It seems with recent posts declaring what atheism is that a refresher is 
due.
Atheism is not a religion and does not have tenets. This website sums it up 
quite well.

Any comments? (trolls not welcome)

http://www.atheists.org/faqs/atheism.html


Steve M

On Feb 4, 5:01 pm, "Steve Marshall"  wrote:
> It seems with recent posts declaring what atheism is that a refresher is
> due.
> Atheism is not a religion and does not have tenets. This website sums it up
> quite well.
>
> Any comments? (trolls not welcome)
>
> http://www.atheists.org/faqs/atheism.html
>
> Steve M

REPLY:  By default, Atheism  DOES have a belief system .  In fact, its
quite an enormous faith based Belief System.  So much so, that, no one
is truly 'an atheist' . Its therefore, a pretend game used as an
instrument for maximum personal lifestyle freedom. (bondage ,
really...).   Perhaps we need to review the Series on Atheisms Tenets
again ???  Id be pleased to cover this again Steve if you missed
something.

"Steve Marshall" 
>
> http://www.atheists.org/faqs/atheism.html

Also here. ..
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/p/AtheismMyths.htm

Steve M

X-No-Archive: yes

"TT"  wrote in message news:47A9671F.6070007@noburn.net...
> Steve Marshall wrote:
>> "Steve Marshall" 
>>> http://www.atheists.org/faqs/atheism.html
>>
>> Also here. ..
>> http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/p/AtheismMyths.htm

>   That is a great site-I visit it often for info, and since all of the 
> christian based definitions and lunatic tenets posted here are proven lies 
> and as worthless as the faith that the posters DON'T have...it's 
> refreshing as well...Atheists own the truth...it's a great feeling...

What is also interesting is that the local cretinist is absolutely steadfast 
about this *belief*  assertion for atheism.
Mind numbingly so.  I think often about why that is.......
If *we* were to accept the proposition [...which I don't, but that's by the 
by] that atheism 'approached' a system of belief just what and how would 
that further the cretinist cause for their case..?
I mean, it's irrelevent to the point of being ridiculous and incapacitating 
to the point of intellectual suicide.
I worry a bit at times as I frequent other groups of, shall we say, less 
intensity,  such as the .local.uk groups,  but almost without exception 
therein is a resident fundie or religious devout asserting similar divine 
propositions that suggest there is a structured attack out here in usenet 
land that has been targetted by some organised evangelical entity.

Even the christian groups have resident fundies although they appear to be 
tolerated and gently berated for their extreme views but within narrow 
criteria thay all appear to be more or less bible literalists.
I say this because under the guise of certain dogmatic assertions [..such as 
atheism is a religion] there appears to be an enormously difficult chasm to 
bridge for cretinists and fundies in relying upon 'evidence' for their 
belief system [...and even here we can see the slippery nature of religious 
argument that will acept and deny the bible under the notion that it has 
nothing to do with ones' belief in god   (!!!) and that it was written under 
divine inspiration (!!!) and god decides who will be given the ability to 
discern which parts are literal, which parts are not and which parts the 
chosen ones are able to interpret (!!!)]
It seems to me that the resident cretinist(s) is aware that it would be a 
minefield to attempt to cross the biblical threshhold of establishing such 
religious dogma [..there are those, of course, theoligical scholars that can 
make very good cases for some/much of which the bible says...but not the 
intellectual understanding of the religious foot soldiers visiting this ng, 
at least] by relying upon the reference manual for the belief system so 
attempts a completely different tactic of attacking atheism (...without 
great success) whilst ignoring consistently any effort to open up debate in 
the 'difficult' areas of religion that would shut down any forward thrust 
instantly.

We all appear to understand there is no rationalising with, about or against 
religious devouts and there is evidence to suggest that individuals with 
such unbending thoughts and ideals are in fact susceptible to certain 
psychotic and psycholigical characteristics that impinge upon the ability to 
evaluate data and detail and for which also the relyance upon some 'higher' 
cretinist deity is a great comfort to an individuals inner characteristic 
(genetic?) need and want.

