Can atheists be religious?

[Moontanman]

Let's get real here, when theists talk about atheists they aren't talking about Buddhists or Shaman or any other supernatural belief system that lacks a belief in a specific god or gods they are talking about people who don't buy the horse feathers they are selling about their own religious beliefs. No one talks about someone who doesn't believe in Odin or Zeus as atheists an atheist is some who doesn't believe in the particular brand of supernatural nonsense you happen to hold sacred.

 

I'm not really satisfied with being an atheist due to this fact I prefer Apistevist, In other words I lack a belief in anything that requires faith (with apologies to bionicdance) Apistevist pretty much says it, if it requires faith with no evidence then I do not buy what ever is being sold...

[Tridimity]

Moontanman,

 

Thanks, that term as coined originally by Bionicdance in 2011, is quite useful. Apistevist. I notice that it does not yet feature in the dictionary, but that is only a matter of time and of who revises the next version of the dictionary - with sufficient usage, the term may well be incorporated. So, please count me among your number: if it requires blind faith in order to believe in it, then I'm not interested in believing in it. However, I suspect that your new term is not immune from allegations of religiosity. s1eep would probably have it that apistevists are 'religious' about faith - because they deny faith, they are taking a stance on the matter, and are to be considered religious for all reaching the same conclusion! There's no reasoning with fruities.

 

Tridimity, Apistevist.

[Moontanman]

After using BionicDance's word I feel I should give her channel a plug, sorry if it bothers anyone...

 

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6vEgUAUC6ti47YsczNNoRQ

[GiantEvil]

Yep, I'm there! Apistevist, I like it! I hope it catches on.

And BionicDance is cool too!

[overtone]

 

 

Apistevist

It will always read, to me, as someone with a fetish for honeybees. I can correct the read, but it's a double take.

[Ringer]

There's less difference between a vertebrae made up of cartilage and bone than no vertebrae and one made of bone.

 

Amoeba: Not Kingdom Animalia (Kingdom Protozoa)

Algae: Not Kingdom Animalia (Kingdom Protista)

Photosynthetic Flagellate (aka Green Algae): Not Kingdom Animalia (Kingdom Plantae)

The notocords are the only argument you can make of the ones listed. Clearly they belong to Animalia. Most embryos that are to develop into vertebrates start out with notocords as the support structure for muscle tissue.

Actually there are a extinct and extant vertebrates without vertebral bones. Cephalaspidomorphia (lamprey) and chondrichthyes (cartilagonous fish) being very obvious examples. The vertebral column, not the bone, is the characteristic you would want. The notochord couldn't be an argument because now you include chordates outside of vertebrata.

 

But the analogy incidentally makes a point. The definition of vertebrates, like the definition of atheists, has certain connotations that differ from the actual denotation. Online dictionaries tend to use more connotative usages than the strict definitions . So while you may be making an argument for the definition of atheist you use, it doesn't mean it is an argument for a strict definition of atheist.

[Moontanman]

Don't forget the invertebrates with internal skeletons... just to confuse the issue a bit more...

It will always read, to me, as someone with a fetish for honeybees. I can correct the read, but it's a double take.

 

I thought of that as well, I used to keep bees on a hobby level...

Oh then there are people with a real sexual fetish for bees... I'd provide an illustration but I value my membership here a bit too much for that...

[overtone]

 

 

The definition of vertebrates, like the definition of atheists, has certain connotations that differ from the actual denotation.

The truer comparison would be between a-theist and the category in-vertebrate - originally "no backbone", as problems arose becoming more and more postiively identified rather than negatively, now a mutlicellular organism in Kingdom Animalia for starters.

 

This is the same basic problem the negatively defined category "atheist" creates, in the OP: a pile of hidden assumptions are necessary to make a group of the folks, and so a lot of people without deities are left out in the end as various patches are affixed.

 

That's better than denying the Buddhism is a religion, but it does look like a cul de sac to confusion.

