Athiest ads on NYC subways (God, Christians, doctrine, exist)

[Rhenzanite]

Originally Posted by Antlered Chamataka

Propagation of "any" message is preaching. I don't mind the billboards, but living in self-denial about it and defending it is lame.

Saying you are not alone is almost equal to encouraging to increase the headcount, boost cult membership and fostering some kind of a fellowship. That's very synonymous to conversion.

It's a free world. Anyone can do anything. Just stand up and admit the propagation.

Those people are already converted....they're just afraid to admit it.

[Maia160]

Originally Posted by BergenCountyJohnny

They seem to really like proselytizing, I guess it's important enough to them to spread the gospel of Atheismâ„¢ that they are willing to spend lots of money, time, and resources on it.

Are you saying that any segment of the population that attempts to organize and promote their cause is a religion? By that definition movements promoting civil rights, gay rights, political action, etc. are religious in nature. What I see happening is religious folks trying to paint atheists with the religious brush as a method to discredit atheists. I also see fear that atheists are finally forming a movement to combat religious intolerance. Calling atheists religious is similar to the KKK calling the civil right's movement racist.

Atheism is a growing movement; it is not a religion. Even by the definition that you chose below, I don't see that atheism fits the criteria. With that in mind, let's examine the highlighted portion of your definition.

Originally Posted by BergenCountyJohnny

I firmly believe Atheism is a religion for many; a real religion, per the denotation of the word:
re⋅li⋅gion [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

Religious beliefs are defined as:

a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"

By your own definition, atheism fails to meet the criteria as atheists do not believe in supernatural powers. Due to lack of belief in the supernatural, atheists do not practice 'ritual observance' to said powers.

Originally Posted by BergenCountyJohnny

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

Atheists do not have a set of ethics; although, I'll grant, many, but not all, atheists seem to follow a similar 'code of ethics'. This 'code', however, has not been defined by atheists nor is it a doctrine that one must follow to be an atheist. (Remember, atheism is only a lack of belief in a deity)

Originally Posted by BergenCountyJohnny

8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow

Again, the only criteria for being an atheist is a lack of belief in deities. The above definition seems to imply an unchanging world view. In general, atheists are open to new evidence because we aren't chained to archaic books that define our world view.

Finally, what vow?

You have cherry picked portions of that definition and attempted to force atheists to fit the mold. The 3 criteria of 8 that you chose don't fit. Further, the entire definition rests upon the belief in supernatural powers. Clearly, that doesn't fit the atheist profile.

[Mercury Cougar]

Originally Posted by BergenCountyJohnny

I firmly believe Atheism is a religion for many;

You can "firmly believe" it as much as you like, but that won't make it reality. Of course, you believe in a lot of things that don't exist, so it's no big surprise that you don't grok what atheism is.

What comes up is a lot of people asking "Why are there no atheist charities?"

You didn't look very far. On the first page alone of a Google search for atheist charities I find fully half of the links direct me to either an atheist charity or a list of atheist charities. But you go on with your bad, blind self and keep on living in your little box where you don't have to think about the real world.

[Tantalust]

Originally Posted by Lightinsky

part of your name has lust in it and you are asking why such a hard-on?

Answer the question, why does your "God" talk about murdering children?

And, lust doesn't unavoidably suggest sexual desire, as in my username it has to do with the dream of owning property in a certain section of a certain Pacific Island.

[Maia160]

Originally Posted by BergenCountyJohnny

What comes up is a lot of people asking "Why are there no atheist charities?" The answers I've seen to this, so far, are atheists who try to claim secular charities as "atheist charitie" on the basis that atheists are involved in them. But that is wrong. Secular charities are not "atheist charities"; they are secular. They certainly count atheists amongst their ranks, but also many others, mostly people who adhere to various religions/faiths.

You've answered your own question. You won't find many atheist charities due to the fact that atheists are not very organized. We are seeing the atheist 'movement' gaining momentum; but, in general, atheists are a scattered bunch. Therefore, atheists tend to donate to secular charities but do not form their own. I really don't see a reason for atheists to form charities as secular charities already meet that need.

ETA: Also, atheists generally don't proselytize. Many religions use charity as a vehicle to convert others. Since atheists are not trying to convert others, many simply donate to established secular charities. Many of us donate without an agenda and without the intent to promote atheism.

