Let’s chat about the atheist religion.

[gaffo]

How is the ABSENCE of a particular ideology, an ideology for those who don't have it? Seriously.

Its not.

thanks for the clear and concise statement.

and of course I'm an Athiest - if anyone here has not figured it out since i showed up here 2.5 yrs ago.

my non-faith does not define me (anymore than other Athiests) - other things define my views - politics, hobbies, etc..........out of particular Gods i do not believe in.

[gaffo]

I'm neither religious nor spiritual.

I'm not the former, not sure about the latter.

Atheism is not a religion.

AMEN!

I know Mr Kant dismisses and disparages your posts (why so? - i've seen your posts here and i find value in them - i think he is wrong on this count - but whatever).

I thank you for your post Sir, welcome future discourse with you.

just curious, are you an Atheist? - none of my business of course.

[Sculptor]

By my definition it is.

You are completely wrong.
In fact you could not be more wrong.

KIS or we end in just discussing the meaning of words and as stated, I have no time for such B S. Why? Just read what I quote below.

Since following an ideology is a prerequisite of religion, atheism can be considered a religion, since atheists draws on philosophical ideologies to guide ideas, behaviors, and actions, like that of any religion. That is why atheist churches are called atheist churches.

Atheism is not an ideology.
Even if it were you would have to include all ideologies by your argument. That would just make you look more ridiculous.

---------
Atheists Are Sometimes More Religious Than Christians
A new study shows how poorly we understand the beliefs of people who identify as atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular.

What moron made that "study"? Please cite!
Atheism is a state of non-belief, even disbelief not does not include any belief as necessary.

Americans are deeply religious people—and atheists are no exception. Western Europeans are deeply secular people—and Christians are no exception.

BS

These twin statements are generalizations, but they capture the essence of a fascinating finding in a new study about Christian identity in Western Europe. By surveying almost 25,000 people in 15 countries in the region, and comparing the results with data previously gathered in the U.S., the Pew Research Center discovered three things.

First, researchers confirmed the widely known fact that, overall, Americans are much more religious than Western Europeans. They gauged religious commitment using standard questions, including “Do you believe in God with absolute certainty?” and “Do you pray daily?”

Second, the researchers found that American “nones”—those who identify as atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular—are more religious than European nones. The notion that religiously unaffiliated people can be religious at all may seem contradictory, but if you disaffiliate from organized religion it does not necessarily mean you’ve sworn off belief in God, say, or prayer.

The third finding reported in the study is by far the most striking. As it turns out, “American ‘nones’ are as religious as—or even more religious than—Christians in several European countries, including France, Germany, and the U.K.”

“That was a surprise,” Neha Sahgal, the lead researcher on the study, told me. “That’s the comparison that’s fascinating to me.” She highlighted the fact that whereas only 23 percent of European Christians say they believe in God with absolute certainty, 27 percent of American nones say this.

America is a country so suffused with faith that religious attributes abound even among the secular. Consider the rise of “atheist churches,” which cater to Americans who have lost faith in supernatural deities but still crave community, enjoy singing with others, and want to think deeply about morality. It’s religion, minus all the God stuff. This is a phenomenon spreading across the country, from the Seattle Atheist Church to the North Texas Church of Freethought. The Oasis Network, which brings together non-believers to sing and learn every Sunday morning, has affiliates in nine U.S. cities.

Last month, almost 1,000 people streamed into a [Atheist] church in San Francisco for an unprecedented event billed as “Beyoncé Mass.” Most were people of color and members of the LGBTQ community. Many were secular. They used Queen Bey’s songs, which are replete with religious symbolism, as the basis for a communal celebration—one that had all the trappings of a religious service. That seemed completely fitting to some, including one reverend who said, “Beyoncé is a better theologian than many of the pastors and priests in our church today.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...t ... ns/560936/

Regards
DL

Those who are leading the thinking and promotion of atheist priests and churches disagree with you.

They are all insane, and no true atheists.

You want more facts and survey info, do it yourself as you do not like my sources.

"Even if it were you would have to include all ideologies by your argument."

I basically did.

"Atheism is a state of non-belief, even disbelief not does not include any belief as necessary."

Except for a state of non-belief, even disbelief a n includes any belief as necessary.

no

See what I did there. Think before speaking.

I'm way ahead of you as usual/

Regards
DL

[Sculptor]

I'm neither religious nor spiritual.

I'm not the former, not sure about the latter.

Atheism is not a religion.

AMEN!

I know Mr Kant dismisses and disparages your posts (why so? - i've seen your posts here and i find value in them - i think he is wrong on this count - but whatever).

I thank you for your post Sir, welcome future discourse with you.

just curious, are you an Atheist? - none of my business of course.