[iNow]

Everyone is an atheist regarding at least some of the countless many gods laying dead in the graveyard of human mythology. Many of us just include your personally preferred flavor of deity in that same set... "Some of us just go one god further."

[ralfy]

Logic fail. Because hobbies don't necessarily involve the collection of stamps, then that explains why not collecting stamps can also be considered a hobby.

Logic fail. Your analogy is completely wrong because there are different definitions of religion and of atheism. See for yourself.

Some of them are - the Taoist, Buddhist, Animist, trad Navajo, and so forth.

 

Some of them aren't.

 

If you are wondering whether a given atheistic person is religious, ask yourself what religion they belong to. If you can't find one that fits, the first guess is that they aren't religious.

Exactly my point.

I think you mean to say: because religion doesn't necessarily involve belief in gods, atheists are not necessarily irreligious.

That's right.

Correction: because some religions don't necessarily involve belief in gods, then that explains why some atheists can also be considered religious.

That's what "not necessarily" means.

[Villain]

 

Atheists must re-state their positions so as to stave off conversion. More importantly, atheists must reclaim from theists the spheres of public life that theists have historically taken for granted, including matters of morality, finance, sexual behaviour, marriage and relationships. Being (for the most part) tolerant folk, atheists are happy to grant theists the freedom to choose and practise their religion, so long as they keep themselves to themselves as far as these practises and opinions are concerned. When religious types begin attempting to dominate the women and children in other groups and (more commonly) their own group - religion becomes a problem. Adults (assuming that they have not been indoctrinated beyond all repair since childhood) have the freedom to choose their own religion based on their preferred methods of gleaning truth. Children are not so fortunate, especially if the familial and community pressures are strong to conform and to forego any questioning. When theists begin dominating their wives and children by maiming them (FGM) or by threatening or carrying out sexual, physical, psychological or emotional abuse - or when they initiate wars in the name of religion - or when they persecute non-believers (Inquisition) or homosexuals - you can guarantee that atheists will intervene. Damn right we will. Because humans belong to humanity not to a particular nation or religion.

 

Soapboxing is against the forum rules

[Tridimity]

 

Soapboxing is against the forum rules

 

Villain, how was that soapboxing? I was addressing the question, as raised in the thread, regarding the reasons why atheists take part in the discussion with respect to the existence or otherwise of God. One member suggests that, since atheists become involved in the discussion, they are not passively lacking belief in God but are actively believing in the lack of a God, and therefore are religious. My response above outlines the reasons why atheists become involved in the discussion - namely because theists hijack all spheres of public life, it is impossible not to become involved. The thread was long, which is why I did not choose to quote and reply to individual snippets of the discussion, but rather read through and to make a mental summary of the key points - and to reply to the summary as a whole.

 

If there is anything in there which you think is factually incorrect and is merely an emotional soliloquy, then please let me know, as I have no qualms about defending my arguments and their relevance to the thread.

 

Tri

Edited November 13, 2013 by Tridimity

[Villain]

 

Villain, how was that soapboxing? I was addressing the question, as raised in the thread, regarding the reasons why atheists take part in the discussion with respect to the existence or otherwise of God. One member suggests that, since atheists become involved in the discussion, they are not passively lacking belief in God but are actively believing in the lack of a God, and therefore are religious. My response above outlines the reasons why atheists become involved in the discussion - namely because theists hijack all spheres of public life, it is impossible not to become involved. The thread was long, which is why I did not choose to quote and reply to individual snippets of the discussion, but rather read through and to make a mental summary of the key points - and to reply to the summary as a whole.

 

If there is anything in there which you think is factually incorrect and is merely an emotional soliloquy, then please let me know, as I have no qualms about defending my arguments and their relevance to the thread.

 

Tri

 

I don't know which post you're replying to (since as you've pointed out there's no quote) but the part that I quoted reads like some sort of manifesto.

