Atheism: new religion?

[llamatron]

How do you know what I believe?

 

I have the right to have my beliefs. And I respect and tolerate those who don't believe in what I believe. There is no double standard.

 

I never denied the right for atheist to think believing in god is ridiculous. I don't appreciate when they try to impose it to others and when they can't accept that others think differently.

 

You told us:loopy:

 

You then said "hahahahaha" when I said you believed in one of the monsters but not the pasta based one-that was ridiculing it

[sccsux]

Atheists will definitely form a community in the future, they will try to be as visible as religious groups.

 

http://www.atheistbus.org.uk/

 

Doubt they'll go around bombing things, like you claimed though.

[Baz1]

You didn't answer my question, which logical fallacy was it that you think was being put forward, because thus far, you've done little to dim my suspicions that you don't know what you're talking about, I'll even help you out, try picking one of these, you've got a lot to choose from, but be quick, otherwise it's gonna seem like you're only researching it now!

That is not a fact, there is no evidence that Santa does not exist.

Now that is a logical fallacy! Specifically an argumentum ad populum, it is not valid.

 

Yes I did answer- I said it was a logical fallacy that you compare Santa/fairies etc and God as being the same. The issue is not that we have no good evidence for these mythical entities rather, we have strong evidence that they do not exist.

 

Like I stated before, absence of evidence is not at all the same as evidence of absence, which some atheists fail to see.

 

Anyway, I have been busy due to taking my child to some evening classes and I'm off to another- may be we should stay on topic- Atheism is a new religion as much as it tries to deny it. You only need to look at the New age Atheists like 'the four horsemen of Atheism today- they have a cult like following and some of the rhetoric they use borders on fanaticism and is quite dangerous talk.

[Lockjaw]

Yes I did answer- I said it was a logical fallacy that you compare Santa/fairies etc and God as being the same. The issue is not that we have no good evidence for these mythical entities rather, we have strong evidence that they do not exist.

 

Go on then; give us some evidence that Santa doesn't exist.

[EbonyBranch]

Your freedom to be an atheist is a major part of the Constitution, or to be of any religion of your choosing. The ACLU carries on a giant war on attempts by any one religion to have precedence over any other. Most of the founding fathers who created the constitution were protestants of the Anglican, Baptist or Congregationalist faiths, so those faiths often got preference. But atheists have succeded in having religious symbols removed from government buildings, and such things as Christmas creches outside churches. I still believe that the fundamentals of the ten commandments are right for the proper guidelines of decent life, though I am not deeply religious.

 

Seeing as no one else appears to have addressed this one, I thought I would.

 

How many open atheists are there in positions of political power in the US? On the other hand, how many States defy the constitution by explicitly imposing a religious test for public office?

 

How often are US military personnel persecuted for their Christian beliefs? On the other hand, how often are non-Chrisitian and atheist US military personnel persecuted?

 

The Founding fathers had a variety of beliefs, and some of the most influential were deists, not Christians. They drafted a constitution that built a wall of separation between church and state, and the church seems to have been trying to attack that idea ever since.

 

I saved the 10 Commandments for last, as did you. Which of the 10 do you think are reflected in US law? Which do you think are morally defensible? And, incidentally; which set of commandments do you prefer? There are several diferent versions.

[EbonyBranch]

Yes I did answer- I said it was a logical fallacy that you compare Santa/fairies etc and God as being the same. The issue is not that we have no good evidence for these mythical entities rather, we have strong evidence that they do not exist.

 

Like I stated before, absence of evidence is not at all the same as evidence of absence, which some atheists fail to see.

 

Anyway, I have been busy due to taking my child to some evening classes and I'm off to another- may be we should stay on topic- Atheism is a new religion as much as it tries to deny it. You only need to look at the New age Atheists like 'the four horsemen of Atheism today- they have a cult like following and some of the rhetoric they use borders on fanaticism and is quite dangerous talk.

 

Interesting that your identifying features for a religion appear to include a cult-like following and fanatical rhetoric. I agree; those things are often found in religion.

 

Before we can really discuss the matter, we'd need to agree on definitions. What are your definitions of 'religion', 'atheism', 'cult-like' and 'fanatical', for example?

 

Let me illustrate for you why I think this is important. The key difference between the kind of personality cult surrounding Dawkins and Hitchens - which I'd agree exists - and the usual meaning of 'cult' in a religious context is one of the many, many reasons why atheism is not a religion.

[flamingjimmy]

Yes I did answer- I said it was a logical fallacy that you compare Santa/fairies etc and God as being the same.

But you haven't said what logical fallacy it is, as in, where does the logic fail. Saying 'that is a logical fallacy' is meaningless unless you explain why. Seriously, go look it up philosphy boy.

The issue is not that we have no good evidence for these mythical entities rather, we have strong evidence that they do not exist.

What evidence?

 

Like I stated before, absence of evidence is not at all the same as evidence of absence

No-one here is claiming it is.

[Lockjaw]

Anyway, I have been busy due to taking my child to some evening classes and I'm off to another- may be we should stay on topic- .

 

Chuckle.

 

You had time to edit your post to provide an excuse (staying on topic) but not to provide the evidence you seem so sure exists.

 

Is this because you have realised there isn't, actually, any such evidence?

[quisquose]

No-one here is claiming it is.

 

I knew I was just invisible round here ... goes off in a huff ...

 

Absence of evidence is not proof of absence, but it can be evidence of absence.

 

In the case of the Abrahamic God, for which many claims are made which would result in many evidences, absence of evidence is most definitely evidence of absence.

 

I apologise for the intolerant nature of this message.

 

[sccsux]

Jesus was real, remember the Turin shroud?

 

Then there was the Salford Frying Pan.