[BergenCountyJohnny]

Originally Posted by Maia160

Are you saying that any segment of the population that attempts to organize and promote their cause is a religion? By that definition movements promoting civil rights, gay rights, political action, etc. are religious in nature. What I see happening is religious folks trying to paint atheists with the religious brush as a method to discredit atheists. I also see fear that atheists are finally forming a movement to combat religious intolerance. Calling atheists religious is similar to the KKK calling the civil right's movement racist.

Atheism is a growing movement; it is not a religion. Even by the definition that you chose below, I don't see that atheism fits the criteria. With that in mind, let's examine the highlighted portion of your definition.



Religious beliefs are defined as:

a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"

By your own definition, atheism fails to meet the criteria as atheists do not believe in supernatural powers. Due to lack of belief in the supernatural, atheists do not practice 'ritual observance' to said powers.

No, I'm saying that religion is defined (in the dictionary, not my definition) as:

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

The "movement" of atheism wherein adherents believe in and follow an atheist worldview devotedly, as a point or matter of ethics or conscience, is a religion.

Other organized movements can be religions to various individuals or groups. Many political and philisophical movements are de facto or expressly religions.

Simply being an atheist is not adhering to a religion. Organizing sects of atheists with a unified belief set that they devotedly follow as a point or matter of ethics or conscience crosses the line into religion. The "Coalition of Reason" is a coalition of such religious sects.

This is not to "discredit atheists"; it is to discredit those atheists who are hypocritical in forming a religion based on their atheism in order to attack religion. There is a definite hypocrisy there.

Originally Posted by Maia160

Atheists do not have a set of ethics; although, I'll grant, many, but not all, atheists seem to follow a similar 'code of ethics'. This 'code', however, has not been defined by atheists nor is it a doctrine that one must follow to be an atheist. (Remember, atheism is only a lack of belief in a deity)

I agree. The problem is that many atheists believe that since atheism per se is not a religion that they cannot form an atheist religion. That's not true. A person can be a theist and have no religion; however, many theists do have a religion. "Theism" is not a religion any more than "Atheism"; however, when a theist adheres to an organized theistic movement, he is adhering to a religion. Similarly, an atheist who adheres to an organized atheistic movement is adhering to a religion. So, a theist who adheres to a sect like Judaism is in a religion. An atheist who adheres to a sect like American Atheists is in a religion.

Originally Posted by Maia160

Again, the only criteria for being an atheist is a lack of belief in deities. The above definition seems to imply an unchanging world view. In general, atheists are open to new evidence because we aren't chained to archaic books that define our world view.

Finally, what vow?

You have cherry picked portions of that definition and attempted to force atheists to fit the mold. The 3 criteria of 8 that you chose don't fit. Further, the entire definition rests upon the belief in supernatural powers. Clearly, that doesn't fit the atheist profile.

I haven't "cherry-picked portions of that definition" any more than you have by trying to exclude those portions which denote no inclusion of supernatural/metaphysical/spiritual.

Certain atheists want to make a religion of their atheism, organize it into various sects and groups, but at the same time bash "religion" and especially "organized religion". It is inconvenient for them to acknowledge that they are doing the same thing themselves so they avoid the term "religion" like a plague. But they still form a religion out of their atheism.

The group in the OP of this post is doing just that. They have formed atheism into a religion, and several sects have pooled their resources and efforts into proselytizing at least non-religious atheists into their religion. It's no differen from a group of Christian churches, of various sects, pooling their resources and efforts in a ministry to proselytize agnostic theists into joining their meetings and groups, in order to 'explore' their theistic beliefs.

[victorianpunk]

Originally Posted by Fred314X

A tempest in a teapot! Take it from the native New Yorker: people riding on the subway are more concerned with getting where they're going than posters on the trains.

Now that, I agree with! The add might say "Lots of people eat small children after baking them alive covered in Shake and Bakeâ„¢ , why don't you?" But still, no one would notice it.

[BergenCountyJohnny]

Originally Posted by Mercury Cougar

You can "firmly believe" it as much as you like, but that won't make it reality. Of course, you believe in a lot of things that don't exist, so it's no big surprise that you don't grok what atheism is.

I firmly believe it and I give a rational reason for my belief. You can tell me it isn't "reality" all you like, but that doesn't make what you say true.