[doG]

 

You were saying?

 

And saying that all those who don't affirm their belief in a deity makes them automatically atheist is incorrect. There are those who has not decided their position on whether or not there is a god. Those people are referred to as "agnostic".

Agnostics are the middle ground between theists and atheists. They are the ones who are "on the fence".

 

Having done this so many times before I'm going to simply quote these posts from the past:

 

Your definitions and understanding of these terms is flawed.

 

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. It's about knowledge, not theism. Agnosticism is NOT a point on the axis of theism for fence sitters that don't know if they believe in deities or not.

 

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Basically theists have an affirmative belief that at least one deity exists. Anyone that lacks that belief is atheist or not-theist. It does not mean that they have an affirmative belief that there are no deities or that they are not possible.

 

Anyone that believes that man can never know the absolute truth is agnostic regardless of their belief, or lack thereof, in deities. Anyone that lacks an affirmative belief that one or more deities exist is atheist. I fit both of these conditions so I am an example of an agnostic atheist. Someone which claims to 'know' there are no deities is gnostic atheist, sometimes referred to as a strong atheist. Anyone that claims to 'know' there is a god is a gnostic theist. Those that believe in one or more gods but also believe man could never absolutely know for sure are agnostic theists.

 

Rebiu,

 

Not to derail the thread in semantic debate, but atheism and agnosticism have different academic and non-academic meanings (kinda like the way "theory" in science and "theory" in informal discussions with your friends have two totally different meanings). Academically speaking, certainty has nothing to do with being an atheist. Atheism and theism have to do with what you believe, whether the number of gods you believe in is greater than zero; agnosticism has to do with what you think you can know, such as whether you think the nature of God is fundamentally knowable through logic or science.

 

People can be agnostic atheists (those who dont believe in any gods, but also say that concepts of gods arent subject to rational discourse), or gnostic atheists (those who dont believe in any gods, and believe that gods existence can be examined by philosophical arguments or scientific evidence), or agnostic theists (usually deists who believe in a god who has no other definable attributes), or gnostic theists (which make up the majority of theists, those who believe God is knowable through philosophy, science, or revelation).

 

Talking about certainty is totally different, its a concept seperate from a/theism and a/gnosticism. A person can be a weakly agnostic atheist (apathetic to god questions), or a strongly gnostic theist (fundies), or any other mix. So there are 3 axes of belief:

1) atheism / theism axis

2) agnosticism / gnosticism axis

3) certainty / doubt

 

A lot of websites like to say "there are no such things as atheists, because they cant be absolutely certain without being god themselves, so they are agnostics", which is pretty absurd because even if it were true, all of those agnostics can count the number of gods they worship on no hands.

 

and from the etymology of the word atheist:

 

atheist (n.) 1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea).

 

Notice the a- is simply a not modifier, therefore a-theist simply means not theist in the same way that a-synchronous simply means not-synchronous.

Edited November 13, 2013 by doG

[Phi for All]

It should be no surprise to anyone that theists want to distort the definition of religion to be as inclusive as possible. Evolution favored those with imaginations capable of seeing lions in the shadows, because sometimes there were. In order for that mechanism to work best, the "Sighted" need to convince the rest of the tribe of the importance of their unobserved, unsupported suspicions. They need everyone to be a little religious, to believe using their faith instead of their trust.

 

IMO, this is partly why faith is considered by many to be the strongest form of belief when in reality it's the least supported, relying on chance and persuasion to create emotional and supernatural ties to natural phenomena. When you have nothing really tangible to support your belief, when you know it's based on nothing but feelings and tenuous suppositions, when you know your only real support is that lots of other people use faith to believe in lots of gods and doctrines, it's very important that you recruit as many to your way of thinking as possible.

 

But this is getting a bit ridiculous, this attempt to make atheists into a "group" so they can be caught discussing god and therefore be called "religious". The fact that it doesn't work with anything else (stamp-collecting, politics, everything else that's been named so far) should show you how much you have to torture the definition to make it fit. Atheism is not a religion.