There are some good religious ng's out here in which ..if you can get past 
the moderator!.. decent argument and theoligical debate carry on which are 
clearly challengeable from an atheist point of view but in the end, 
unfortunately, good xtians come down to the 'personal god' belief asertion 
which becomes unarguable since it is abstraction and irrational [..not 
intellectual irrationality that is]beliefs that are personally justified as 
individuals.  Of course, largely, these xtians don't go out evangelising and 
seem happy and content to carry their beliefs *quietly*, at least.
So back to the cretinists that frequent and intentionally disrupt 
proceedings with tactics and myopic dogma who actually are out here in a 
'debating' forum but either reluctant ar incapable of debating at all.....
If you ever needed confirmation that religion is woefully missing something, 
that there is a religious *war* taking place here and elsewhere and that 
religion needs unquestioning, mindless devotion to propagate and survive 
then rest assured that the mindless local cretinists are shining examples of 
a soon to be forgotten desception that has endured for enough millenia 
already...


Mark

Steve Marshall wrote:
> "Steve Marshall" 
>> http://www.atheists.org/faqs/atheism.html
> 
> Also here. ..
> http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/p/AtheismMyths.htm
> 
> Steve M 
> 
> 
   That is a great site-I visit it often for info, and since all of the 
christian based definitions and lunatic tenets posted here are proven 
lies and as worthless as the faith that the posters DON'T have...it's 
refreshing as well...Atheists own the truth...it's a great feeling...

Steve Marshall wrote:
> "Steve Marshall" 
>> http://www.atheists.org/faqs/atheism.html
> 
> Also here. ..
> http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/p/AtheismMyths.htm
> 
> Steve M 
> 
> 
   That is a great site-I visit it often for info, and since all of the
christian based definitions and lunatic tenets posted here are proven
lies and as worthless as the faith that they DON'T have...it's
refreshing as well...Atheists own the truth...it's a great feeling...

On 4 Feb, 23:01, "Steve Marshall"  wrote:
> It seems with recent posts declaring what atheism is that a refresher is
> due.
> Atheism is not a religion and does not have tenets. This website sums it up
> quite well.
>
> Any comments? (trolls not welcome)
>
> http://www.atheists.org/faqs/atheism.html
>
> Steve M

If atheism is not a religion, why do you go on about it?

That web page seems to be written by a true believer, using the word
capitalised and notas he thinks fit.  It reads like a clarion call for
all true Atheists to rally behind the true flag and belief of
Atheism.  The web page will be welcomed greatly by those who wish to
portray me in a bad light - 'See, that's what they really believe and
that is their evangelical web page'.

It does not reflect my views as an atheist, and the author has no
right to make those ridiculous claims - he does not represent me, he
only represents the members of the partticular group and they have no
right to take the word for themselves.

John Brockbank wrote:

>>
>> http://www.atheists.org/faqs/atheism.html

> 
> If atheism is not a religion, why do you go on about it?
> 
> It does not reflect my views as an atheist, and the author has no
> right to make those ridiculous claims 

John,

I'd be interested to understand what "ridiculous claims" you refer to.

regards, Ian

"mark"  wrote

> What is also interesting is that the local cretinist is absolutely 
> steadfast about this *belief*  assertion for atheism.
> Mind numbingly so.  I think often about why that is.......
> If *we* were to accept the proposition [...which I don't, but that's by 
> the by] that atheism 'approached' a system of belief just what and how 
> would that further the cretinist cause for their case..?

Well they try and make out that atheism is a belief system or a religion so 
that you then have a level playing field. Belief System A Vs Belief System 
B.
Now lets add that one system is moral and the other isn't.  It's pretty easy 
to make one seem more attractive. You'd be daft to want to favour the system 
offering no good values. The trouble is such a picture is entirely false.

It is, yet again, another straw man argument. Build up a stack of lies and 
use that to condemn people. Nice !

It is ironic that the nasty creeps are guilty of exactly the things they 
seem to protest about. They are the ones who lie about science and we've 
proved it many times. They have yet to provide any science to back up their 
claims that science supports religion and/or intelligent design. They claim 
evolution is not science but even Behe has written that he accepts that we 
could have developed over millions of years.
They harp on about morality saying atheist can't have moral values when it 
is they that break their moral codes. They defraud repeatedly by using quote 
mining which we've shown is a misrepresentation of what is actually said. 
Their idea of morality seem to be to lie and cheat and use as much deception 
as necessary in order to kid people in to believing their daft version of 
religion which has no significant backing from the churches.

So, as ever, the reason for treating atheism as a faith is so that they can 
demean people. They can't seem to realise they are doing it to themselves 
and their religion. Quite a number of Christians are sick of these 
Creationist zealots and we've shown that to be the case too.

