thrown into a pit of burning dog gak for all eternity when I die.

As you say, its not interesting to me. If it wasnt for my strong feeling in the Euthanasia/Abortion debate, I wouldnt have an axe to grind at all with Christians... 99.9% of them don't bother me at all.

Muslims on the other hand.....

Frazzled wrote: if you didn't care, you wouldn't care.

That, unfortunately, is not the way the world works. To "not care" oftentimes means ceding the right to decide and legislate to religious individuals who want to impose their belief in the supernatural on me and my family. I truly do not care what you believe, and personally find it to be thoroughly wacky, but you know what? Keep it amongst your own and you'll never hear a peep out of me. Attempt to legislate based solely on your religious convictions, on the other hand, and you oblige me to oppose you. And when your only reason for backing legislation I stand opposed to is your religion, I have nothing else to argue against.

Frazzled wrote:

Seaward wrote:
I honestly believe the fervent desire to classify atheism as a religion originates in the subconscious acknowledgement that an argument from reason is inherently superior to an argument from faith. It is insecurity, an attempt to try and, in short, drag atheism down to religion's level and even the playing field.

It provides me with much amusement

No. we just get tired of your bs fanaticism.

Ditto comes screaming to mind.

mattyrm wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Other than that, I don't think on atheists at all, other than the fervent hope I'll meet an ardent one one day who isn't a complete donkey-cave. I'm sure they exist (and some on Dakka strike me as that), but, like Diogenese I've never met one in person.

Im sound mate, but as I said, Im hardly an ardent one. I just reckon Gods pretty unlikely, and if there is one, I reckon its even less likely he is the Christian one, and maybe he would get even more pissed at me if he was one of them weird Indian ones or the Muslim one, so I take my chances with scepticism on the off chance I might be getting thrown into a pit of burning dog gak for all eternity when I die.

As you say, its not interesting to me. If it wasnt for my strong feeling in the Euthanasia/Abortion debate, I wouldnt have an axe to grind at all with Christians... 99.9% of them don't bother me at all.

Muslims on the other hand.....

Exactly. I proffer atheists are most other populations. The fanatics represent 10% - 20%.
The thing is though, I've physically met very few professed atheists, and they were complete dillweeds. I've met hardcore Christians. Half are coockoo, half are really really good people.
Same for Budhists (actually the really good people was more like 80%).

sirlynchmob wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Seaward wrote:
I honestly believe the fervent desire to classify atheism as a religion originates in the subconscious acknowledgement that an argument from reason is inherently superior to an argument from faith. It is insecurity, an attempt to try and, in short, drag atheism down to religion's level and even the playing field.

It provides me with much amusement

No. we just get tired of your bs fanaticism.

Ditto comes screaming to mind.

So look at the 1st page of this thread, and see which group starts the argument first. Go ahead Ill wait.......

Frazzled? Everyone was pretty much agreeing with each other up to that point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Exactly. I proffer atheists are most other populations. The fanatics represent 10% - 20%.
The thing is though, I've physically met very few professed atheists, and they were complete dillweeds. I've met hardcore Christians. Half are coockoo, half are really really good people.
Same for Budhists (actually the really good people was more like 80%).

This is linked with what the atheists have been saying in the thread. The vast majority of atheists or agnostics don't care a fig about religion. It doesn't enter into their internal dialogues or lives, except through other people. If you're not religious, you have no dogma. No holy text or voice in your head telling you that you must convert the unbelievers or change the law of the land to suit your religion's dictates. The only atheists who bother talking about it are the ones who are annoyed by religion intruding into their lives.

Mao and Stalin weren't driven by their atheism. They were driven by political dogma, and lust for power. Religion was a competing ideology, so was seen as a threat/opposing force. This doesn't make atheism a religion, no matter how many times some religious folks want to repeat it. Thankfully many of us religious folks are capable of viewing the world other than through the lens of our religion.

dæl wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:The exact phrase separation of Church and State does not appear; it's implied.

I stand corrected. Did GW write it? They like a good dose of ambiguity in their writing style.

The US constitution is one of the most ambiguous constitutions ever written. That is one of its strengths, because it allows flexibility in what government can do, but it is also its greatest weakness, as it can be very easily abused/misunderstood.