[iNow]

Your analogy is completely wrong because there are different definitions of religion and of atheism.

What's your point? The existence of different definitions does not alter the broken logic structure you put forth. You misspoke, and I demonstrated that by analogy so it was more clear where, how, and why.

 

Either way, no need to perpetuate a petty and silly disagreement like this. This thread is laden with a countless many of them already (seriously, people are arguing that buddhism is not a religion FFS).

 

It's pretty clear to me that you intended to convey a message more aligned with the structure put forth by Villain, which is frankly something nobody in this thread has disagreed with anyway.

 

As a reminder, here's how Villain expressed the position:

"because religion doesn't necessarily involve belief in gods, atheists are not necessarily irreligious."

 

I agree 100%. Either way, it's a red herring so is moot. Nobody here is saying that atheists are necessarily irreligious. What people ARE saying is that atheism is not a religion, and to suggest otherwise is to expand the definition of religion so profoundly as to render it useless.

[Tridimity]

 

I don't know which post you're replying to (since as you've pointed out there's no quote) but the part that I quoted reads like some sort of manifesto.

 

Well, it probably did read like a manifesto, I am a humanist and heavily invested in these questions. I maintain though, that my comments addressed the assertions put forth by other members (s1eep, if I remember correctly) that becoming involved in discussions on the existence or otherwise of God, and other theological questions, renders atheists automatically 'religious'. If you cannot be bothered to invest the energy to tell me which part of my comments you deem to be factually incorrect, and which parts you deem to be inappropriately emotional, then I am afraid I cannot be bothered to invest the energy in responding to your accusations any longer. Good day.

[Villain]

 

Well, it probably did read like a manifesto, I am a humanist and heavily invested in these questions. I maintain though, that my comments addressed the assertions put forth by other members (s1eep, if I remember correctly) that becoming involved in discussions on the existence or otherwise of God, and other theological questions, renders atheists automatically 'religious'. If you cannot be bothered to invest the energy to tell me which part of my comments you deem to be factually incorrect, and which parts you deem to be inappropriately emotional, then I am afraid I cannot be bothered to invest the energy in responding to your accusations any longer. Good day.

 

Why I have to further point out what is wrong with your post doesn't make any sense to me, it's so blatantly obvious.

 

 

 

Atheists must re-state their positions so as to stave off conversion. More importantly, atheists must reclaim from theists the spheres of public life that theists have historically taken for granted, including matters of morality, finance, sexual behaviour, marriage and relationships.

 

Clearly preaching and soapboxing which is against rule 8 section 2 of the Forums rules, not to mention off topic (it's 'Can theists be religious?' in case you didn't know).

 

 

 

When theists begin dominating their wives and children by maiming them (FGM) or by threatening or carrying out sexual, physical, psychological or emotional abuse - or when they initiate wars in the name of religion - or when they persecute non-believers (Inquisition) or homosexuals - you can guarantee that atheists will intervene. Damn right we will. Because humans belong to humanity not to a particular nation or religion.

 

Are you saying that dominating wives and children by maiming or by threatening, sexual, physical, psychological or emotional abuse is only wrong when theists do it or are you making some bs claim that only theists do these kinds of things?

[Phi for All]

Clearly preaching and soapboxing which is against rule 8 section 2 of the Forums rules, not to mention off topic (it's 'Can theists be religious?' in case you didn't know).

 

But it's neither.

 

It's not soapboxing because Trimidity isn't pushing an agenda she isn't willing to discuss, and it's not off-topic because Trimidity was responding to why atheism might be considered a religion. It seems perfectly legitimate to spotlight why atheists are forced to discuss god(s) with theists, especially if those discussions are being used to support the ridiculous notion that talking about why you don't believe in god(s) makes you religious.

