Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[RodeoX]

I find it interesting how religious people want to believe that religion is essential and so atheists must also have religion.

That is an interesting notion. Do you think that the reason theists try to fallaciously claim atheism to be equal to a religion because they actually can't understand the concept of moral sentience without religion?

Actually, come to think of it, back when I was a fence-sitting agnostic, I actually believed it was impossible to be a genuine atheist, with the associated 'the end is the end of me' acceptance, without losing one's mind. I now know that, actually, once you become an intellectualised atheist, by way of reaching that position through much thought and consideration coupled with objective reasoning and critical thinking, it becomes absolutely natural a concept.

I didn't exist before I did and that wasn't a problem, so why would not existing after I do be any different?

I think it is more threatening to think that someone does not need religion than it is to think that they don't want religion. If you believe that all morality and goodness comes from a God, then you see someone who is happy, ethical, loved; but without any religion... That could start things crumbling.  
It is why even obvious facts, like the fact there was no global flood, are defended. If the garden of Eden is provably impossible by DNA analysis then it calls into question the entire Bible. So DNA must be false, or a trick of the devil.
Minds are interesting things.

[BADecker]

I find it interesting how religious people want to believe that religion is essential and so atheists must also have religion.

That is an interesting notion. Do you think that the reason theists try to fallaciously claim atheism to be equal to a religion because they actually can't understand the concept of moral sentience without religion?

Actually, come to think of it, back when I was a fence-sitting agnostic, I actually believed it was impossible to be a genuine atheist, with the associated 'the end is the end of me' acceptance, without losing one's mind. I now know that, actually, once you become an intellectualised atheist, by way of reaching that position through much thought and consideration coupled with objective reasoning and critical thinking, it becomes absolutely natural a concept.

I didn't exist before I did and that wasn't a problem, so why would not existing after I do be any different?

I think it is more threatening to think that someone does not need religion than it is to think that they don't want religion. If you believe that all morality and goodness comes from a God, then you see someone who is happy, ethical, loved; but without any religion... That could start things crumbling.  
It is why even obvious facts, like the fact there was no global flood, are defended. If the garden of Eden is provably impossible by DNA analysis then it calls into question the entire Bible. So DNA must be false, or a trick of the devil.
Minds are interesting things.

Just because somebody creates an AI program in a computer, doesn't mean the AI will necessarily realize that it was created by a form of intelligence that is greater than itself. But, if it is informed of such by its creator(s), will it believe? Will it believe if the option to believe is taken away, and it is instructed firmly, so that it knows rather than believes?

[Pentax]

2.

fine, superior to the other person who holds the opposing point of view.
it's ego on both sides of the equation.
I'm right, they're wrong.  I'm the smart guy.

Except that isn't at all what the objectively reasoned challenges to theist assertions actually is. Sure, if we were to employ the same theist versus theist tactics of subjectively spinning our own interpretations as being correct over your subjectively spun interpretations then, yes, you might have a point. But when a theist position is dismantled by way of critical analysis and objective reasoning, namely, the employment of valid argument which exposes the theist position to be the arbitrary baseless fallacy it is then, no, we are right because our argument is right while yours fails, not because we are simply declaring that we right and you are wrong.


[/quote]

neither side has proof of their position.  One side claims God exists, but has no proof.  the other claims God does not, but has no proof.  

you can parse an individual argument and say 'look the theists say this, which is clearly absurd' so they're wrong, but their core assertion, that there is a God, is not disprovable based on any such example.

at the end of the day neither side can prove anything and yet both puff their chests out and claim the other is wrong.

This is the same in political discussions.  "I'm right, they're wrong".  

Two things you don't talk about in bars - politics and religion, for the simple fact that people often take these things so personally as to make them flash points for a debate that devolves into an argument.  They are beliefs, aka opinions, not provable facts in both cases, so there is no 'winner', ever.

The hardcore bible thumpers could never deal with devoting their lives to something which is wrong, so they refuse to believe there is no God, or even allow for the possibility in many cases.  They have no proof and have claimed that 'faith' is the key.  Problem there is that this faith is to be taken without proof and they have conveniently asserted that this is the core of faith itself.