_Tim?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:Frazzled? Everyone was pretty much agreeing with each other up to that point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Exactly. I proffer atheists are most other populations. The fanatics represent 10% - 20%.
The thing is though, I've physically met very few professed atheists, and they were complete dillweeds. I've met hardcore Christians. Half are coockoo, half are really really good people.
Same for Budhists (actually the really good people was more like 80%).

This is linked with what the atheists have been saying in the thread. The vast majority of atheists or agnostics don't care a fig about religion. It doesn't enter into their internal dialogues or lives, except through other people. If you're not religious, you have no dogma. No holy text or voice in your head telling you that you must convert the unbelievers or change the law of the land to suit your religion's dictates. The only atheists who bother talking about it are the ones who are annoyed by religion intruding into their lives.

Mao and Stalin weren't driven by their atheism. They were driven by political dogma, and lust for power. Religion was a competing ideology, so was seen as a threat/opposing force. This doesn't make atheism a religion, no matter how many times some religious folks want to repeat it. Thankfully many of us religious folks are capable of viewing the world other than through the lens of our religion.

Good post, Mannahin! Thank you for representing the sane side of religion and atheism.

_Tim?

Mannahnin wrote:Frazzled? Everyone was pretty much agreeing with each other up to that point.

Not everyone. I went away in order not to feed troll.

Mannahnin wrote:
This is linked with what the atheists have been saying in the thread. The vast majority of atheists or agnostics don't care a fig about religion. It doesn't enter into their internal dialogues or lives, except through other people.

So this means they can respect an opposing opinion, and remain patient if it is doesn't disappear? Apparently not on this thread.

Mannahnin wrote:
If you're not religious, you have no dogma. No holy text or voice in your head telling you that you must convert the unbelievers or change the law of the land to suit your religion's dictates.

If only that were true.

http://www.atheismuk.com/campaigns/

"Atheism is a campaigning organization and our mission is to oppose faith and religion.
Our campaigns are against anything based on faith or religion, always from the atheist perspective: God does not exist."

This was from the first Uk based website I found promoting atheism. There will be others. Let us look at one issue in which religious people are coming under attack by militant atheism, faith schools.
I found to my horror that Atheist Uk, the site putting these mission statements forward, is not considered an extremist atheist group but a mainstream one.

Some atheists in the UK have publically called for the abolition and/or restriction of faith schools for example:

http://www.atheistmedia.com/2010/08/richard-dawkins-faith-school-menace.html

Why? They perform better than secular schools on average. Some atheists just cannot abide the presence of religion. Even when it is benign. That is evidence of dogma and fundamentalism of the sort normally seen in a theocratic state. in fact I have never heard for even ther Islamics to call for the closure of non-Islamic faith schools. When atheist groups are being more intolerant than the Islamics, you know something is wrong.

Mannahnin wrote:
The only atheists who bother talking about it are the ones who are annoyed by religion intruding into their lives.

People arent forced to make their children attend a faith school, however some do because the grades are higher David Milliband brother of the current opposition leader and former minister, and a self confessed atheist sent his kids to a faith school even though a secular school was closer, probably because of the quality of education received. I don't have a problem with that. Its just indicative that people in a position to be clued up on the education system who have known atheist agendas are happy for their own kids to go there. So faith schools must be doing something right.

However some atheists want to close them, or abolish the religious aspects of them. On the evidence purely on a point of dogma. The website below is clear enough about what it wants:

http://www.atheismuk.com/campaigns/religious-education/

"Atheism’s sole object is the advancement of atheism. Our ultimate goal is the end of faith – the false and irrational belief that God exists – and of religion, the social manifestation of faith. The world would be a better place without them. We aim to achieve this by opposing the propagation of faith."

Why? Cant they send their kids to another school and leave others alone. No, because its not to do with resisting the annoyance of religion intruding into their lives, its because their own dogma wishes religion gone. And why is that? Fundamentalism, findamentalism as bigoted as can be found in any minority of a faith group.

Mannahnin wrote:
Mao and Stalin weren't driven by their atheism. They were driven by political dogma, and lust for power. Religion was a competing ideology, so was seen as a threat/opposing force.