 

And the topic is "Can atheists be religious?", in case you didn't know.

[Tridimity]

Thanks Phi

 

Villain,

 

Atheists must re-state their positions so as to stave off conversion^a. More importantly, atheists must reclaim from theists the spheres of public life that theists have historically taken for granted, including matters of morality^b, finance^c, sexual behaviour^d, marriage^e and relationships.

 

 

Clearly preaching and soapboxing which is against rule 8 section 2 of the Forums rules, not to mention off topic (it's 'Can theists be religious?' in case you didn't know).

 

 

Factual correctness

 

a.

Each month Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs) distribute millions of books, magazines, and pamphlets, in dozens of languages. Many of these are intended for non-Witnesses to try to convert them, but others are intended for Witnesses themselves.

 

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/strategies-of-the-jehovahs-witnesses

b.

Although we have now just begun a new millennium, I think it is safe to say that while the "Christian conscience" will face never-before-encountered challenges, i.e., "new things," conscience itself will remain unchanged. However, in order to form soundly the consciences of our children, we as Catholic parents will need to take into consideration these "new things."

 

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3596

c.

Germany's bishops have a clear message for the country's 25 million Catholics: The road to heaven requires more than faith and good intentions; it requires tax payments, too. Last month, German bishops warned that if members of the Catholic Church don't pay the country's church tax, they'll be denied the sacraments — including baptisms, weddings and funerals. In increasingly secular Europe, Germany is one of the few countries where the state collects a special levy from tax-registered believers and hands it over to three organized faiths. Registered Catholics, Protestants and Jews pay a surcharge of up to 9 percent on their income. The Catholic Church alone received some $6.5 billion in 2011.

 

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/09/162570987/german-catholics-path-to-heaven-comes-with-taxes

d.

Despite Greeley’s descriptions of sex-positive behavior, Catholic sexual doctrines are still extremely repressive. The Church denounces contraceptives, premarital sex, homosexuality, masturbation, abortion, artificial insemination, and voluntary sterilization. It also demands lifelong celibacy for priests, nuns, and monks – and all others who never marry.

 

 

http://humanismbyjoe.co/catholic-sex/

e.

The Church does not recognize a civil divorce because the State cannot dissolve what is indissoluble.

 

http://www.foryourmarriage.org/catholic-marriage/church-teachings/divorce/

 

Relevance to the thread

 

Title of the thread: ‘Are atheists religious?’ (for your benefit Villain)

 

Point made by s1eep:

Yes, but you don't sit back and not believe in God, as you would with not collecting stamps, you enter a stamp collecting context and say "No, I do not believe". Atheism is equal to creating a religion for not collecting stamps

 

 

i. S1eep posits that, because atheists answer and re-state their position on the existence of God, then they are religious

ii. My comment pointed out the reasons (factually correct, above – please feel free to challenge if you think necessary) why it is impossible for atheists to ignore the God question and to ignore the quality control by which theists reach their conclusions – in a nutshell, many theist institutions seek to dominate various spheres of public life, on the back of conclusions that they have reached through faith alone. The consequences are shared by all.

 

If you are unable to understand the logical progression of the two points above then it is beyond my powers to help you.

 

When theists begin dominating their wives and children by maiming them (FGM) or by threatening or carrying out sexual, physical, psychological or emotional abuse - or when they initiate wars in the name of religion - or when they persecute non-believers (Inquisition) or homosexuals - you can guarantee that atheists will intervene. Damn right we will. Because humans belong to humanity not to a particular nation or religion.

 

 

 

Are you saying that dominating wives and children by maiming or by threatening, sexual, physical, psychological or emotional abuse is only wrong when theists do it or are you making some bs claim that only theists do these kinds of things?

