Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheism= religion

Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 7:10:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Atheism is a religion. Their Gods are Dawkins and Harris. Their Churches are atheist conventions. Their Holy Book is 'The God Delusion'. Their belief system is scientism and their religion is abiogenesis. They even persecute people who leave their faith. See the case of Anthony Flew.

Atheism= Faitheism.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 7:20:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 7:10:19 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheism is a religion. Their Gods are Dawkins and Harris. Their Churches are atheist conventions. Their Holy Book is 'The God Delusion'. Their belief system is scientism and their religion is abiogenesis. They even persecute people who leave their faith. See the case of Anthony Flew.

Atheism= Faitheism.

How delightfully pig-ignorant and insane. Most atheists I know find both Harris and Dawkins incredibly irritating, think 'The God Delusion' is a mildly amusing piece of mediocre rhetoric and are educated enough to know that 'scientism' is a made-up term used only by people who are terrified of the idea that someone might ask them to support and/or examine their claims and beliefs.

So other than being almost entirely wrong on every single point, great thread!
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 9:34:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 7:10:19 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheism is a religion. Their Gods are Dawkins and Harris. Their Churches are atheist conventions. Their Holy Book is 'The God Delusion'. Their belief system is scientism and their religion is abiogenesis. They even persecute people who leave their faith. See the case of Anthony Flew.

Atheism= Faitheism.

Eh, I give this a solid 3 on the Troll-o-meter. You can do better.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 9:52:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 7:10:19 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheism is a religion. Their Gods are Dawkins and Harris. Their Churches are atheist conventions. Their Holy Book is 'The God Delusion'. Their belief system is scientism and their religion is abiogenesis. They even persecute people who leave their faith. See the case of Anthony Flew.

Atheism= Faitheism.

Sure there's some stupid atheists out there, but there's always stupid people in every group... Such as trolls.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 9:54:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 7:20:01 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 11/18/2013 7:10:19 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheism is a religion. Their Gods are Dawkins and Harris. Their Churches are atheist conventions. Their Holy Book is 'The God Delusion'. Their belief system is scientism and their religion is abiogenesis. They even persecute people who leave their faith. See the case of Anthony Flew.

Atheism= Faitheism.

How delightfully pig-ignorant and insane. Most atheists I know find both Harris and Dawkins incredibly irritating, think 'The God Delusion' is a mildly amusing piece of mediocre rhetoric

and are educated enough to know that 'scientism' is a made-up term used only by people who are terrified of the idea that someone might ask them to support and/or examine their claims and beliefs.


...what? So what do you make of the fact that people like Alex Rosenberg gladly use the term in reference to his epistemology/ontology, etc?

So other than being almost entirely wrong on every single point, great thread!
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 10:08:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 7:20:01 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 11/18/2013 7:10:19 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheism is a religion. Their Gods are Dawkins and Harris. Their Churches are atheist conventions. Their Holy Book is 'The God Delusion'. Their belief system is scientism and their religion is abiogenesis. They even persecute people who leave their faith. See the case of Anthony Flew.

Atheism= Faitheism.

How delightfully pig-ignorant and insane. Most atheists I know find both Harris and Dawkins incredibly irritating, think 'The God Delusion' is a mildly amusing piece of mediocre rhetoric and are educated enough to know that 'scientism' is a made-up term used only by people who are terrified of the idea that someone might ask them to support and/or examine their claims and beliefs.

Actually 'scientism' is a term that puts it on the atheist to examine his or her claims and beliefs, or at least the dogmatic atheist. It's a rather logically founded term and, when used by the conventionally religious, should outline for you the futility of your position as educational. Certainty of god is no more pigheaded than certainty against god.

So other than being almost entirely wrong on every single point, great thread!
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 10:19:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The denial of god, humanism, etc. have all the attributes of a religion. The denial of god is faith-based.

Now "lack of belief" is something more sensible, but nobody hears "lack of belief" when they hear "atheist"; instead, the religious hear the denial of what they believe and put forward with a fool's certainty in most cases. This will never bring anyone to think about anything - it is intellectually void.

Agnosticism is the position of logician and teacher.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 11:58:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 9:54:05 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
...what? So what do you make of the fact that people like Alex Rosenberg gladly use the term in reference to his epistemology/ontology, etc?

1) Using a word does not mean you agree with its use, merely that you are addressing the fact that it is used. Atheists also use the word 'god', but that doesn't mean they think the common usage is a particularly coherent one.
2) I am not required to agree with people using it in the sense clearly implied in the original post and all other theistic discussions involving the term. Quite obviously I would disagree with with those who have used it.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 11:59:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 10:08:43 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Actually 'scientism' is a term that puts it on the atheist to examine his or her claims and beliefs, or at least the dogmatic atheist. It's a rather logically founded term and, when used by the conventionally religious, should outline for you the futility of your position as educational. Certainty of god is no more pigheaded than certainty against god.