I do not believe in God.
That would make me an atheist in most places.
But obviously not in this thread.

[gaffo]

Being religious, by definition, is 'being stupid'.

Fully dissagree - and anyone that thinks that way is stoooopid - including any that are also not just stooopid but also Atheist and stupid.

They (those of Faith - some are thoughtfull and not just born into their faith (who are a minority IMO) and have faith to "Believe" - just believe in thier God/s via Faith (unlike me who refuses to affirm knowledge outside of empirical truth).

there are the rest of the Religious - the majority - who were just born into it. they have no Faith - never thought about stuff - .my dad/mom were jews/hindus/etc.....so i am too sort of mindlessness mindset.

------------------

Being religious, by definition, is 'being stupid'

if you actually beleive the above then you are stooopid IMO.

and if you do, you need to take a "time out" and take some time for introspection Sir.

[gaffo]

I do not believe in God.

WOW!! - no seriously, wow, I've been here for nearly 3 yrs and seen your posts and never assumed you are an Athiest/or not - either way. Your Athiesm does not define your character anyway.

just sayin i never thought you were an Athiest from your posts (nor assume you are a Christian either) - lol.

thanks for clarifying and the fast reply Sir!

That would make me an atheist in most places.
But obviously not in this thread.

??? I don't follow..but ok i'm thick sometimes.

thanks for reply Sir! - i think your posts have more value than the Christian Mr Kant does- i personally value you and his posts, i think he needs to value your posts more than he does.

[Sculptor]

I do not believe in God.

WOW!! - no seriously, wow, I've been here for nearly 3 yrs and seen your posts and never assumed you are an Athiest/or not - either way. Your Athiesm does not define your character anyway.

just sayin i never thought you were an Athiest from your posts (nor assume you are a Christian either) - lol.

thanks for clarifying and the fast reply Sir!

That would make me an atheist in most places.
But obviously not in this thread.

??? I don't follow..but ok i'm thick sometimes.

I am atheistic, but anti-religion. Given the absurd thread, in which I am supposed to be part of a religion if I am an atheist, I do not exist.

[Lacewing]

Given the absurd thread, in which I am supposed to be part of a religion if I am an atheist, I do not exist.

It is very weird when theists or other religious people want to claim that non-theists are religious about atheism. Not only is it absurd, but it's so obviously contrived. And what purpose does it serve? What is someone trying to propose with such nonsense? That their OWN reliance on religion is reasonable because EVERYBODY is religious whether they believe themselves to be or not? Come on... what the fuck?! How does a brain even tolerate itself making up such distorted crap and then turning it into claims on a philosophy forum? There's just too much fucking insanity! Really!!

[Dubious]

Even atheism wouldn't have any purpose existing as an antibody if the infection of theism didn't preexist. Unfortunately the mental antibodies are not as immediate or prolific as the physical ones.

[Sculptor]

Given the absurd thread, in which I am supposed to be part of a religion if I am an atheist, I do not exist.

It is very weird when theists or other religious people want to claim that non-theists are religious about atheism. Not only is it absurd, but it's so obviously contrived. And what purpose does it serve? What is someone trying to propose with such nonsense? That their OWN reliance on religion is reasonable because EVERYBODY is religious whether they believe themselves to be or not? Come on... what the fuck?! How does a brain even tolerate itself making up such distorted crap and then turning it into claims on a philosophy forum? There's just too much fucking insanity! Really!!

It is my view that they are subconsciously aware that faith and religion are inherently absurd. This results in the conscious tar-brushing of their opponents so as to bring them down to the same level of scared ignorance that evokes feelings of faith in themselves.
In this way they hope to level the playing field in the hope of making atheists look as absurd as they are.
It's a sort of - you are no better than me ploy.

[Sculptor]

Even atheism wouldn't have any purpose existing as an antibody if the infection of theism didn't preexist. Unfortunately the mental antibodies are not as immediate or prolific as the physical ones.

Indeed the infection known as theism has all the classic qualities of a dangerous virus. It is highly infectious with a inheritable element. It has an asymptomatic infectivity, and effects children of school age. It is not harmful enough to kill but can lead to serious failings in cognition and reason enough to make the infected eliminate and kill those they fail to infect.

The antibody is strong but can take a large shot of reason for the vaccine to be effective. Generally, though once the antibody is present further attempts at infection are limited to agnosticism and the recovered victim maintains a healthy skepticism for life.