 

 

No, I am not suggesting that these types of abuse are perpetrated only by theists. However, female genital mutilation (FGM) occurs almost exclusively in Muslim communities. The other types of abuses creep in once vulnerable individuals have been primed to accept, unquestioningly, ‘truths’ passed down by authority figures – the male (husband/father) being second only to God himself, with wives and children expected to be subservient to his rule. It is not difficult to appreciate how child sexual abuse scandals, such as the one that has riddled the Catholic Church, are left to go unchecked for decades. Atheists and fellow theists ought to intervene whenever and wherever such an abuse takes place – whether it be perpetrated by an atheist or by a theist.

 

I notice, Villain, that you criticise the style of my comments and not their content. What's up with that?

 

Edited November 14, 2013 by Tridimity

[hypervalent_iodine]

 

Soapboxing is against the forum rules

 

!

Moderator Note

How about you leave the moderating to the moderators? If you believe something to be against the rules, report it.

 

For the record, though, Tridimity's post was not soapboxing and not against the rules.

[Villain]

 

But it's neither.

 

It's not soapboxing because Trimidity isn't pushing an agenda she isn't willing to discuss, and it's not off-topic because Trimidity was responding to why atheism might be considered a religion. It seems perfectly legitimate to spotlight why atheists are forced to discuss god(s) with theists, especially if those discussions are being used to support the ridiculous notion that talking about why you don't believe in god(s) makes you religious.

 

And the topic is "Can atheists be religious?", in case you didn't know.

 

I realise that moderators are not exempt from human bias but it takes a lot of imagination to say that their post is not pushing an agenda. The use of the word 'must' clearly shows a command. Not to mention the overall theme that generalises theist are somehow forcing (yes force was used) people to into submission. It's promoting bigotry and if the same post had been done by a theist the result would have been completely different. I just don't see why this sort of stuff is condoned.

Thanks Phi

 

Villain,

 

 

 

Factual correctness

 

a.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/strategies-of-the-jehovahs-witnesses

b.

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3596

c.

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/09/162570987/german-catholics-path-to-heaven-comes-with-taxes

d.

http://humanismbyjoe.co/catholic-sex/

e.

http://www.foryourmarriage.org/catholic-marriage/church-teachings/divorce/

 

Relevance to the thread

 

Title of the thread: ‘Are atheists religious?’ (for your benefit Villain)

 

Point made by s1eep:

 

i. S1eep posits that, because atheists answer and re-state their position on the existence of God, then they are religious

ii. My comment pointed out the reasons (factually correct, above – please feel free to challenge if you think necessary) why it is impossible for atheists to ignore the God question and to ignore the quality control by which theists reach their conclusions – in a nutshell, many theist institutions seek to dominate various spheres of public life, on the back of conclusions that they have reached through faith alone. The consequences are shared by all.

 

If you are unable to understand the logical progression of the two points above then it is beyond my powers to help you.

 

 

 

 

No, I am not suggesting that these types of abuse are perpetrated only by theists. However, female genital mutilation (FGM) occurs almost exclusively in Muslim communities. The other types of abuses creep in once vulnerable individuals have been primed to accept, unquestioningly, ‘truths’ passed down by authority figures – the male (husband/father) being second only to God himself, with wives and children expected to be subservient to his rule. It is not difficult to appreciate how child sexual abuse scandals, such as the one that has riddled the Catholic Church, are left to go unchecked for decades. Atheists and fellow theists ought to intervene whenever and wherever such an abuse takes place – whether it be perpetrated by an atheist or by a theist.

 

I notice, Villain, that you criticise the style of my comments and not their content. What's up with that?

 

 

If the distribution of pamphlets is forcing you to stave off conversion then it's probably good for you because obviously your position is not very strong.

 

If you're an atheist why would you even consider what the catholic church has to say? If the attempts at brainwashing in the 50s and 60s failed, which they did, then how are certain published views affecting your life?

 

If you're addressing S1eep then don't write layman77 at the beginning of your post or at least address S1eep in a new paragraph addressed to S1eep. It doesn't make sense to all of a sudden claim that you're answering a post by S1eep.