Steve M
(This will no doubt result in a REPLY: asking how morality came from 'Dust 
and Hydrogen Gas', which just goes to prove the point, once again.)

"John Brockbank"  wrote

> If atheism is not a religion, why do you go on about it?

I'm going on about it because this a an atheist newsgroup that has had 
atheism misrepresented repeatedly recently and thought it might be worth 
stating again what the reality is.

> That web page seems to be written by a true believer, using the word
> capitalised and notas he thinks fit.

Standard internet behaviour!!!

> It reads like a clarion call for
> all true Atheists to rally behind the true flag and belief of
> Atheism.  The web page will be welcomed greatly by those who wish to
> portray me in a bad light - 'See, that's what they really believe and
> that is their evangelical web page'.

I think you're forgetting how atheists can be badly received in America. 
There are many that are very prejudiced against atheists and use the sort of 
tactics we've seen here declaring how immoral etc. atheists are.
It is more in reaction to such views that this page is written.
It is in some senses a rallying call as it is from the American Atheists 
organisation and they want to tell people that they are not what the 
religioius majority say they are.
What makes you think you'll be seen in a bad light?

> It does not reflect my views as an atheist, and the author has no
> right to make those ridiculous claims - he does not represent me, he
> only represents the members of the partticular group and they have no
> right to take the word for themselves.

Which claims do you think are ridiculous? Which bits don't represent your 
views?

Steve M

X-No-Archive: yes

"Steve Marshall"  wrote in message 
news:13qhlo3nq5qfi66@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "mark"  wrote
>
>> What is also interesting is that the local cretinist is absolutely 
>> steadfast about this *belief*  assertion for atheism.
>> Mind numbingly so.  I think often about why that is.......
>> If *we* were to accept the proposition [...which I don't, but that's by 
>> the by] that atheism 'approached' a system of belief just what and how 
>> would that further the cretinist cause for their case..?
>
> Well they try and make out that atheism is a belief system or a religion 
> so that you then have a level playing field. Belief System A Vs Belief 
> System B.
> Now lets add that one system is moral and the other isn't.  It's pretty 
> easy to make one seem more attractive. You'd be daft to want to favour the 
> system offering no good values. The trouble is such a picture is entirely 
> false.
>
> It is, yet again, another straw man argument. Build up a stack of lies and 
> use that to condemn people. Nice !


Well yes..... apart from the notion of belief systems that cannot be 
confined in A's & B's...............!!
xtian beliefs are already comparable to a whole host of *other* belief 
systems.......adding one more seems well..........futile really.
I think the moral argument is provably false as well but I do understand 
your analysis of this....



Mark

"Steve Marshall"  wrote in message 
news:13qhmdroahm286b@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "John Brockbank"  wrote
>
>> If atheism is not a religion, why do you go on about it?
>
> I'm going on about it because this a an atheist newsgroup that has had 
> atheism misrepresented repeatedly recently and thought it might be worth 
> stating again what the reality is.
>
>> That web page seems to be written by a true believer, using the word
>> capitalised and notas he thinks fit.
>
> Standard internet behaviour!!!
>
>> It reads like a clarion call for
>> all true Atheists to rally behind the true flag and belief of
>> Atheism.  The web page will be welcomed greatly by those who wish to
>> portray me in a bad light - 'See, that's what they really believe and
>> that is their evangelical web page'.
>
> I think you're forgetting how atheists can be badly received in America. 
> There are many that are very prejudiced against atheists and use the sort 
> of tactics we've seen here declaring how immoral etc. atheists are.
> It is more in reaction to such views that this page is written.
> It is in some senses a rallying call as it is from the American Atheists 
> organisation and they want to tell people that they are not what the 
> religioius majority say they are.
> What makes you think you'll be seen in a bad light?
>

I take the point that the author of the page is trying to cover silly things 
said about atheists and in that sense it does not matter if he uses 
ungrammatical statements and loose wooliness of thought.  But he writes as a 
representative of an organisation who seem to appropriate the word for 
themselves.  It might indeed be true that Atheists are not Humanists and 
that Atheists do not persecute religious people, but it is certainly true 
that some atheists are Humanists - I am a bit of a Humanist myself, although 
I stopped paying the dues because I thought they were in danger of becoming 
merely an anti-religious cult.  Of course it is also true that some atheists 
persecute religious people - the claim that atheists are somehow above the 
low morals of the non-atheist pathetic twits out there is utterly 
ridiculous.

