Atheism is a religion

[AUSloth]

Originally Posted by Meissner

Edit: BTW AUSloth, theism/atheism=belief, Gnostic/Agnostic=knowledge, not sure if you were confused about that or not, feel free to flame if you feel I'm being arrogant

No flame required (unless your up this end of the world for a BBQ some time) that was the point I was trying to make with the question "can I ever know" maybe "is the knowledge even possible?" might have captured it better. Not enough claret for clarity

[Meissner]

I see

[finix]

I quoted the wikipedia definition because it is what the average moron would accept as a definition.

We are only as good as the information we equip ourselves with. Even then, we are being biased by smothers point of view.

Is it not enough that others see atheism as a religion. Shouldn't that ring alarm bells to us about the way we are presenting ourselves to the public.

[wolty]

Originally Posted by finix

Is it not enough that others see atheism as a religion. Shouldn't that ring alarm bells to us about the way we are presenting ourselves to the public.

Herding cats problem. Each will respond individually to a perceived slight.

Myself, I just swear and get cranky.

Atheists do need to understand their position. This involves devouring as much information as they can. Better to be equipped to deal with arguments.

Oh, another thing. Hanging around here has taught me something. The word "No". Someone says something incorrect, I respond with "No, that is incorrect".

Stupid arguments have to be pulled up all the time.

[AUSloth]

Originally Posted by Martin_Madej

Sorry for the long post.

I am a little drunk while writing this.

That's alright, I'm an average drunk. About 5'8"

[wolty]

Originally Posted by AUSloth

That's alright, I'm an average drunk. About 5'8"

I'm a big drunk then.

[Loki]

Originally Posted by finix

I quoted the wikipedia definition because it is what the average moron would accept as a definition.

We are only as good as the information we equip ourselves with. Even then, we are being biased by smothers point of view.

Is it not enough that others see atheism as a religion. Shouldn't that ring alarm bells to us about the way we are presenting ourselves to the public.

Atheism will be defined by those who identify as such, not by wankers who would redefine it to fit into their own extremely limited world. Those who would redefine atheism to assuage their own cognitive dissonance can get right royally rooted, their limited thought processes are not as valuable or worth listening to as they often suggest they are.

[finix]

Luckily, we don't allow pedophiles to define themselves.

Telling people they are wrong and stupid is a classic symptom of religious fanatics.

If you think you are smarter than everyone else, you will learn nothing.

Being an atheist does not mean you have to be agro and go around hating religion. We all have common ground.

[Sieveboy]

Originally Posted by Loki

Atheism will be defined by those who identify as such, not by wankers who would redefine it to fit into their own extremely limited world. Those who would redefine atheism to assuage their own cognitive dissonance can get right royally rooted, their limited thought processes are not as valuable or worth listening to as they often suggest they are.

+1 I have spent an inordinate amount of time spanking a theist who insisted there wad no such thing as atheists. We atheists were all naturalists or devoted to scientism (a word I detest with a passion) and thus we could be forthwith be dismissed as irrational in the face of his superior philosophy. I had to drag out a Sam Harris style Buddhist to point out his fallacy. It was even funnier when he told me maths only exists in out heads. I think I broke my logic paddle bat on him.

[rayne]

Originally Posted by Loki

Atheism will be defined by those who identify as such, not by wankers who would redefine it to fit into their own extremely limited world. Those who would redefine atheism to assuage their own cognitive dissonance can get right royally rooted, their limited thought processes are not as valuable or worth listening to as they often suggest they are.

Yes exactly! We as atheists can define that however we want? Why should theists decide what that means when they can't even get their own stories straight?