Athiesm is not a religion.

Having traded threads with Crunchy Frog about athiests at Christmas, I now see well what he is saying. He hates it when athiests try to convert him, or ridicule his faith. Or just get sour about the holidays.

I will admit I have poked fun at the practices of Christianity as done by the more extreme members, but I have generally been respectful. My favorite christmas special was “The Little Drummer Boy” (although the best Christmas special song was the Heat Miser/Snow Miser song from “The Year Without a Santa Claus”). You don’t have to believe the miracles occurred in order to appreciate the stories and their messages.

Athiesm is not a religion. Although many athiests act as it is, determined to convert everyone the talk with. You are an athiest? Fine. Don’t like it when religious folk try to convert you? Well, don’t do it back. Feel the government is trying to institutionalize it to a point? That is a valid concern. Vote, lobby, and peacefully protest. But you do not have to try to spoil it for others. Now go on with your life.

The title statement. It is what two of my better friends, athiests, have said to me. These two friends actually know quite a bit about the Bible, and can hold very interesting historical discussions about the Bible and the history of the time surrounding the stories.

Psst. You’re wrong.

The best “holiday season” special is A Charlie Brown Christmas. And the best movie is A Christmas Story.

I beg to differ Montfort. The best Christmas movie of all time is It’s a Wonderful Hump starring Dick Thrustin, Little Oral Annie, and a special appearance by Buck Naked as George’s war-hero brother. :smiley:

And cooldude, don’t feel bad. I poke fun at the Fundies myself. Idiots who don’t take their children to a doctor and opt for prayer alone (Hey, God helps those who helps themselves, morons - get your kid to a hospital!) And don’t get me started on the Mormons and Jehovas Witnesses. And for everyone who takes the Bible literally - it’s a BOOK! Books are written using metaphors and symbolism, not to mention what has been lost in translation. Do not take every word literally. Take the message seriously, not the words used to convey the message. This is why I’m non-denominational.

The best Christmas special is, The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus, that I just saw on the Cartoon Network. So nar.

Oops, hit the button to soon.

Ahem, as I was saying . . .

This is why I’m non-denominatinal. Some of these denominations are too strict and unbending with their beliefs, unwilling to admit they may be wrong about some things. I do not like that sort of close-mindedness, and personally try to stay open to other interpretations and ideas. A person should be able to laugh at themselves, and this includes their religion. Don’t take yourself or your beliefs too seriously, that way when you find you’re wrong (and we’re all wrong about something), it’s not so earth-shattering. Seeing the practices of some of these denominations makes atheism a welcome alternative. If I was not allowed to worship my own way and had to choose between Catholisism or atheism, I’d be an atheist. No offense to Catholics, believe what you want, but I don’t agree with about 80% of your doctrines.

And all the Mormons and Jehovas Witnesses, no offense there either, I just don’t agree with your beliefs and some of it I find kinda funny. C’mon Mormons, your guy (what was his name, IIRC it was John Smith) had the word of God in his hands, and he LOST it! How do you misplace the word of God written on gold tablets? That’s the sort of thing you want to keep your eye on, isn’t it?

Just strikes me as funny and all, just as in History of the World, Part I, when Moses dropped one of the 3 stone tablets, knocking down the number of Commandments from 15 to 10.

But cooldude, don’t worry, I try not to lump all the atheists in one group, just as I would hope people don’t lump all the Christians in one group. We don’t all believe the same thing or act the same way.

Nitpick time.
It’s Joseph Smith Jr.
And he didn’t “lose” anything. Martin took home some work he was translating (And for the life of me, I can’t remember Martin’s first name) after he was told not to. So God took that part of the book away. Nothing was “lost” unless you wanna say “They lost part of the Book of Mormon, after Martin did something stupid, because God took it.”

I knew it was “Something” Smith. John Smith was the guy Pocahontas saved right? I thought of that after I hit reply.

But thanks for the explantion, pepperlandgirl, I’d never heard that side of it before. I’d always heard it as if he woke up one day and they were gone. This explanation makes more sense.

No problem Crunchy!
That’s what I’m here for. :slight_smile:

Though, the reason I couldn’t remember Martin’s first name is because that IS his first name. His name was Martin Harris.

Regarding Book of Mormon. Ran a few google searches.
This link claims that it wasn’t a question of lost plates…
http://www.irr.org/mit/divination.html
This link backs it up (unsurprisingly).
http://www.exmormon.org/tract2.htm
Detailed background on the missing pages, and interesting use of computer analysis.
http://utlm.org/newsletters/no72.htm

Actually, it occurs to me that their computer analysis of Joseph Smith’s writing style could be used to test certain malicious rumours concerning the possibility of Cecil’s columns having been written by different people, even that a new “edgeless” Cecil has replaced the old one.
Perhaps we could request a loan? :slight_smile:
If they don’t want to give it out, since, as Lynn pointed out, I have quite a bit of time to kill over the holidays maybe I could start writing a simple program to try an catalogue common words and phrases in the column archives.

[Moderator Hat: ON]
And it looks to me like this is turning into a civil debate. Therefore, I’m gonna push it off to Great Debates, which is where civil debates should be.

Thanks muchly, all. And Merry Christmas!*
[Moderator Hat: OFF]

[sup]*Yes, I know exactly how inappropriate said sentiment is on this thread.[/sup]

A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

One of the definitions from http://dictionary.com

So, it depends how you define the term “religion.”

Cooldude: Zero is a number.

Yes, Nimune, it is.

But if I have 0 apples, does that mean I have some apples?

I would never consider atheism a religion (although I cherish the moment that a Jewish man at my church told my atheist mom she was the most religious person he knows; she quote “lives up to her values.”), I believe that humanism is.

You don’t need god to have a religion.

David B: Your argument is flawed: you’re comparing apples and atheists. :slight_smile:

How about this, then. Atheism is a belief about God. A religion is an organization of people who share a belief, or set of beliefs, about God. There are a number of organizations devoted to atheism. Therefore, atheism is a religion.

Wrong. Atheism is not a belief about god. The whole point of atheism is that it isn’t a belief about anything. It is the lack of a belief in a god.

By your illogic, everything would be a religion. Don’t believe in Santa Claus? That’s a religion. What about the tooth fairy? That’s a religion. Don’t believe in Zeus? That’s a religion. What about Apollo? Another religion.

Hopefully you now see how ridiculous this argument is, 'cus I don’t feel like going on and on forever.

By your illogic athiesm doesen’t have a name then. Don’t believe in santa claus? Thats asantaclausism. Don’t believe in Zeus? Thats azeusism.

Apparently, somebody’s gotten into the eggnog. Go sleep it off and come back when you’re sober enough to have a chance at making a valid point.