I expect he would whinge about the fact that he said that was true of 
Atheists, meaning his membership, not of atheists.  In saying that, he would 
in fact be confirming the very point against which he was arguing.  Changing 
the meanings of words and making outrageous claims ought to be the preserve 
of charlatans.  I think that he should go the whole hog and refer to his 
members using that horrible word 'Brights' so that people could see what 
sort of people join.  Dawkins should have been ashamed of himself for 
associating with that self-congratulatory rubbish.

My experience with American atheists is limited to chatting with some people 
at the atheist stall at the Miami Book Fair.  They were not a very cheery 
bunch.  Still, perhaps Humanist means something different in the USA and 
that was why the author put it in quotes as though they are akin to the 
Spanish Inquisition.

>> It does not reflect my views as an atheist, and the author has no
>> right to make those ridiculous claims - he does not represent me, he
>> only represents the members of the partticular group and they have no
>> right to take the word for themselves.
>
> Which claims do you think are ridiculous? Which bits don't represent your 
> views?
>
> Steve M
>

"John Brockbank"  wrote > I take the point that the 
author of the page is trying to cover silly things
> said about atheists and in that sense it does not matter if he uses 
> ungrammatical statements and loose wooliness of thought.  But he writes as 
> a representative of an organisation who seem to appropriate the word for 
> themselves.  It might indeed be true that Atheists are not Humanists and 
> that Atheists do not persecute religious people, but it is certainly true 
> that some atheists are Humanists - I am a bit of a Humanist myself, 
> although I stopped paying the dues because I thought they were in danger 
> of becoming merely an anti-religious cult.

Which is, I think one of the reasons it is mentioned. Atheism doesn't equal 
humanism. Humanists seem to be seen in a bad light in American as can be sen 
in films like Bedazzled. It could be said that humanists propose a set of 
beliefs which define them, whereas that can't be said of atheists. So in 
terms of athiests having beliefs there perhaps should be some distinction 
made.

> Of course it is also true that some atheists persecute religious people - 
> the claim that atheists are somehow above the low morals of the 
> non-atheist pathetic twits out there is utterly ridiculous.

I think it can be shown to be mostly true, for example here with our troll 
who admits to breaking his own moral code. However I'm not sure where you 
get this from. I don't see it.


> I expect he would whinge about the fact that he said that was true of 
> Atheists, meaning his membership, not of atheists.  In saying that, he 
> would in fact be confirming the very point against which he was arguing. 
> Changing the meanings of words and making outrageous claims ought to be 
> the preserve of charlatans.  I think that he should go the whole hog and 
> refer to his members using that horrible word 'Brights' so that people 
> could see what sort of people join.  Dawkins should have been ashamed of 
> himself for associating with that self-congratulatory rubbish.

I think you're forgettign again about how badly treated atheism can be in 
America and how often false claims are made about it. They're having to 
state that they aren't what the religious fanatics say they are and are 
attempting to make it clear that they aren't what the popular image of them 
is. I think you're reading things into it that aren't said.

> My experience with American atheists is limited to chatting with some 
> people at the atheist stall at the Miami Book Fair.  They were not a very 
> cheery bunch.  Still, perhaps Humanist means something different in the 
> USA and that was why the author put it in quotes as though they are akin 
> to the Spanish Inquisition.

I think they are viewed as pretentious intellectual smartarses.
I've not much experience of American atheists either but the ones I've come 
across are usually fairly positive marvelling the wonders of the world 
through scientific knowledge which in turn something that makes them an 
atheist.

Steve M

On Feb 4, 3:01 pm, "Steve Marshall"  wrote:
> It seems with recent posts declaring what atheism is that a refresher is
> due.
> Atheism is not a religion and does not have tenets. This website sums it up
> quite well.
>
> Any comments? (trolls not welcome)
>
> http://www.atheists.org/faqs/atheism.html
>
> Steve M

I like this comment the best!

Atheists are NOT "Forcing their Opinions" on Society

Atheists are not "forcing their opinions" on the society.
But we ARE standing up for our constitutional rights, especially those
guaranteed in the Establishment and Free Speech Clauses of the First
Amendment.

Religious organizations (How many fundy Xtian trolls does this remind
you of?) in fact, have been working to force their doctrines onto
society through mandatory prayer recitation in government halls and
public schools.
They are also trying to institute "bible law" as the basis of civil
society, and advance a religious agenda through political means.