The Athiests are simply the polar opposite.  They've staked out another position and refuse to believe they could be wrong either, or even allow for the possibility in many cases, as allowing for the unknown would nudge them toward being an agnostic.  They don't have any proof either and many times will conveniently claim that lack of proof is the proof, which is almost as good as the reasoning behind the faith argument.  

I go back to my basic premise that this is about ego.  The need to believe in one's own core beliefs.  Anything that may run counter to it is to be killed at all costs, not for the sake of being correct, but for the sake of sense of self, for sake of one's own ego.

[Vod]

neither side has proof of their position.  One side claims God exists, but has no proof.  the other claims God does not, but has no proof.  

It all comes down to probability.  It's a lot more probable that there is no god rather than there is a god.

[deisik]

I find it interesting how religious people want to believe that religion is essential and so atheists must also have religion.

That is an interesting notion. Do you think that the reason theists try to fallaciously claim atheism to be equal to a religion because they actually can't understand the concept of moral sentience without religion?

Actually, come to think of it, back when I was a fence-sitting agnostic, I actually believed it was impossible to be a genuine atheist, with the associated 'the end is the end of me' acceptance, without losing one's mind. I now know that, actually, once you become an intellectualised atheist, by way of reaching that position through much thought and consideration coupled with objective reasoning and critical thinking, it becomes absolutely natural a concept.

I didn't exist before I did and that wasn't a problem, so why would not existing after I do be any different?

Perhaps atheists have their own personal religion, but atheism in general is religion. Its god is the human mind.

I guess you are expanding the meaning of the word too far. Believing in something (which is what you are evidently trying to say) doesn't necessarily constitute a religion...

From the dictionary definition listed in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg11350691#msg11350691:

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

Seems to me that an atheist who responds to anti-atheism posts zealously is not only a zealot, but he is a religious zealot, as well.

If someone attacks your home and you desperately defend it and your family with arms in your hands, would this go for religious zealotry? If not, why then "passionately seeking to refute bullshit theism" (or anything, for that matter) should necessarily be considered as such?

[BADecker]

2.

fine, superior to the other person who holds the opposing point of view.
it's ego on both sides of the equation.
I'm right, they're wrong.  I'm the smart guy.

Except that isn't at all what the objectively reasoned challenges to theist assertions actually is. Sure, if we were to employ the same theist versus theist tactics of subjectively spinning our own interpretations as being correct over your subjectively spun interpretations then, yes, you might have a point. But when a theist position is dismantled by way of critical analysis and objective reasoning, namely, the employment of valid argument which exposes the theist position to be the arbitrary baseless fallacy it is then, no, we are right because our argument is right while yours fails, not because we are simply declaring that we right and you are wrong.

neither side has proof of their position.  One side claims God exists, but has no proof.  the other claims God does not, but has no proof.  

you can parse an individual argument and say 'look the theists say this, which is clearly absurd' so they're wrong, but their core assertion, that there is a God, is not disprovable based on any such example.

at the end of the day neither side can prove anything and yet both puff their chests out and claim the other is wrong.

This is the same in political discussions.  "I'm right, they're wrong".  

Two things you don't talk about in bars - politics and religion, for the simple fact that people often take these things so personally as to make them flash points for a debate that devolves into an argument.  They are beliefs, aka opinions, not provable facts in both cases, so there is no 'winner', ever.

The hardcore bible thumpers could never deal with devoting their lives to something which is wrong, so they refuse to believe there is no God, or even allow for the possibility in many cases.  They have no proof and have claimed that 'faith' is the key.  Problem there is that this faith is to be taken without proof and they have conveniently asserted that this is the core of faith itself.

The Athiests are simply the polar opposite.  They've staked out another position and refuse to believe they could be wrong either, or even allow for the possibility in many cases, as allowing for the unknown would nudge them toward being an agnostic.  They don't have any proof either and many times will conveniently claim that lack of proof is the proof, which is almost as good as the reasoning behind the faith argument.  

