GBC - In many people’s eyes psychological tactics like name-mocking will undermine validity, generally speaking when commenting I try to put it to one side and deal with things point by point because I know getting myself involved in the mud-slinging would undermine my validity in the eyes of the people I’m trying to bring round, I try to take each point as a serious proposed possibility, don’t let it get personal

I agree, and I apologize for the Oreily remark(If you are referring to the Wes thing… that was really a mistake.)  But I also happen to feel that the constant use of profanity and insults are also unnecessary and could be described as “mud-slinging.“

-James’

He’s just trying to belittle you, Les, by calling you by another name: It’s condescension. He got it right earlier so he knows your name.

He’s doing the same by insisting atheism could be a religion. In his little world he’s a member of a superior religion and he wants everyone to know he thinks so.

TheGreatBongChicken was forgettable the first time around. Soon he will be again.

Oh, I just noticed this.  I am not intelligent enough to do that, and I seriously did get the name wrong.  I didn’t know he had a brother named Wes, I seriously am sorry.

-James’

(GBC) Since there’s no official definition, that you agree that it could be a Religion?

No, I don’t.

what word would you use to describe a stance, or belief, or set of beliefs regarding the supernatural/Divine?

A stance, or belief, or set of beliefs.

the bald/hair color analogy(while very funny) is still not adequate.

It’s both funny and adequate. It’s not my problem if you don’t get it or want to play games.

Fine.

Explain to me how Atheism can’t be a Religion?

Because it has none of the trappings of religion. There are no codified beliefs. There are no rules. There is no official organization that lays down the law from on high. It makes no claims about how one should live one’s life or how the world will end. Everything that makes a religion a religion is absent from atheism.

You seem to think that because you can go out and quote mine simplistic definition of religion in a dictionary that this somehow magically makes atheism into a religion.

I suppose then that if I call you a faggot (with apologies to Brock for using a patently offensive word) then that must mean you are:

Encarta: bundle of sticks for firewood: a bundle of sticks or twigs, especially wood to be burned as fuel.

Wikipedia: an archaic unit of measurement.

Somehow I’m willing to bet you’d assume that I was insulting you, but clearly based on the dictionary definitions I could be suggesting you’re a bunch of sticks and twigs in a bundle and if you are indeed a faggot then the fact that you can type a comment at all is pretty amazing.

The point being that dictionaries are compilations on

how words are used

, not the final authority on what words mean.

distant claws: I agree with Brock on psychological tactics -it’s not something I respect for an unprovoked offensive because it’s an asshat game; people who use these tactics need to be on the recieving end when vulnerable to appreciate what they can do to people, it’s therefore sometimes beneficial to the offender’s understanding that they come back, and Brock does this in the last line:

TheGreatBongChicken was forgettable the first time around. Soon he will be again.

What I said could be construed as petty and I hate being petty, but I remember Bong from before: He rarely said anything that I could consider worth his effort to comment. Now, instead of being obtuse, as he was to me then, he’s being pedantic just to annoy.

I love a good debate but he’s undermining the chance of that happening.

See, James, by cutting and pasting various definitions, you can make one thing mean another, but ask yourself; why is it so important to you?  Why do you want the lack of belief in god, to be a religion?  You’re working awfully hard at it.

Until you come up with a good alternate explanation, the one I gave previously will serve.

Somehow I’m willing to bet you’d assume that I was insulting you, but clearly based on the dictionary definitions I could be suggesting you’re a bunch of sticks and twigs in a bundle and if you are indeed a faggot then the fact that you can type a comment at all is pretty amazing.

That is a very good point, I salute you.

I still don’t see how you can state absolutely 100% with the same assuredness that Bald is not a hair color, that Atheism is not, and can not be a religion. 

Another notable point:
“Faggot” is refering to three separate things, unlike the term “Religion.“  The definitions of Religion that I posted were all referring to the same thing, or rather… trying to define the same thing.  It’s not the same thing as “Faggot” or other words that can refer to separate things. 

“Faggot” officially attempts to define three separate things.  “Religion” officially attempts to define one thing.

So…  while I see your point I still don’t see how you can compare the terms any more than baldness and Atheism.

-James’

Thanks DoF™ for the trademark thing

The faith vs logic thing is to me a distinction between categorised religion that people blindly copy from other people (the unsubstantiated theory) and the development of one’s own system of explaining the universe given observed phonomena (the logically derived theory).

