Atheism AS religion? please.

[CleverScreenname]

Alright, but I still don't see why having a faith is defined by who has the "burden of proof." Like I've said before, it's simply believing in something that cannot be proven.  

[Sanguvixen]

hachimitsugirl

hachimitsugirl

I don't know if I'd sign up for having a "responsibility" to prove anything to anyone. Not requiring a supernatural deity to enrich my life doesn't entail evangelism (though I do enjoy a good verbal scrap with a believer every once in a while).

Sanguvixen

The only responsibility we have as Atheists are to prevent Theists from taking things so far as to suppress people in violent or sneaky ways. We stand up for others when they won't stand up for themselves(or can't), and we stand up for tolerence. That is all we have to do because if we don't stand up as hard shiny nails, they'll just hammer down every person that believes differently, and the way in which they do it will just get progressively worse.

Of course anyone with a core of basal ethics should be standing up for oppressed peoples, regardless of their belief system or lack of belief system. I would, however, hesitate to use atheists as an adequate "our." Rationality is a good quality but seems insufficient to corrall such disparate people as may reject supernaturality.

hachimitsugirl

The problem at the core of relious faith is that their faith compels them to make claims regarding natural law. In that respect, they must prove something just as any scientist must have proof to withstand peer-review of a theory. People of religious faith make themselves vulnerable to the burden of proof by making unsubstantiated claims about the universe. They made their bed, so to speak.

Sanguvixen

I don't get where you are getting the above. It has nothing to do with faith, or even science. The reason they will make superflous claims including claims regarding natural law, and claims that have no possibility of having proof...is that they are just trying to fight extinction. That is all it is.

I was referring to what an earlier poster had said about the "burden of proof." When the poster was posed the question of who decides who is saddled with the burden of proof, I chimed in to suggest that making claims about natural law places religious peoples in an immediate position to prove what they believe as opposed to simply believing it.

That's what I was "getting" at.

#1: He/she who stands on nuetral ground is best able to refute and/or take on problems. So in that way I think we do have a bit of responsibility wether you like it or not. You can either be a part of the problem by just sitting back and letting yourself be trampled on, or part of the solution by standing up and at least doing something to promote a more tolerent world.

#2: Bolded part...means what? I still can't figure out what you mean by that. Want to simplify it a little bit?

#3: It is the one who makes the biggest superflous claim that the burden of proof lies. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, that goes for sides, theists and atheists.

 

[hachimitsugirl]

Sanguvixen

#1: He/she who stands on nuetral ground is best able to refute and/or take on problems. So in that way I think we do have a bit of responsibility wether you like it or not. You can either be a part of the problem by just sitting back and letting yourself be trampled on, or part of the solution by standing up and at least doing something to promote a more tolerent world.

#2: Bolded part...means what? I still can't figure out what you mean by that. Want to simplify it a little bit?

#3: It is the one who makes the biggest superflous claim that the burden of proof lies. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, that goes for sides, theists and atheists.

#1: "Part of the problem?" As an applied anthropologist in training, I'll be attempting to fix plenty of people's problems, believe me. However, this militant stance of yours smacks of either high school idealism or sincere humanitarianism. I'll leave it up to you insofar as which camp you claim.

#2: Sorry, I can't distill it any more than that. I didn't think I had the habit of being obtuse. ??

#3: Again, I was addressing another poster with my statements about "burden of proof." Take it up with the originator if you want.  

[Sanguvixen]

hachimitsugirl

Sanguvixen

#1: He/she who stands on nuetral ground is best able to refute and/or take on problems. So in that way I think we do have a bit of responsibility wether you like it or not. You can either be a part of the problem by just sitting back and letting yourself be trampled on, or part of the solution by standing up and at least doing something to promote a more tolerent world.

#2: Bolded part...means what? I still can't figure out what you mean by that. Want to simplify it a little bit?

#3: It is the one who makes the biggest superflous claim that the burden of proof lies. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, that goes for sides, theists and atheists.

#1: "Part of the problem?" As an applied anthropologist in training, I'll be attempting to fix plenty of people's problems, believe me. However, this militant stance of yours smacks of either high school idealism or sincere humanitarianism. I'll leave it up to you insofar as which camp you claim.

#2: Sorry, I can't distill it any more than that. I didn't think I had the habit of being obtuse. ??

#3: Again, I was addressing another poster with my statements about "burden of proof." Take it up with the originator if you want.

Applied Anthropologist? Oh...what is that supposed to imply?

Since you can't seem to say anything other than an implied personal attack, or an implied "I know more than you do" kind of thing I'm sort of done here. Take your arrogence elsewhere, okay? If you can't see the problem, than I can't help you.

Part of the problem between theists and atheists are people who are uptight, snobby, rude, arrogent, or just plain mean. It is the responsibility of everyone to put those people in thier place.

Look at the westies, and the motercycle block-aid. They may or may not contain athiests in thier ranks, but I applaud how effective they are at keeping Fred Phelps as bay so that mourners can mourn in peace. There is much wrong in the world, and it doesn't take much to contribute to a solution. You may not have to out of your way to stop a theist from making mourners suffer, but then again you don't have to sit back and do nothing.