*slow clap*

You're going to have to try harder than that, with your track record.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 12:18:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 11:58:15 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 11/18/2013 9:54:05 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
...what? So what do you make of the fact that people like Alex Rosenberg gladly use the term in reference to his epistemology/ontology, etc?

1) Using a word does not mean you agree with its use, merely that you are addressing the fact that it is used. Atheists also use the word 'god', but that doesn't mean they think the common usage is a particularly coherent one.

He doesn't merely address the fact that it is used; he explicitly describes himself as an advocate of scientism and spells out exactly what he means by that. Unsurprisingly, he means by that exactly what some people mean by that when they charge someone with being an advocate of scientism. That is, the view that the methods of science are the only reliable ways to secure knowledge of anything.

2) I am not required to agree with people using it in the sense clearly implied in the original post and all other theistic discussions involving the term. Quite obviously I would disagree with with those who have used it.

Never said you were but it appears to offer a counterexample to your comment about what people who are "educated enough" believe about the way the term "scientism" is used in particular contexts. The guy is nothing if not educated.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 12:19:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 11:59:58 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 11/18/2013 10:08:43 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Actually 'scientism' is a term that puts it on the atheist to examine his or her claims and beliefs, or at least the dogmatic atheist. It's a rather logically founded term and, when used by the conventionally religious, should outline for you the futility of your position as educational. Certainty of god is no more pigheaded than certainty against god.

*slow clap*

You're going to have to try harder than that, with your track record.

Um, what? From what I read of you we seem to be in general agreement besides on this one point. Let's not resort to ad homs bro.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 12:21:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The label of "atheist", IMO, is superfluous to the point of having negative impact. Not that I'm not strictly an atheist, now.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 12:50:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Graincruncher is mad because he knows I make sense. It's funny how petty the "intellectuals" are on here.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 1:36:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Atheism is as faith based as any metaphysical claim. Atheists do have a burden of proof.

God may not actually be a positive assertion, but rather something already inherently a part of existence.

The assertion "God exists" has the same epistemological basis as saying "the physical universe exists."

People are assuming that we are "living in such a universe" but it could be the case that we are "living in other such universe." The Theist and the Atheist have to demonstrate that we are living in such the universe that they propose.

Atheists must justify the statement "Atheism is true" as opposed to the alternative "Atheism is false."

"Stating that the existence of a deity is unlikely is a positive claim. If one expects to be taken seriously they better have some reasons for thinking that. A BOP of sorts."
-- popculturepooka
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 4:32:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 1:36:08 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Atheism is as faith based as any metaphysical claim.
Uhh .. no. Not even close.
Atheists do have a burden of proof.
No we don't .. do you even have any idea what your talking about? Google the Hitchens Razor and get back to me: you have BOP. You as a religious individual are making a great claim which requires great evidence. Not us, we simply reject.

God may not actually be a positive assertion, but rather something already inherently a part of existence.
Again, Hitchens Razor, you have BOP. Your perceptions =/= objective facts

The assertion "God exists" has the same epistemological basis as saying "the physical universe exists."

People are assuming that we are "living in such a universe" but it could be the case that we are "living in other such universe." The Theist and the Atheist have to demonstrate that we are living in such the universe that they propose.

Atheists must justify the statement "Atheism is true" as opposed to the alternative "Atheism is false."

Not really when you drop Pascals wager and adopt the Atheists wager. Don't forget Pascals wager was designed to get the skeptical to adopt a religion regardless of ideology..

"Stating that the existence of a deity is unlikely is a positive claim. If one expects to be taken seriously they better have some reasons for thinking that. A BOP of sorts."
-- popculturepooka

Yeah .. SCIENCE!
Thank you for voting!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 5:37:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 4:32:57 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 11/18/2013 1:36:08 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Atheists do have a burden of proof.
No we don't .. do you even have any idea what your talking about? Google the Hitchens Razor and get back to me: you have BOP.

Begging the question. My point is that Atheism makes a positive claim and therefore they have a BOP for that claim. Given the ontological, epistemological, and non-contingency status of God, it is not anymore of a positive claim than the "physical universe exists."

You as a religious individual are making a great claim which requires great evidence. Not us, we simply reject.

I am a religious individual? Lol. I believe in the Ayn Rand Atheism, the Taoist Pantheism, the Buddhist Nontheism, the Jesus Christ Gnostocism, the Rumi Sufism, the David Hume Ontology, and the Heideggerian Transmetaphysics.

God may not actually be a positive assertion, but rather something already inherently a part of existence.
Again, Hitchens Razor, you have BOP. Your perceptions =/= objective facts

The assertion "God exists" has the same epistemological basis as saying "the physical universe exists."