Good science, by nature, consists entirely of the latter, and also because atheists don’t have the stance to persue faith they tend to follow logical lines of inquiry, however I have known people adopt atheism due to social pressures which means it is something you can copy from others without developing your own deeply-understood explanations, making it possible in my view for a form of atheist faith, but those that do fall into this category tend to marvel at science (for corroboration) more than understand it. The atheists of SEB do not generally fit that definition and use atheism as a logical model. I will also say again that science, by definition, needs logical backing so, if good do not rely on faith, they logically derive whatever model they choose

‘Belief’ in a religion without direct proof or experience tends to be inherantly logically unfounded but that doesn’t mean that you couln’t leave open the possibility of afterlife/god using logical means, it’s just we don’t have the information available to come to a conclusion on if it is this way or how to reach a conclusion in fact, so we have to rely on what we have proven through science which is all within the material dimensions. A logical explanation for the afterlife would have to fully explain science too, but that doesn’t make it impossible.

Les: I suppose then that if I call you a faggot (with apologies to Brock for using a patently offensive word) then that must mean you are:

It’s OK, I don’t mind. You can call Bong a faggot if you want to. BTW, is faggotdom a religion too?

decrepitoldfood:ask yourself; why is it so important to you?  Why do you want the lack of belief in god, to be a religion?  You’re working awfully hard at it.

I could ask you the same thing, or better yet..
Does the idea of Atheism being a religion bother you?  And if so why?  Cause you’re working awfully hard at saying it isn’t.

-James’

but I remember Bong from before

I don’t. They come, they go; out of sight, out of mind.

Come on guys, read my above response to Les.

-James’

What a monumental waste of time.

GBC, I don’t give a fuck if you think atheism is a religion or not. It’s all just a matter of defining words and completely irrelevant to the individual ideas or beliefs involved. Do you really think that if you can convince us that atheism is a religion that we’ll all slap ourselves on the forheads and suddenly convert to good little christians?

Why are you wasting your time with this? Why are you wasting our time? You have our definition of what we believe, we know the kind of silly shit you believe. Who cares what kind of label you slap on it?

decrepitoldfood:ask yourself; why is it so important to you?
Why do you want the lack of belief in god, to be a religion? You’re
working awfully hard at it.

I could ask you the same thing, or better yet..
Does the idea of Atheism being a religion bother you? And if so why? Cause
you’re working awfully hard at saying it isn’t.

He’s full of shit, look at what I bolded above.  He is just trying to get a rise out of us and waste our time.  Not really trying to solve or debate anything.

uh, Webs… that was his name.

KPatrick: GBC, I don’t give a fuck if you think atheism is a religion or not. It’s all just a matter of defining words and completely irrelevant to the individual ideas or beliefs involved. Do you really think that if you can convince us that atheism is a religion that we’ll all slap ourselves on the forheads and suddenly convert to good little christians?

Why are you wasting your time with this? Why are you wasting our time? You have our definition of what we believe, we know the kind of silly shit you believe. Who cares what kind of label you slap on it?

What gave you the idea that I was trying to say Atheism is a religion?  You must not have been reading this thread.  Somebody said that it is not, I said that it could be and that you can’t say completely one or the other what it is.  Patrick, read before jumping in.

-James’

Ok Webs, I checked.  It wasn’t his name, I’m sorry.  It has nothing to do with the point I made.  If you don’t want to seriously debate than don’t bother commenting.  At least Les reads before responding.  I focus more on what a person is saying than their name, that is what we are discussing here.

I apologize.

-James’

Brock - don’t worry, to me like for like is acceptable and necessary in order to stop the instigator offending again, but not something I personally do because I like to take on other roles, and in my comment I meant to say the instigation of it is unacceptable

GBC - Since you said it wasn’t deliberately intended and you seem genuine, I will give you the credit of taking your word for it, no hard feelings at all, just be careful, like I need to clarify myself sometimes

DoF:See, James, by cutting and pasting various definitions, you can make one thing mean another, but ask yourself; why is it so important to you?  Why do you want the lack of belief in god, to be a religion?  You’re working awfully hard at it.

True - in the whole scale of things it’s a minor point, clearly whatever it was there was a general issue that needed clarifying because we all got sucked into it

Les: Because it has none of the trappings of religion. There are no codified beliefs. There are no rules. There is no official organization that lays down the law from on high. It makes no claims about how one should live one’s life or how the world will end. Everything that makes a religion a religion is absent from atheism

To go a little off-topic I consider the trappings a cascade of consequences of unfounded belief; a stance alone doesn’t in my view directly necessetate a belief other than existence (you can consider god to exist but have different views on the situation and may even consider him unable to interact and, though existing, completely isolated and unrelated), but extra beliefs can be inserted into the fray under social and psycological pressures

You first, James.  Explain why my explanation (for your insistence that atheism is a religion) is nto correct.  And explain why it matters to you because I asked the question.

You do that, I’ll tell you why I am wasting my time answering your pedanticism.

What gave you the idea that I was trying to say Atheism is a religion?

Because you said it “could be” about a million times. After the tenth time it becomes not “could be” but

IS

.Comeon! Use the brain your god could have given you. You could be acting dense.