[Lacewing]

It is very weird when theists or other religious people want to claim that non-theists are religious about atheism. Not only is it absurd, but it's so obviously contrived. And what purpose does it serve? What is someone trying to propose with such nonsense? That their OWN reliance on religion is reasonable because EVERYBODY is religious whether they believe themselves to be or not? Come on... what the fuck?! How does a brain even tolerate itself making up such distorted crap and then turning it into claims on a philosophy forum? There's just too much fucking insanity! Really!!

It is my view that they are subconsciously aware that faith and religion are inherently absurd. This results in the conscious tar-brushing of their opponents so as to bring them down to the same level of scared ignorance that evokes feelings of faith in themselves.
In this way they hope to level the playing field in the hope of making atheists look as absurd as they are.
It's a sort of - you are no better than me ploy.

That makes perfect sense... as do the other comments by you and Dubious about the infectious virus nature of theism, and how that mental virus may respond when it does not succeed in infecting someone.

So, ATTENTION INSANE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE: You really need to get a grip on how screwed up you are, and stop spreading your disease to the rest of humankind. Enjoy it in the privacy of your own home, or with those who want to share it -- otherwise, stop making up stupid crap that non-theists have to wade through. It's YOUR trip... not the truth of the entire Universe. And if you're really not intelligent enough to GET THAT, you shouldn't be on a philosophy forum!

[Age]

But now, 'Is it possible to discriminate against human beings and this be 'just'?

Not "against;" but "among," yes.

Okay, that is a big difference, and sounds reasonable on first glance.

But now will you provide examples of how you discriminate "among" human beings, and this still be 'just'?

[Age]

Define god. It looks like you are defining it as everything and nothing at the same time.

God is just another word for Consciousness or Awareness in which all concepts arise and fall and are known instantly as and when they arise one with the knowing.

And where does Consciousness or Awareness come from exactly if not thee one and only Truly OPEN Mind, which is where all concepts also arise and fall are also KNOWN instantly or immediately.

The One Truly OPEN Mind is what is sometimes referred to as God, in the invisible or spiritual sense. As thee Mind actually does exist as a Spirit, and not as some physically seen thing.

When Nothing is known Everything is known.

What is not-known will eventually become known, but what is UNKNOWABLE can NEVER be known.

And 'what' exactly could be and/or is supposedly "UNKNOWABLE"?

Obviously this is so absurd and a complete self-contradiction that to even begin to think that there is such a thing borders on insanity. Try and answer that question and see how long you will stay sane for.

To thee Truly OPEN Mind, which is obviously able to learn, understand, and reason absolutely any and every thing, then there is obviously no thing that is actually "unknowable", as you say there is.

To even imagine how you could PROVE your claim with evidence is absolutely absurd in and of itself. So, WHY make a claim that you have NO way of proving, let alone being able to back it up and support it with absolutely any thing. Unless of course you can, and so you will now, correct?

Oh, and by the way, IF there happens to be some 'thing' that is "UNKNOWABLE", then that goes without the need to say, " 'it' can NEVER be known ".

It is best to know the tides before building sand castles.

.

What would they matter? Sand castles NEVER last for long anyway, no matter what.

I suggest if you want to say some thing that actually stands up FOREVER, then you say some thing with substance and which you have at least some thing, which is backing up and supporting your claims. If you want to say some thing while knowing that some thing like a tide is going to come along and knocked it down or just wash it away eventually, then I suggest is not really worth saying and sharing anyway.

If what one wants to say can not hold True forever, then why bother saying it at all?

[Dubious]

Even atheism wouldn't have any purpose existing as an antibody if the infection of theism didn't preexist. Unfortunately the mental antibodies are not as immediate or prolific as the physical ones.

Indeed the infection known as theism has all the classic qualities of a dangerous virus. It is highly infectious with a inheritable element. It has an asymptomatic infectivity, and effects children of school age. It is not harmful enough to kill but can lead to serious failings in cognition and reason enough to make the infected eliminate and kill those they fail to infect.

The antibody is strong but can take a large shot of reason for the vaccine to be effective. Generally, though once the antibody is present further attempts at infection are limited to agnosticism and the recovered victim maintains a healthy skepticism for life.

All that is true. Memes behave exactly like viruses when they become insidious and toxic which is what happens when authorities force them into existence then perpetuated through indoctrination and terror. In that sense, the virus or meme must itself be inoculated against those external influences which seek to destroy or limit its efficacy. The vaccine protecting the virus is injected by strict dogma and if that doesn't work by divine revelation. As usual, thinking beyond established beliefs must be curtailed in order to obey and uphold the ruling establishment. In contrast, a natural plague may ravage populations and in the process burn itself out in fairly short order. Usually when something like this happens there follows a period of renewal but with theistic systems renewal is mandated against and punished when infringed. If there's one thing theism actually does prove it's that mental infections last a lot longer than natural ones.