People are assuming that we are "living in such a universe" but it could be the case that we are "living in other such universe." The Theist and the Atheist have to demonstrate that we are living in such the universe that they propose.

Atheists must justify the statement "Atheism is true" as opposed to the alternative "Atheism is false."

Not really when you drop Pascals wager and adopt the Atheists wager. Don't forget Pascals wager was designed to get the skeptical to adopt a religion regardless of ideology..

Pascals Wager is irrelevant. That has nothing to do with epistemology, it has to do with fear inducing yourself into a state of delusion.

The fact is, you have a BOP proof with regards to the positive claim "Atheism is true."
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 5:46:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 5:37:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/18/2013 4:32:57 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 11/18/2013 1:36:08 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Atheists do have a burden of proof.
No we don't .. do you even have any idea what your talking about? Google the Hitchens Razor and get back to me: you have BOP.

Begging the question. My point is that Atheism makes a positive claim and therefore they have a BOP for that claim. Given the ontological, epistemological, and non-contingency status of God, it is not anymore of a positive claim than the "physical universe exists."

Again, hitchens razor, your making the greatest claim, you have the greatest BOP. And for that matter, Occams razor also compels you, your assuming we make a claim. We do not, we just reject everything.

You as a religious individual are making a great claim which requires great evidence. Not us, we simply reject.

I am a religious individual? Lol. I believe in the Ayn Rand Atheism, the Taoist Pantheism, the Buddhist Nontheism, the Jesus Christ Gnostocism, the Rumi Sufism, the David Hume Ontology, and the Heideggerian Transmetaphysics.

Yeah .. religion. Spiritualism can also be a religion you realize that right?

God may not actually be a positive assertion, but rather something already inherently a part of existence.
Again, Hitchens Razor, you have BOP. Your perceptions =/= objective facts

The assertion "God exists" has the same epistemological basis as saying "the physical universe exists."

People are assuming that we are "living in such a universe" but it could be the case that we are "living in other such universe." The Theist and the Atheist have to demonstrate that we are living in such the universe that they propose.

Atheists must justify the statement "Atheism is true" as opposed to the alternative "Atheism is false."

Not really when you drop Pascals wager and adopt the Atheists wager. Don't forget Pascals wager was designed to get the skeptical to adopt a religion regardless of ideology..

Pascals Wager is irrelevant. That has nothing to do with epistemology, it has to do with fear inducing yourself into a state of delusion.

The fact is, you have a BOP proof with regards to the positive claim "Atheism is true."

Uhh no. Due to the nature of god you have BOP. we simply reject everything, you make a claim and use your perceptions to try and justify it. That's you're needing of BOP. Not us.
Thank you for voting!
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 6:05:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 12:18:42 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
He doesn't merely address the fact that it is used; he explicitly describes himself as an advocate of scientism and spells out exactly what he means by that. Unsurprisingly, he means by that exactly what some people mean by that when they charge someone with being an advocate of scientism. That is, the view that the methods of science are the only reliable ways to secure knowledge of anything.

Then see my previous statements re: such people being idiots. The point is, it is a wholly specious charge to level at atheists in general; most would reject it as an incorrect view. Myself included. I usually consider arguments that make claims that are not true to be pretty poor arguments. I don't doubt there are some atheists who say that and presumably you can see somewhere in one of my posts where I said "and there are no stupid atheists", as otherwise that'd be a really weird objection.

Never said you were but it appears to offer a counterexample to your comment about what people who are "educated enough" believe about the way the term "scientism" is used in particular contexts. The guy is nothing if not educated.

So you took 'educated enough' as a literal 'have passed this point in the educational system', rather than a more reasonable 'people who are not idiots'? Any atheist 'scientism' supporter now is as much of a quack as the hardline logical positivists were and is just as wrong. At no point have I said that theism has a monopoly on idiots. In fact, I'm pretty sure I was fairly critical of the two named in the OP...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 6:59:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 6:05:48 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 11/18/2013 12:18:42 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
He doesn't merely address the fact that it is used; he explicitly describes himself as an advocate of scientism and spells out exactly what he means by that. Unsurprisingly, he means by that exactly what some people mean by that when they charge someone with being an advocate of scientism. That is, the view that the methods of science are the only reliable ways to secure knowledge of anything.

Then see my previous statements re: such people being idiots. The point is, it is a wholly specious charge to level at atheists in general; most would reject it as an incorrect view.

I would agree in general, but I was objecting to your claim about what a charge of scientism actually constitutes.

Myself included. I usually consider arguments that make claims that are not true to be pretty poor arguments. I don't doubt there are some atheists who say that and presumably you can see somewhere in one of my posts where I said "and there are no stupid atheists", as otherwise that'd be a really weird objection.