I go back to my basic premise that this is about ego.  The need to believe in one's own core beliefs.  Anything that may run counter to it is to be killed at all costs, not for the sake of being correct, but for the sake of sense of self, for sake of one's own ego.

Nobody has much proof of anything without great pain or great joy. Strong evidence for the existence of God can be found here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395.  But without great pain or great joy in some way, we can all deny the proof, making it non-proof for us.

[BADecker]

I find it interesting how religious people want to believe that religion is essential and so atheists must also have religion.

That is an interesting notion. Do you think that the reason theists try to fallaciously claim atheism to be equal to a religion because they actually can't understand the concept of moral sentience without religion?

Actually, come to think of it, back when I was a fence-sitting agnostic, I actually believed it was impossible to be a genuine atheist, with the associated 'the end is the end of me' acceptance, without losing one's mind. I now know that, actually, once you become an intellectualised atheist, by way of reaching that position through much thought and consideration coupled with objective reasoning and critical thinking, it becomes absolutely natural a concept.

I didn't exist before I did and that wasn't a problem, so why would not existing after I do be any different?

Perhaps atheists have their own personal religion, but atheism in general is religion. Its god is the human mind.

I guess you are expanding the meaning of the word too far. Believing in something (which is what you are evidently trying to say) doesn't necessarily constitute a religion...

From the dictionary definition listed in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg11350691#msg11350691:

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

Seems to me that an atheist who responds to anti-atheism posts zealously is not only a zealot, but he is a religious zealot, as well.

If someone attacks your home and you desperately defend it and your family with arms in your hands, would this go for religious zealotry? If not, why then "passionately seeking to refute bullshit theism" (or anything, for that matter) should necessarily be considered as such?

It absolutely would, and so would NOT protecting and defending your home and family. It is your personal religion.

[BADecker]

neither side has proof of their position.  One side claims God exists, but has no proof.  the other claims God does not, but has no proof.  

It all comes down to probability.  It's a lot more probable that there is no god rather than there is a god.

Actually, there is intelligent design in everything we see in nature. Because we don't understand why the design is there, we use the word "God." God may be an entity, or God may be simply the way things unfolded. But because we and the animals have self and consciousness in many ways, probably God has self and consciousness way advanced of what we are. It's in the design.

[cryptodevil]

neither side has proof of their position.  One side claims God exists, but has no proof.  the other claims God does not, but has no proof.

Let me stop you there. Before I even read the rest of your post you need to understand something *real* fucking important, something that theists struggle to even acknowledge, which is the fact atheism does not make the claim, "God does not exist".

Atheism is the rejection of the theist assertion, "God exists", on the basis that the assertion requires logical fallacy and is intellectually dishonest.

Atheists do not seek to prove the non-existence of 'God' any more than we seek to prove the non-existence of invisible pink unicorns protecting us from mischief-making green pixies each day.

Theists assert something. Atheists dismiss that assertion because it is not a reasonable or supported assertion, not because they need to prove it to be wrong.

Big difference. Learn it. Accept it.

[cryptodevil]

I think it is more threatening to think that someone does not need religion than it is to think that they don't want religion. If you believe that all morality and goodness comes from a God, then you see someone who is happy, ethical, loved; but without any religion... That could start things crumbling.  

Considering that one of the most frequent objections to atheism is the notion, "Well what would stop you from raping and murdering everybody then?", it amazes me that it never occurs to the theist just how bad they come across practically admitting the only thing stopping them from going on a rape/murder spree is the thought they are being watched and judged by an omnipotent super-being.

[BADecker]

neither side has proof of their position.  One side claims God exists, but has no proof.  the other claims God does not, but has no proof.

Let me stop you there. Before I even read the rest of your post you need to understand something *real* fucking important, something that theists struggle to even acknowledge, which is the fact atheism does not make the claim, "God does not exist".

Atheism is the rejection of the theist assertion, "God exists", on the basis that the assertion requires logical fallacy and is intellectually dishonest.