GBC: What gave you the idea that I was trying to say Atheism is a religion?  You must not have been reading this thread.  Somebody said that it is not, I said that it could be and that you can’t say completely one or the other what it is.  Patrick, read before jumping in.

I’ve read every word of this thread, you silly little fucktard. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. See, the only thing stupider then arguing over the technical definition of a word that everyone already understands is doing so without even having a position on the matter.

And leave it to you too jump on the insignificant part of my post without ever answering the thrust of it, namely, why are you wasting your time with this shit?

At least Les reads before responding.

I did read before I commented you asshole, and my point still stands…

Oh wait, am I defining him as the part of the body known as the anus, or am I defining him more as a jerk…  Guess it depends on your definition of the word asshole.

Webs: Guess it depends on your definition of the word asshole.

How about Arsole

A 5 membered aromatic heterocycle containing arsenic

Ok, DoC(I’ll stick to that so I don’t make anymore typos;-))

I think I understand what you want me to do,

See, James, by cutting and pasting various definitions, you can make one thing mean another, but ask yourself; why is it so important to you?  Why do you want the lack of belief in god, to be a religion?  You’re working awfully hard at it.

My point is that by cutting and pasting various definitions, you can make one thing mean another… so therefore there is no way to officially say that Atheism is or is not a religion.  Therefore,(my origional statement if you read back) Atheism could be a religion.

I did not once in this entire discussion say that it is a religion.  And many others have claimed that is absolutely can not be one.  I don’t think either of those statements are logical.

The reason why this is important to me is that I am a Christian who values truth, and I feel that it isn’t right to use funny(but inaccurate) analogies to try to win people to your side of the argument.  Keep in mind, I did not start this.

Now for you,

-James’

GBC writes…

I still don’t see how you can state absolutely 100% with the same assuredness that Bald is not a hair color, that Atheism is not, and can not be a religion.

Let’s see if I can simplify this enough for you:

Bald is the lack of hair.

Atheism is the lack of religious belief.

Another notable point:
“Faggot” is refering to three separate things, unlike the term “Religion.” The definitions of Religion that I posted were all referring to the same thing, or rather… trying to define the same thing.  It’s not the same thing as “Faggot” or other words that can refer to separate things.

“Faggot” officially attempts to define three separate things.  “Religion” officially attempts to define one thing.

Bzzzt! Try again. According to Encarta, which you cited yourself, they define religion as relating to five separate things:

1. beliefs and worship: people’s beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life

2. system: an institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine

3. personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by

4.obsession: an object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to or obsessed by — The danger is that you start to make fitness a religion.

5. christianity monk’s or nun’s life: life as a monk or a nun, especially in the Roman Catholic Church

That’s the danger in quote mining, GBC.

So…  while I see your point I still don’t see how you can compare the terms any more than baldness and Atheism.

See my statement at the start.

DC writes…

‘Belief’ in a religion without direct proof or experience tends to be inherantly logically unfounded but that doesn’t mean that you couln’t leave open the possibility of afterlife/god using logical means, it’s just we don’t have the information available to come to a conclusion on if it is this way or how to reach a conclusion in fact, so we have to rely on what we have proven through science which is all within the material dimensions. A logical explanation for the afterlife would have to fully explain science too, but that doesn’t make it impossible.

One needs to keep in mind that logic is just a tool and like any other tool it can be misused. If your premise is faulty you can still end up with a logically sound line of reasoning that’s completely false.

GBC writes…

I could ask you the same thing, or better yet..
Does the idea of Atheism being a religion bother you?  And if so why?  Cause you’re working awfully hard at saying it isn’t.

Why? Because the moment someone says atheism is a religion they then go on to claim that it therefore requires just as much faith as any other religion and that’s patently false. We have plenty of examples of that idiotic line of reasoning here in the SEB comments.

The ironic thing is we’d be better off if we did claim atheism is a religion as argued by one of SEB’s members, but the simple truth is that it is not a religion.

Webs writes…

Oh wait, am I defining him as the part of the body known as the anus, or am I defining him more as a jerk…  Guess it depends on your definition of the word asshole.

Rude, yes, but the above made me giggle. Thanks for helping to illustrate my point, Webs.

but I remember Bong from before

As do I. Bong-Smoking Chicken, I’m sure you think you’re doing your religion a great service by constantly beating this dead horse. But as a non-Christian observer to this little spectacle, I have something to inform you: you are not. Your activity here seems bizarre and more than a little unbalanced. If you personally have religious beliefs, then fine. Bully for you. Most of the major religions stress charity and service for humankind. There are lots of homeless people, exploited women, and starving children out there that you could be assisting. Wouldn’t that be so much more rewarding than trying to convince a bunch of (for the most part) atheists that their lack of belief somehow constitutes a religion?