 

I'm glad to read that you are indeed opposed to all forms of abuse, I suggest that you highlight that in future instead of pointing to certain transgressions as if they are the only ones that you would oppose.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Please get back on topic.

[Tridimity]

Villain,

 

I realise that moderators are not exempt from human bias but it takes a lot of imagination to say that their post is not pushing an agenda. The use of the word 'must' clearly shows a command. Not to mention the overall theme that generalises theist are somehow forcing (yes force was used) people to into submission. It's promoting bigotry and if the same post had been done by a theist the result would have been completely different. I just don't see why this sort of stuff is condoned.

 

 

Where was the word ‘must’ used?

 

I am not saying that all theists force others into submission, but certainly some theists do make it their objective to force others into submission, as a way of controlling them for their own benefit. Theism, in this context, is often abused as a means to more easily achieve that power inequity. Falsely informing people that there is an omnipotent and benevolent creature in the sky who is constantly watching them, and that they must do as he says (or else face the consequences, which usually involve eternal damnation) is not exactly conducive to the development of critical thinking skills on the part of the person being indoctrinated. Even those who do not believe in a literal sky God recognise the implicit threat of being ostracised from the religious community. Behaving in a way that is deemed inappropriate will therefore result in expulsion from the community.

 

It is not bigotry: I respect other people’s right to hold their own beliefs (beliefs reached in whatever manner the individual chooses, including faith) so long as those beliefs are not forced onto others or used as a tool to inflict suffering on others. However, respecting another person’s right to hold their own beliefs (with the caveats outlined above) does not equate to respecting the person’s beliefs as one’s own. For example, most adults respect the right of a child to believe in Santa Claus while not respecting the belief in Santa Claus itself and while not respecting the means by which the child has reached their belief (uncritical acceptance of dogma from an authority figure and from tradition). Does that make sense? The point at which I become angry and intolerant is the point at which theists wield their belief in God and their associated morality systems to impose suffering on others e.g. FGM. I refuse to apologise for being intolerant of the religious moral systems that are used to inflict suffering on others.

 

If the distribution of pamphlets is forcing you to stave off conversion then it's probably good for you because obviously your position is not very strong.

 

 

Jehovah’s witnesses are just one example of conversion, and the pressure to conform is thankfully much lower than in previous centuries, however conversion does remain a point of contention for some. I am not worried about the strength of my position at all since, for one thing, I am not trying to convert anyone to atheism. I am merely stating my opinion, one which is as solid to me (as a way of living my own life) as is the desk at which I am sitting. If you deem my arguments to be weak, why are you continuing to argue? Why not just think to yourself, ‘Oh, what a silly humanist monologue’ and carry on with your day?

 

If you're an atheist why would you even consider what the catholic church has to say? If the attempts at brainwashing in the 50s and 60s failed, which they did, then how are certain published views affecting your life?

 

 

 

I have already answered your questions with regards why atheists must question the Catholic agenda – which is, primarily, that their agenda is used to inflict suffering upon others (mostly women, who are not deemed equal to men; children, who they see fit to feed whatever memes it pleases, and who historically have been sexually abused by Catholic authority figures; and homosexuals, whose mutual love they deny). I will admit that Catholicism does not have too great an impact on my life personally, since I would not allow it to, and I do not care one jot for their opinions of myself. However, it does start to matter to me when, as I have previously stated, their God-driven agenda is used to inflict suffering upon others and to repress their intellectual and emotional potential.

 

If you're addressing S1eep then don't write layman77 at the beginning of your post or at least address S1eep in a new paragraph addressed to S1eep. It doesn't make sense to all of a sudden claim that you're answering a post by S1eep.

 

 

My comment was in response to a series of posts that were initiated by s1eep and that were continued by other members. Please read back through the thread, I am not going to do your homework for you.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Tridimity

[s1eep]

The Men behind the Atheist title are religious.