Atheists do not seek to prove the non-existence of 'God' any more than we seek to prove the non-existence of invisible pink unicorns protecting us from mischief-making green pixies each day.

Theists assert something. Atheists dismiss that assertion because it is not a reasonable or supported assertion, not because they need to prove it to be wrong.

Big difference. Learn it. Accept it.

Atheists may not attempt to prove that God does not exist. But if atheists believe as the dictionary definition of the word "atheism" suggests, then they believe that God does not exist. See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism?s=t:

atheism
[ey-thee-iz-uh m]

noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

[tvbcof]

neither side has proof of their position.  One side claims God exists, but has no proof.  the other claims God does not, but has no proof.

Let me stop you there. Before I even read the rest of your post you need to understand something *real* fucking important, something that theists struggle to even acknowledge, which is the fact atheism does not make the claim, "God does not exist".

Atheism is the rejection of the theist assertion, "God exists", on the basis that the assertion requires logical fallacy and is intellectually dishonest.

Atheists do not seek to prove the non-existence of 'God' any more than we seek to prove the non-existence of invisible pink unicorns protecting us from mischief-making green pixies each day.

Theists assert something. Atheists dismiss that assertion because it is not a reasonable or supported assertion, not because they need to prove it to be wrong.

Big difference. Learn it. Accept it.

Atheists may not attempt to prove that God does not exist. But if atheists believe as the dictionary definition of the word "atheism" suggests, then they believe that God does not exist. See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism?s=t:

atheism
[ey-thee-iz-uh m]

noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

For a while it seemed to be in vogue to call oneself an agnostic meaning variously 'don't know', 'don't care', 'don't want to offend you', 'am a passive chicken-shit and don't want to discuss it', etc.  I mostly always called myself an atheist and certainly that is the label I use these days.

[the joint]

I find it interesting how religious people want to believe that religion is essential and so atheists must also have religion.

That is an interesting notion. Do you think that the reason theists try to fallaciously claim atheism to be equal to a religion because they actually can't understand the concept of moral sentience without religion?

Actually, come to think of it, back when I was a fence-sitting agnostic, I actually believed it was impossible to be a genuine atheist, with the associated 'the end is the end of me' acceptance, without losing one's mind. I now know that, actually, once you become an intellectualised atheist, by way of reaching that position through much thought and consideration coupled with objective reasoning and critical thinking, it becomes absolutely natural a concept.

I didn't exist before I did and that wasn't a problem, so why would not existing after I do be any different?

Perhaps atheists have their own personal religion, but atheism in general is religion. Its god is the human mind.

I guess you are expanding the meaning of the word too far. Believing in something (which is what you are evidently trying to say) doesn't necessarily constitute a religion...

From the dictionary definition listed in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg11350691#msg11350691:

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

Seems to me that an atheist who responds to anti-atheism posts zealously is not only a zealot, but he is a religious zealot, as well.

Lol what?!

You realize that your selected definition totally discredits your point.

You're basically saying that atheists are religious in the same way that a baseball player is religious about team spirit.  Or that vegans are religious about the foods they eat.

You selected the definition that is as far away from dogmatic religion as possible while still being able to use the word 'religion.'

You really, truly suck at this.

[BADecker]

neither side has proof of their position.  One side claims God exists, but has no proof.  the other claims God does not, but has no proof.

Let me stop you there. Before I even read the rest of your post you need to understand something *real* fucking important, something that theists struggle to even acknowledge, which is the fact atheism does not make the claim, "God does not exist".

Atheism is the rejection of the theist assertion, "God exists", on the basis that the assertion requires logical fallacy and is intellectually dishonest.

Atheists do not seek to prove the non-existence of 'God' any more than we seek to prove the non-existence of invisible pink unicorns protecting us from mischief-making green pixies each day.

Theists assert something. Atheists dismiss that assertion because it is not a reasonable or supported assertion, not because they need to prove it to be wrong.

Big difference. Learn it. Accept it.

