1 Just remember, he gave it to Mrs. Garrison in the coolo, he's got to try something to get his retard express back on the tracks.

2 Ha!  Those were great South Park episodes.

3 Welcome to Atheism Identity Politics.  Great title for the article too: "The God that Whined."

And seriously, atheists?  No one cares.  Really.  Feel free to believe whatever you'd like.  You just extend me that same courtesy and we'll be just peachy, mmkay?

4 Oh, yeah, I remember that article!  It was a good one.  

5

Atheism is a religion.

Religions are groups of people with similar perspectives on the nature and properties of the Divine. Belief in the non-existence of the Divine would be part of that 'nature and properties' discussion. Thus a group of people who did not believe in the existence of God would be a religion. QED.

Please note, however, that some evangelicals have challenged this, since they do not want atheism to get the protected status that religious beliefs get (or are supposed to get, depending on how you feel about it) in the US.

6 These people sound more like Anti-theists and apposed to Atheist.

Atheism being the the denial of the existence of a god. Anti-theism being against those who believe in the existence of a god.

7 I don't neccesarily disagree with that Burgher, which is why I tried to use the term Evangelical Atheist.  Not all Atheists are whiny tools like Dawkins and the al-Dawkins Numbskulls Brigades, but I'm obligated to make fun of the loudmouth militant types. 

8 It is fundamentally impossible to make decisions in your life and not have a religion.... a religion being the recognition of an "ultimate" or various "ultimates" against which you make decisions. (substitute god, God, gods, etc for ultimate). Frankly, most people have many, conflicting "ultimates" in their lives though they would deny that.

We have been "taught stupid" by those who would misuse language to, in this case, falsely create division where there is none.

Even most "religious" don't know how to think clearly enough to understand that as soon as they accept the atheists definition of religion, then the game is over (defining the question in your terms is usually the key to winning a debate).

The very premise that these atheists hold out in debates is incorrect and a misstatement of reality.

As an example, the very idea of the law presupposes an ultimate (ie. breaking the law gets us away from being able to achieve or be true to the ultimate).

9

As an example, the very idea of the law presupposes an ultimate

I disagree. It is possible to write laws on the purely secular basis that all people have equal privileges and protections, and that all proper interactions between people should be based on informed mutual consent. You still can outlaw murder, theft, rape, some kinds of assault, and so on on the basis of there being no mutual consent. Fraud, statutory rape, and other crimes violate the need for informed consent. There is no need for (but also no bar against) belief in a divinity in this structure. Even some 'morality' crimes such as adultery (assuming the non-adulterous spouse does not provide informed consent) or bestiality (animals cannot consent) can be reasonably covered; but most such 'crimes' (consential homosexuality, drug use, dancing, playing cards, etc.) would not be criminal in this system.

10 I disagree. It is possible to write laws on the purely secular basis that all people have equal privileges and protections, and that all proper interactions between people should be based on informed mutual consent. You still can outlaw murder, theft, rape, some kinds of assault, and so on on the basis of there being no mutual consent. Fraud, statutory rape, and other crimes violate the need for informed consent. There is no need for (but also no bar against) belief in a divinity in this structure. Even some 'morality' crimes such as adultery (assuming the non-adulterous spouse does not provide informed consent) or bestiality (animals cannot consent) can be reasonably covered; but most such 'crimes' (consential homosexuality, drug use, dancing, playing cards, etc.) would not be criminal in this system.
It's certainly possible to make such laws.  But what if I do not consent to obey your laws?  What if I don't agree that informed consent is of any value?  What if I believe that only the strong should survive?  What makes your belief more correct and/or more valid than mine?  How do you logically justify extending the jurisdiction of your laws over me when I do not accept your laws?

11 Apparently the blockquote feature doesn't work in comments.  I quoted The Atomic Bomb of Loving Kindness - his bit starts at "I disagree" and ends with "would not be criminal in this system."

12 Lemme try the blockquote.

doubleplusundead is the best blog evah!

See if this works...

13 Works for me, lemme see if I can explain this.  Just start out with [qu*te] and then do [/qu*te].  Replace * with o.

14 Ah, ok.  I tried to use the view/edit source button to insert the HTML for blockquote.  That ain't workin for me at least.

15

Sorry for the delayed reply.

It's certainly possible to make such laws.  But what if I do not consent to obey your laws?  What if I don't agree that informed consent is of any value?  What if I believe that only the strong should survive?  What makes your belief more correct and/or more valid than mine?  How do you logically justify extending the jurisdiction of your laws over me when I do not accept your laws?

Laws would be enforced the way laws are enforced now, serious people with serious guns would do serious things to you. The basis is that most people see the value of this kind of system -- it's the intuitive basis for most laws in open societies in an unconscious way. The foundation is, at its core, simply the ethic of reciprocity (ie. the Golden Rule) which is repeated in almost every ethical/moral system in history (with some arguably important exceptions. I'll let you guess which system I'm referring to). In the US I would say that it goes back to the idea that it is the People who are sovereign.

 

16

If you define religion as "a community of shared values and convictions," then atheism is a religion. But by that definition, the Republican Party and NOW would also be religions.

If like most intelligent people you define religion as "a belief in a supernatural being," it seems rather silly to define atheism as a religion. 

Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

17 Nice try, religion is NOT "belief in a supernatural being", FAITH is, just because people try and make the two one doesn't make it so. Religion is an organization which establishes rituals, ethical codes and guidelines of worship based on doctrine and intense devotion, traditionally around what is believed to be a supernatural force. 

  The 'stamp collecting' line is cute(and tired), but you've applied it incorrectly, it would work when you discuss faith, but it wouldn't help your argument in the least. Nice try though.