 

[hachimitsugirl]

Sanguvixen

hachimitsugirl

Sanguvixen

#1: He/she who stands on nuetral ground is best able to refute and/or take on problems. So in that way I think we do have a bit of responsibility wether you like it or not. You can either be a part of the problem by just sitting back and letting yourself be trampled on, or part of the solution by standing up and at least doing something to promote a more tolerent world.

#2: Bolded part...means what? I still can't figure out what you mean by that. Want to simplify it a little bit?

#3: It is the one who makes the biggest superflous claim that the burden of proof lies. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, that goes for sides, theists and atheists.

#1: "Part of the problem?" As an applied anthropologist in training, I'll be attempting to fix plenty of people's problems, believe me. However, this militant stance of yours smacks of either high school idealism or sincere humanitarianism. I'll leave it up to you insofar as which camp you claim.

#2: Sorry, I can't distill it any more than that. I didn't think I had the habit of being obtuse. ??

#3: Again, I was addressing another poster with my statements about "burden of proof." Take it up with the originator if you want.

Applied Anthropologist? Oh...what is that supposed to imply?

Since you can't seem to say anything other than an implied personal attack, or an implied "I know more than you do" kind of thing I'm sort of done here. Take your arrogence elsewhere, okay? If you can't see the problem, than I can't help you.

Part of the problem between theists and atheists are people who are uptight, snobby, rude, arrogent, or just plain mean. It is the responsibility of everyone to put those people in thier place.

Look at the westies, and the motercycle block-aid. They may or may not contain athiests in thier ranks, but I applaud how effective they are at keeping Fred Phelps as bay so that mourners can mourn in peace. There is much wrong in the world, and it doesn't take much to contribute to a solution. You may not have to out of your way to stop a theist from making mourners suffer, but then again you don't have to sit back and do nothing.

What?!!
Wow, it sounds as if you're getting woefully off track.
I'm not clear on the intent or even the content of your "response" here, as it's more like a weirdly misdirected tantrum. If you wanna respond to me in normal fashion, feel free.
I don't mind tediously drawn-out discussions. I prefer them, as I relish the opportunity to inform those in need.  

[Sanguvixen]

Hachimitsugirl...are you aware of it or not? How you post, how you act, and how to treat others has a direct influence of how others respond and treat you in return.

Personally I don't like discussing things with you because wether or not you are aware of it, you act snooty, arrogent, codenscending to those who disagree with you, at some points you come across as selfish...and I deal with enough of that in the GD. It's why I left the ED because the ED is worse.

Once you can learn to be more polite, and less snooty when dealing with others I'll be very happy to discuss things with you because you do seem to be a very intelligent individual...if not a little...arrogent.

 

[Prince Rilian]

hachimitsugirl

Harris says, "An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim (religion), read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous. One doesn’t have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs."

Have you encountered this statement?
If so, how do you counter it?
Or do you believe that atheism is a "religion?"

That statement doesn't paint atheism as a religion.  

[hachimitsugirl]

Rilian

hachimitsugirl

Harris says, "An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim (religion), read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous. One doesn’t have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs."

Have you encountered this statement?
If so, how do you counter it?
Or do you believe that atheism is a "religion?"

That statement doesn't paint atheism as a religion.

Uhhh, of course not.
"Have you encountered this statement" was in reference to the title of my post - those insisting that atheism IS a religion. Harris refutes it in that quote succinctly and I was asking if others have their own way of putting it.  

[hachimitsugirl]

Sanguvixen

Hachimitsugirl...are you aware of it or not? How you post, how you act, and how to treat others has a direct influence of how others respond and treat you in return.

Personally I don't like discussing things with you because wether or not you are aware of it, you act snooty, arrogent, codenscending to those who disagree with you, at some points you come across as selfish...and I deal with enough of that in the GD. It's why I left the ED because the ED is worse.

Once you can learn to be more polite, and less snooty when dealing with others I'll be very happy to discuss things with you because you do seem to be a very intelligent individual...if not a little...arrogent.

I'm probably the most polite person you or anyone will ever meet. If you feel threatened by me, I can't help that, no matter how much etiquette I throw at you. At least I remain coherant.  

[flame skulls]

i believe atheism is a religion because if christianity can be a religion why not atheism they arent better than us, even though there are more christians than atheists in fact only about 15% of earths population is atheist =[  

[God of lunchboxes]

Religion requires beleif.

"I don't beleive there is no God, I am convinced there is no God. Which is another standpoint entirely."
Douglas Adams: Author of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. 'Kinda wish there was a heaven for him.  

[God of lunchboxes]

Atheism is not a religion is the sum up of that bullshit I typed back there.  

[SkeletonPhoenix]

No, it is not a religon because there is no faith or belief it is lack of religion so how can atheism be a religion. If it was a religion it would create a paradox.  

[SkeletonPhoenix]

Paradox!Paradox!Paradox!Paradox!Paradox!Paradox!Paradox!Paradox!Paradox!Paradox!Paradox!Paradox!Paradox!Paradox!Paradox!Boom!

Black Hole