Atheists may not attempt to prove that God does not exist. But if atheists believe as the dictionary definition of the word "atheism" suggests, then they believe that God does not exist. See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism?s=t:

atheism
[ey-thee-iz-uh m]

noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

For a while it seemed to be in vogue to call oneself an agnostic meaning variously 'don't know', 'don't care', 'don't want to offend you', 'am a passive chicken-shit and don't want to discuss it', etc.  I mostly always called myself an atheist and certainly that is the label I use these days.

This is true. The dictionary is updated according to what the general usage has become. Simply because the dictionary says one thing, doesn't mean that people DON'T mean something else by it. Communications can easily become vague.

[BADecker]

I find it interesting how religious people want to believe that religion is essential and so atheists must also have religion.

That is an interesting notion. Do you think that the reason theists try to fallaciously claim atheism to be equal to a religion because they actually can't understand the concept of moral sentience without religion?

Actually, come to think of it, back when I was a fence-sitting agnostic, I actually believed it was impossible to be a genuine atheist, with the associated 'the end is the end of me' acceptance, without losing one's mind. I now know that, actually, once you become an intellectualised atheist, by way of reaching that position through much thought and consideration coupled with objective reasoning and critical thinking, it becomes absolutely natural a concept.

I didn't exist before I did and that wasn't a problem, so why would not existing after I do be any different?

Perhaps atheists have their own personal religion, but atheism in general is religion. Its god is the human mind.

I guess you are expanding the meaning of the word too far. Believing in something (which is what you are evidently trying to say) doesn't necessarily constitute a religion...

From the dictionary definition listed in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg11350691#msg11350691:

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

Seems to me that an atheist who responds to anti-atheism posts zealously is not only a zealot, but he is a religious zealot, as well.

Lol what?!

You realize that your selected definition totally discredits your point.

You're basically saying that atheists are religious in the same way that a baseball player is religious about team spirit.  Or that vegans are religious about the foods they eat.

You selected the definition that is as far away from dogmatic religion as possible while still being able to use the word 'religion.'

You really, truly suck at this.

You are finally getting my point. Science is described by many people in many ways. Some people call their electric range in their kitchen science.

[RodeoX]

neither side has proof of their position.  One side claims God exists, but has no proof.  the other claims God does not, but has no proof.

Let me stop you there. Before I even read the rest of your post you need to understand something *real* fucking important, something that theists struggle to even acknowledge, which is the fact atheism does not make the claim, "God does not exist".

That is an important distinction. I am not interested in disproving the existence of a God, I am interested in the truth. The reason I do not believe in any of the thousands of Gods out there is because none of them rises to the challenge of evidence.  If they did I would think differently.

And some claims are obviously provably wrong. For example some believe the Earth is 6000 years old. There are hundreds of experiments which can show this to be impossible. It is hard to believe in a super-claim like the existence of a omnipotent being when the supporting claims are so clearly incorrect.

[irfan_pak10]

neither side has proof of their position.  One side claims God exists, but has no proof.  the other claims God does not, but has no proof.

Let me stop you there. Before I even read the rest of your post you need to understand something *real* fucking important, something that theists struggle to even acknowledge, which is the fact atheism does not make the claim, "God does not exist".

That is an important distinction. I am not interested in disproving the existence of a God, I am interested in the truth. The reason I do not believe in any of the thousands of Gods out there is because none of them rises to the challenge of evidence.  If they did I would think differently.

And some claims are obviously provably wrong. For example some believe the Earth is 6000 years old. There are hundreds of experiments which can show this to be impossible. It is hard to believe in a super-claim like the existence of a omnipotent being when the supporting claims are so clearly incorrect.

DOES ALLAH EXIST?

Please Do read this post (GIVE SOME OF YOUR PRECIOUS TIME TO THIS POST)

CONGRATULATING AN ATHEIST


Normally, when I meet an atheist, the first thing I like to do is to congratulate him and say, " My special congratulations to you", because most of the people who believe in God are doing blind belief - he is a Christian, because his father is a Christian; he is a Hindu, because his father is a Hindu; the majority of the people in the world are blindly following the religion of their fathers. An atheist, on the other hand, even though he may belong to a religious family, uses his intellect to deny the existence of God; what ever concept or qualities of God he may have learnt in his religion may not seem to be logical to him.