And I do know very well what atheism is. Your ad hom, unfounded accusation that I do not only proves that you know how to sling unfounded ad homs. Wow, good for you.

Originally Posted by Mercury Cougar

You didn't look very far. On the first page alone of a Google search for atheist charities I find fully half of the links direct me to either an atheist charity or a list of atheist charities. But you go on with your bad, blind self and keep on living in your little box where you don't have to think about the real world.

What are they? Secular charities? Secular charities are not "atheist" charities. Feel free to give me some examples, but I certainly won't hold my breath.

It's ironic and hypocritical that you accuse me of believing in things that don't exist while you believe that "atheist charities" exist, lol.

[Mercury Cougar]

Originally Posted by BergenCountyJohnny

No, I'm saying that religion is defined (in the dictionary, not my definition) as:

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

We disbelieve in gods, nothing more, nothing less. Big difference there, Einstein.

The "movement" of atheism wherein adherents believe in and follow an atheist worldview devotedly, as a point or matter of ethics or conscience, is a religion.

"Atheist worldview"??? WTF is that, pray tell? I've been an atheist all my life and I've never heard of any movement like that. You just have no idea what you're talking about.

The ONE SINGLE SOLITARY THING that defines atheism is ONLY a lack of belief in a deity. Anything else, is NOT atheism. Disbelieving in a deity is completely unrelated to any "matter of ethics or conscience". That's as idiotic as saying "I don't believe in Santa Claus as a matter of ethics and conscience". Disbelieving in a deity is solely a matter of logic, and lack of evidence for said imaginary creatures.

So why don't you stick to putting labels on things you actually understand?

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by BergenCountyJohnny

No, I'm saying that religion is defined (in the dictionary, not my definition) as:

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

So Christians not only cherry pick the bible, but also the dictionary?

Religion..1 a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny;
2 an institution to express belief in a divine power;

The "movement" of atheism wherein adherents believe in and follow an atheist worldview devotedly, as a point or matter of ethics or conscience, is a religion.

No it's not.

Other organized movements can be religions to various individuals or groups. Many political and philisophical movements are de facto or expressly religions.

Wrong.

Simply being an atheist is not adhering to a religion. Organizing sects of atheists with a unified belief set that they devotedly follow as a point or matter of ethics or conscience crosses the line into religion. The "Coalition of Reason" is a coalition of such religious sects.

This is not to "discredit atheists"; it is to discredit those atheists who are hypocritical in forming a religion based on their atheism in order to attack religion. There is a definite hypocrisy there.

If atheism is a religion based on your definition, then would you classify any group that organizes to promote or protest anything such as politics, sports, health, or ladies night out a religion? Do you not see how foolish that is? The only tenant of religion is a belief in a deity, so atheists don't qualify.

I agree. The problem is that many atheists believe that since atheism per se is not a religion that they cannot form an atheist religion. That's not true. A person can be a theist and have no religion; however, many theists do have a religion. "Theism" is not a religion any more than "Atheism"; however, when a theist adheres to an organized theistic movement, he is adhering to a religion. Similarly, an atheist who adheres to an organized atheistic movement is adhering to a religion. So, a theist who adheres to a sect like Judaism is in a religion. An atheist who adheres to a sect like American Atheists is in a religion.

Cow patties....See above.

I haven't "cherry-picked portions of that definition" any more than you have by trying to exclude those portions which denote no inclusion of supernatural/metaphysical/spiritual.

No You have just invented your own definition of religion...

Certain atheists want to make a religion of their atheism, organize it into various sects and groups, but at the same time bash "religion" and especially "organized religion". It is inconvenient for them to acknowledge that they are doing the same thing themselves so they avoid the term "religion" like a plague. But they still form a religion out of their atheism.

So according to the dictionary of Johnny all organizations are religions..Yeah right.

The group in the OP of this post is doing just that. They have formed atheism into a religion, and several sects have pooled their resources and efforts into proselytizing at least non-religious atheists into their religion. It's no differen from a group of Christian churches, of various sects, pooling their resources and efforts in a ministry to proselytize agnostic theists into joining their meetings and groups, in order to 'explore' their theistic beliefs.

More cow patties....You are repeating yourself. No god = no religion....An organization does not a religion make, no matter how many times you say it.