Never said you were but it appears to offer a counterexample to your comment about what people who are "educated enough" believe about the way the term "scientism" is used in particular contexts. The guy is nothing if not educated.

So you took 'educated enough' as a literal 'have passed this point in the educational system', rather than a more reasonable 'people who are not idiots'?

Uh, yeah? Because I don't necessarily correlate lack of education with being an idiot. Nor do I ncecessarily assume the guy is an idiot for advocating a view that I view as utterly ridiculous.

Any atheist 'scientism' supporter now is as much of a quack as the hardline logical positivists were and is just as wrong. At no point have I said that theism has a monopoly on idiots. In fact, I'm pretty sure I was fairly critical of the two named in the OP...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 7:27:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 7:10:19 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheism is a religion. Their Gods are Dawkins and Harris. Their Churches are atheist conventions. Their Holy Book is 'The God Delusion'. Their belief system is scientism and their religion is abiogenesis. They even persecute people who leave their faith. See the case of Anthony Flew.

Atheism= Faitheism.

Atheist conventions? Cool.

Can anybody go or do you have to be a full fledged, minion card carrying atheist?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
kawaii_crazy
Posts: 580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 7:31:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
re"li"gion [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Yes, atheism is a religion because its sets of beliefs include:
There is no God,
or
There is no one specific God.
"Being called weird is like being called Limited Edition. Meaning you're something people don't see that often." -Ashley Purdy

Please help raise money for a Christmas gift for airmax (although he is Jewish, as YYW pointed out). He is in desperate need of a new laptop, and he has done so much for this site; he certainly deserves one. :)
http://www.debate.org...
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 7:59:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 7:27:58 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/18/2013 7:10:19 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheism is a religion. Their Gods are Dawkins and Harris. Their Churches are atheist conventions. Their Holy Book is 'The God Delusion'. Their belief system is scientism and their religion is abiogenesis. They even persecute people who leave their faith. See the case of Anthony Flew.

Atheism= Faitheism.

Atheist conventions? Cool.

Can anybody go or do you have to be a full fledged, minion card carrying atheist?

You may only go when you have tipped your fedora to Richard Dawkins himself.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 8:25:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 7:59:14 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 11/18/2013 7:27:58 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/18/2013 7:10:19 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheism is a religion. Their Gods are Dawkins and Harris. Their Churches are atheist conventions. Their Holy Book is 'The God Delusion'. Their belief system is scientism and their religion is abiogenesis. They even persecute people who leave their faith. See the case of Anthony Flew.

Atheism= Faitheism.

Atheist conventions? Cool.

Can anybody go or do you have to be a full fledged, minion card carrying atheist?

You may only go when you have tipped your fedora to Richard Dawkins himself.

I haven't done so, and I couldn't get a minion card because I don't hate puppies.

Crap, with no basis for morals and all that ethical depravity, I figured an atheist convention would have been a great place to meet women.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2013 6:41:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 9:54:05 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
...what? So what do you make of the fact that people like Alex Rosenberg gladly use the term in reference to his epistemology/ontology, etc?

He started using it in reference to the fact that it was pejorative.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 7:22:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 7:10:19 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheism is a religion. Their Gods are Dawkins and Harris. Their Churches are atheist conventions. Their Holy Book is 'The God Delusion'. Their belief system is scientism and their religion is abiogenesis. They even persecute people who leave their faith. See the case of Anthony Flew.

Atheism= Faitheism.

What I find funny about that is the fact that you just called atheism a religion, but stated that atheists follow abiogenesis instead. Can we have two religions, now?
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 8:15:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 7:22:51 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/18/2013 7:10:19 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheism is a religion. Their Gods are Dawkins and Harris. Their Churches are atheist conventions. Their Holy Book is 'The God Delusion'. Their belief system is scientism and their religion is abiogenesis. They even persecute people who leave their faith. See the case of Anthony Flew.

Atheism= Faitheism.


What I find funny about that is the fact that you just called atheism a religion, but stated that atheists follow abiogenesis instead. Can we have two religions, now?

These statements are non-contradictories. Atheism is a philosophical position while abiogenesis is a scientific position.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 2:36:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 8:15:39 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:22:51 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/18/2013 7:10:19 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheism is a religion. Their Gods are Dawkins and Harris. Their Churches are atheist conventions. Their Holy Book is 'The God Delusion'. Their belief system is scientism and their religion is abiogenesis. They even persecute people who leave their faith. See the case of Anthony Flew.

Atheism= Faitheism.


What I find funny about that is the fact that you just called atheism a religion, but stated that atheists follow abiogenesis instead. Can we have two religions, now?

These statements are non-contradictories. Atheism is a philosophical position while abiogenesis is a scientific position.

And those statements were straw men. Can you have two religions?