To some degree I agree with you, politics was the motive,. but that is almost universal at that level of abuse. The same can be said about the medieval popes. Popes decreed crusades not out of any religious principle but due to political ends, there is no Biblical doctrine to support a crusade, but the political principles were loud and clear.

However the trapping of the religious choice were there, and so Christianity at some level can be blamed for the Crusades. The same goes for the atheist state. Neither Mao nor Stalin minced words as to why they were persecuting religious groups. Stalin might not have needed excuses to murder anyone, but his followers did for the most part, and the atheist reasonings behind the persecutions of religous people were not disguised, but openly propogated so those who did the work knew why they were doing what they did.
What is fair to do is to allow right thinking atheists to share our disgust at these atrocities and say that Mao and Stalin (and others) do not conform to the atheist ideal and can be disowned by atheists as an imposter abusing their philopophy for amoral ends. After all this is preceisly how most Christians, I would go as far as to say all real Christians perceive people like Torquemada.

Mannahnin wrote:
This doesn't make atheism a religion, no matter how many times some religious folks want to repeat it.

Which funnily enough is not what we are saying. At least it isn't what I am saying. If you think it is, quote me.

No, I say religion is faith choice, big difference. We can tell that by the way some atheists behave in the emotively charged manner as religious people so to the extremes of intolerance. the intolerance shown has no basis in atheist philosophy, which as you rightly say would not care about Gods and religions. Atheism has members that behave like they are in a religion, even to the worst extremes of what relghious people do. So you shouldnt be suprised if some want atheists measured with the same yardstick.

I think you're contradicting yourself. Based on the evidence of one political advocacy organization and some poor grammar on their website you're painting atheism as a monolithic, dogmatic group. And yet you're now hedging on whether you consider atheism to be a religion.

I'll concede that there are some politically-active atheists out there who want to oppose religious influences in society (including faith-oriented schools), but again, those folks are a tiny minority, and they're not guided by a book of dogma or a pretense of being guided by a god to their chosen course of action.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Frazzled? Everyone was pretty much agreeing with each other up to that point.

Not everyone. I went away in order not to feed troll.

You didn't post on the first page, did you? KC asked which side, on page 1, first turned the thread into an argument.

the biggest problem with religious schools in the US though (keeping in mind 44% of them are young earth creationists), They are teaching the mythical loch ness monster is not only real, but it disproves evolution.
http://www.politicususa.com/louisiana-school-loch-ness-monster-disproves-evolution.html

and the KKK are just a bunch of good people.
http://mysticpolitics.com/to-disprove-evolution-louisiana-educators-teaching-loch-ness-monster-real/
"the [Ku Klux] Klan in some areas of the country tried to be a means of reform, fighting the decline in morality and using the symbol of the cross"

And then there's those texas republicans who don't want to teach your kids thinking skills.
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/no-comment-necessary-texas-gops-2012-platform-opposes-teaching-critical-thinking-skills/

If this is the stuff you want to teach your kids, go ahead. Its probably a good indication on why the US is 17th in the world for science education, and dropping. Well behind Canada, I might add


Oh, Orlanth I still love how you cite 1 person and relate it to some. ie more than one. "some atheists in the UK" you cite one richard dawkins.

Orlanth wrote:Some atheists in the UK have publically called for the abolition and/or restriction of faith schools for example:
http://www.atheistmedia.com/2010/08/richard-dawkins-faith-school-menace.html

I love the way you generalize though, "1 atheist sends his kids to a religious school so all faith schools must be doing something right"
You should probably state that you are referencing the atheists in the UK, and not project their actions onto all atheists in the world. In the UK they might be trying to get atheism listed as a religion, but in the US and Canada they are not (to the best of my knowledge). so be careful what you wish for, if you really want to start comparing atheists to christians and other religions, you might not like where your religion places.

Orlanth wrote:So this means they can respect an opposing opinion, and remain patient if it is doesn't disappear? Apparently not on this thread.

You seem to be confused. A lack of religious belief does not require me to respect your religious belief, else I become, by default, religious. While I certainly respect your right to believe what you want, I do not by any stretch of the imagination respect your faith in the supernatural. That does not suddenly make my atheism just another religion.