My Muslim brothers may question me, "Zakir, why are you congratulating an atheist?" The reason that I am congratulating an atheist is because he agrees with the first part of the Shahada i.e. the Islamic Creed, ‘La ilaaha’ - meaning ‘there is no God’. So half my job is already done; now the only part left is ‘il lallah’ i.e. ‘BUT ALLAH’ which I shall do Insha Allah. With others (who are not atheists) I have to first remove from their minds the wrong concept of God they may have and then put the correct concept of one true God.


LOGICAL CONCEPT OF GOD


My first question to the atheist will be: "What is the definition of God?" For a person to say there is no God, he should know what is the meaning of God. If I hold a book and say that ‘this is a pen’, for the opposite person to say, ‘it is not a pen’, he should know what is the definition of a pen, even if he does not know nor is able to recognise or identify the object I am holding in my hand. For him to say this is not a pen, he should at least know what a pen means. Similarly for an atheist to say ‘there is no God’, he should at least know the concept of God. His concept of God would be derived from the surroundings in which he lives. The god that a large number of people worship has got human qualities - therefore he does not believe in such a god. Similarly a Muslim too does not and should not believe in such false gods.

If a non-Muslim believes that Islam is a merciless religion with something to do with terrorism; a religion which does not give rights to women; a religion which contradicts science; in his limited sense that non-Muslim is correct to reject such Islam. The problem is he has a wrong picture of Islam. Even I reject such a false picture of Islam, but at the same time, it becomes my duty as a Muslim to present the correct picture of Islam to that non-Muslim i.e. Islam is a merciful religion, it gives equal rights to the women, it is not incompatible with logic, reason and science; if I present the correct facts about Islam, that non-Muslim may Inshallah accept Islam.

Similarly the atheist rejects the false gods and the duty of every Muslim is to present the correct concept of God which he shall Insha Allah not refuse.

(You may refer to my article, ‘Concept of God in Islam’, for more details)


QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE


The methods of proving the existence of God with usage of the material provided in the ‘Concept of God in Islam’ to an atheist may satisfy some but not all.

Many atheists demand a scientific proof for the existence of God. I agree that today is the age of science and technology. Let us use scientific knowledge to kill two birds with one stone, i.e. to prove the existence of God and simultaneously prove that the Qur’an is a revelation of God.

If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before, is shown to an atheist or any person and then a question is asked, " Who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? After little bit of thinking, he will reply, ‘the creator of that object.’ Some may say ‘the producer’ while others may say ‘the manufacturer.’ What ever answer the person gives, keep it in your mind, the answer will always be either the creator, the producer, the manufacturer or some what of the same meaning, i.e. the person who has made it or created it. Don’t grapple with words, whatever answer he gives, the meaning will be same, therefore accept it.

SCIENTIFIC FACTS MENTIONED IN THE QUR’AN: for details on this subject please refer to my book, ‘THE QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE – COMPATIBLE OR INCOMPATIBLE?

[the joint]

I find it interesting how religious people want to believe that religion is essential and so atheists must also have religion.

That is an interesting notion. Do you think that the reason theists try to fallaciously claim atheism to be equal to a religion because they actually can't understand the concept of moral sentience without religion?

Actually, come to think of it, back when I was a fence-sitting agnostic, I actually believed it was impossible to be a genuine atheist, with the associated 'the end is the end of me' acceptance, without losing one's mind. I now know that, actually, once you become an intellectualised atheist, by way of reaching that position through much thought and consideration coupled with objective reasoning and critical thinking, it becomes absolutely natural a concept.

I didn't exist before I did and that wasn't a problem, so why would not existing after I do be any different?

Perhaps atheists have their own personal religion, but atheism in general is religion. Its god is the human mind.

I guess you are expanding the meaning of the word too far. Believing in something (which is what you are evidently trying to say) doesn't necessarily constitute a religion...

