It's official: atheistic fundamentalism exists.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I am mildly amused how Kuci got "pwned" again, so to speak...he has a habit of that happening.

Must have been my fact checking.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Sweden does not have a state church.

GePap! He's getting me on a technicality!

(Interesting, I thought most modern monarchies still had one. Off to wiki to see what happened to it...)

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Where did you come from?

From where I was before.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


GePap! He's getting me on a technicality!

Yes, because pointing out that your claim is flat out wrong is getting you on a technicality.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Well Perfection is saying that atheism is anti-faith. How can you have morals without faith? If you were to say that athiests hold all their believes based on rational thinking then I say that they are not religious, but if they base their belief on morals I say that they are religious.

Issues of morality are dealt with in a seperate sphere than issues of fact.

Saying "God exists" is not a moral statement, but a factual statement, and can be evaluated on that basis. Often people will analyse th estatement and come to the conclusion "Not so much."

Now, if you undertake some action and justify it by using God, if God doesn't exist, your warrant to undertake the action likewise doesn't exist, and thus you need to re-evaluate your motivations.

To say one requires faith to make moral determinations about the world is absurd because morality is not subject to factual analysis. It is neither true nor false that "X is wrong", and thus you don't need "faith" in that sense to uphold it.

Atheism is merely the rejection of the descriptive statement "God exists." and any actions or beliefs that rest upon the assumption of truth of that statement.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I am mildly amused how Kuci got "pwned" again, so to speak...he has a habit of that happening.

Pwned like this:

Not as obnoxious as your habit of hidding behind fact checking to escape your faulty belief system.

Kuci is being an idiot as usual. It will be interesting to see how he attempts to explain how everyone who disagrees with him is racist and filled with hate. On second thought no one will likely care what a dumb ass thinks. He's of no concern to serious people.

I'll grant you're serious, PH, as you've never shown any trace of a sense of humor.

I see Kusi continues his lies and misrepresentations by generating false quotes. The man deserves our deepest pity since he is obviously a loser. He can't even form arguments against what people have said without resorting to lies.

Interesting, since I've sourced all of my quotes in this thread.

Also Mohammed is still a drug addict, a child rapist, a foul cultist, and a man who order genicide. In short Mohammed is everything which is filthy and disgusting in humanity. The man should be **** upon and spat upon for all enternity.

And he still couldn't lay off the Muslim-bashing. I'm surprised he didn't combine it with a rant about Republicans too. Hell, this is a religion thread, it's a natural threadjack.

And then there's this bit - what exactly is Oerdin talking about?

Me
The prosecution rests.

Oerdin
You rest because you know the truth. You are an idiot, you have never added anything of value to any conversation, and you are just a person most people laugh at. I'm sorry to be the one to break reality on you, Kuci, but it is just the way it is.

We've all observed how grounded in reality Oerdin is.

PA/Bodds/Doddler
Oerdin is right Kusi - you really are a dolt.

Wait, doesn't being attacked by PA improve my credibility?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Yes, because pointing out that your claim is flat out wrong is getting you on a technicality.

I'm trying to decide if you see the irony and are running with it, or if that's a since retort...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Tacc
Atheism is merely the rejection of the descriptive statement "God exists." and any actions or beliefs that rest upon the assumption of truth of that statement.

It is not "merely" a rejection of that. Many athiests hold moral beliefs associated with their said rejection, and that's what allows people to call them religious.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Should atheism be protected under religious freedoms?

Even if they're not counted as a religion then in the US, at least, they are adequately protected by the first amendment.

By the way, as far as the "debate" over whether or not atheism is a religion or not goes, it's fairly simple:

I would consider "strong atheism", i.e. the absolute belief that no "supernatural" or "divine" entities exist to be a religion. "Weak atheism" or simply "the lack of belief in supernatral or divine entities" is not a religion, but merely a lack of one.

I personally have not seen any evidence to indicate something as extraordinary as the claim that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity exists, so I withold judgment. In fact, the exiestence of such a being is such a strong claim that among all of the world's religions I find the monotheistic ones to be the most unlikely. Some religions like simple animism, Shinto or Buddhism make far less reaching claims and thus require less evidene. But since they're all sitting around 0 evidence, the point is moot (for now)...

[Last Conformist]

You're an idiot, Kuci.

[_BuRjaCi_]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Perfection

I used to dislike him, but now he's cool

I agree.

[Cort Haus]

The 'sense' of morality is based on a biological sense of social responsibility, often related to game-rules governing reproduction, and observable in many mammals.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Even if they're not counted as a religion then in the US, at least, they are adequately protected by the first amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Seeger

An atheists' moral convictions are considered his religion, essentially.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kidicious


It is not "merely" a rejection of that. Many athiests hold moral beliefs associated with their said rejection, and that's what allows people to call them religious.

The existence of a moral system which is predicated on a lack of belief in God, based solely on physical evidence, does not make atheism a religion.

If I have no belief that animals are intelligent or self-aware, because of a lack of evidence to indicate their intelligence or consciousness, then make moral claims like "eating meat is OK" based on that, does that make my belief about animals a religion?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Many athiests hold moral beliefs associated with thier said rejection,

Expand on this and name examples.

Many athiests hold moral beliefs associated with thier said rejection, and that's what allows people to call them religious.

This is likely the result of several factors. Since the prevailing trend is religion, an atheist will likely have invested more thought into issues such as morality, the nature of the world, etc and thus the population itself may trend toward certain beliefs (rationalism, etc).

Put another way: At various points throughout history, those who accept heliocentrism may also have trended toward certain other beliefs, but one shouldn't say that heliocentrism necessarily then prescribes those other beliefs.

And yes, the moral system of an atheist may be different than that of a theist because a theist may base the "justification" for a considerable portion of their moral actions on the existence of a God. Obviously if you reject this, you may not then accept the justification for their actions or moral system.

Furthermore, you are straying from the common-sense definition of "religion". A moral system (and all humans have moral systems) need not be a religious system.