So TRUE!!!!

John Brockbank wrote:

> ... the claim that atheists are somehow above the 
> low morals of the non-atheist pathetic twits out there is utterly 
> ridiculous.

It isn't a ridiculous claim at all.

Firstly, it is important to emphasise that atheists aren't in some 
way devoid of a moral code. This is a common belief amongst the 
faithful.

It is also important to understand that atheists don't suffer from a 
set of predefined false morals. These are the ones that demand that 
teachers who give a teddy bear the wrong name are flogged or executed.

Atheists tend to use reasoning to refine their morals, whereas the 
faithful consider morals to be absolute. This is best seen in sexual 
morals. The old chastity-until-marriage precept doesn't work in a 
modern society where there can be typically 15 years between puberty 
and marriage. Additionally, the faithful seem happy to oppose the 
initiatives to help eradicate aids by supplying condoms in Africa 
because this appears to conflict with their chastity notions - 
thereby condemning thousands, possibly millions, to an early death.

regards, Ian

Ken wrote:
> 
> Atheists are...standing up for our constitutional rights, especially those
> guaranteed in the Establishment and Free Speech Clauses of the First
> Amendment.

Which first amendment would that be? What constitution?

-- 
Graham Nye
news(a)thenyes.org.uk

On Feb 7, 1:36 pm, Graham Nye  wrote:
> Ken wrote:
>
> > Atheists are...standing up for our constitutional rights, especially those
> > guaranteed in the Establishment and Free Speech Clauses of the First
> > Amendment.
>
> Which first amendment would that be? What constitution?
>
> --
> Graham Nye
> news(a)thenyes.org.uk

In the Colonies

"Ian Smith"  wrote in message 
news:13qmtfckf58mk87@corp.supernews.com...
> John Brockbank wrote:
>
>> ... the claim that atheists are somehow above the low morals of the 
>> non-atheist pathetic twits out there is utterly ridiculous.
>
> It isn't a ridiculous claim at all.
>
> Firstly, it is important to emphasise that atheists aren't in some way 
> devoid of a moral code. This is a common belief amongst the faithful.
>
> It is also important to understand that atheists don't suffer from a set 
> of predefined false morals. These are the ones that demand that teachers 
> who give a teddy bear the wrong name are flogged or executed.
>
> Atheists tend to use reasoning to refine their morals, whereas the 
> faithful consider morals to be absolute. This is best seen in sexual 
> morals. The old chastity-until-marriage precept doesn't work in a modern 
> society where there can be typically 15 years between puberty and 
> marriage. Additionally, the faithful seem happy to oppose the initiatives 
> to help eradicate aids by supplying condoms in Africa because this appears 
> to conflict with their chastity notions - thereby condemning thousands, 
> possibly millions, to an early death.
>
> regards, Ian

I suppose that in the last analysis if you wish to claim the moral high 
ground over all people who believe in God then that is fine with me.  After 
all, billions of people the world over have delusions and one more adds 
little to the sum.  Besides which, it really does no harm at all for people 
to give themselves a little ego-preening, I am sure that I do it myself; 
being a grammar school product does not make one humble.

So who would you think would qualify as decent and honourable, judging 
between the Archbishop who wants us to be a bit nicer to Muslims, or the 
atheist Sun editor who says that  the Archbishop in doing so supports 
terrorists?

John Brockbank wrote:

> 
> I suppose that in the last analysis if you wish to claim the moral high 
> ground over all people who believe in God then that is fine with me.  After 
> all, billions of people the world over have delusions and one more adds 
> little to the sum.  Besides which, it really does no harm at all for people 
> to give themselves a little ego-preening,

I didn't say that but, thank you John, I value your opinion.

> So who would you think would qualify as decent and honourable, judging 
> between the Archbishop who wants us to be a bit nicer to Muslims, or the 
> atheist Sun editor who says that  the Archbishop in doing so supports 
> terrorists?

I wouldn't pass an opinion as I haven't read these specific 
utterances. However, I wouldn't make any assumption that a theist 
has any moral insight that the rest of don't and I can easily see 
how their morals can be distorted.

I am nice to Muslims - I work with several (we have an office is 
Karachi). That isn't the same as saying that I respect islam - 
religions only get the respect that they earn, which is something 
they don't do too well at.

regards, Ian