From the dictionary definition listed in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg11350691#msg11350691:

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

Seems to me that an atheist who responds to anti-atheism posts zealously is not only a zealot, but he is a religious zealot, as well.

Lol what?!

You realize that your selected definition totally discredits your point.

You're basically saying that atheists are religious in the same way that a baseball player is religious about team spirit.  Or that vegans are religious about the foods they eat.

You selected the definition that is as far away from dogmatic religion as possible while still being able to use the word 'religion.'

You really, truly suck at this.

You are finally getting my point. Science is described by many people in many ways. Some people call their electric range in their kitchen science.

Yeah, they could.  They could say, "Hey, I'll cook some eggs for you atop my science."

You're right, they could say this.  And they would be horrible communicators.

Just because you can make a word mean something else doesn't mean you should.  Language is for communication.  Communication successfully occurs according to accurate translation.  All you do is spin, twist, and invent new meanings for things.  The results are that nobody understands your argument by common usage. And by specific usage, you just start contradicting yourself (because your invented definitions are usually the opposite of the common usage definitions, which you use whenever you're losing an argument). Clever trick -- whenever you're wrong, just say that words mean the exact opposite (or are so vague that it could mean *any*thing) and suddenly you're right (well, no...you're still wrong).

You said yourself that "common usage" is what's in the dictionary.  So quit making shit up and use words and language we all understand.  If you can't get your argument to work using the words and definitions we already have, then surely you must think it's insane that the solution is to start making shit up.  Agreed?

[Pentax]

neither side has proof of their position.  One side claims God exists, but has no proof.  the other claims God does not, but has no proof.

Let me stop you there. Before I even read the rest of your post you need to understand something *real* fucking important, something that theists struggle to even acknowledge, which is the fact atheism does not make the claim, "God does not exist".

Atheism is the rejection of the theist assertion, "God exists", on the basis that the assertion requires logical fallacy and is intellectually dishonest.

Atheists do not seek to prove the non-existence of 'God' any more than we seek to prove the non-existence of invisible pink unicorns protecting us from mischief-making green pixies each day.

Theists assert something. Atheists dismiss that assertion because it is not a reasonable or supported assertion, not because they need to prove it to be wrong.

Big difference. Learn it. Accept it.

this depends on where one comes by this definition, as there seem to be plenty of variations and debate on how exactly to define it.  Most of the ones I've come across state that atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of deity, not this other definiton you've set out.  

I won't bother to post those definitions here, although apparently it's not theists only that struggle to understand these things, but websters, wiki, et al.

I did see it on atheists.org, so I guess that is the message that group is trying to spin out at the moment.

I don't know how many times I've seen atheists attack theists because they are dimwitted or afraid of death or some other jibber-jabber means of demeaning the opposing viewpoint.  now, apparently, Atheists can't even state an honest position of their own.  that's kind of absurd, IMO.  

Do they or don't they believe in deity.  This is an almost binary question, with the agnostics carving out a 'none of the above' I guess.  These are personal decisions each person must make for themselves, (or not I guess), but it doesn't make a lot of sense to attempt to pin the decision on someone else, for whatever reason.  

and you can stop with the poser "need to understand something *real* fucking important" and "learn it.  accept it" bullshit.  

Beyond the fact that you've set out a generally horseshit definition and seemed to think you were speaking from the mountaintop (pun intended), I treated you with respect and expect the same in return.  

Save that silly shit for someone who will eat it, as all you did there was prove my point that all of this is more about personal ego than anything else.  Those statements brought nothing, proved nothing and were completely superfluous, serving no other purpose than to give your ego a little self stroke.  

[RodeoX]

DOES ALLAH EXIST?

Please Do read this post (GIVE SOME OF YOUR PRECIOUS TIME TO THIS POST)

CONGRATULATING AN ATHEIST


Normally, when I meet an atheist, the first thing...

No. I don't believe in any God. I do like Islamic culture, but even if there were a God I don't think it would want a follower that does not believe.