King Rat

I can see why you keep harping on the "atheism is a religion" idea. To you atheism is a religion. Becoming an atheist monk is hysterically funny, good luck with that...

Mat Wilder

I can't understand what your point is at all, usartist.

If you're homeless and have no possessions, why would you want to be "secular" (according to your definition of the word)? Why is religion bad, if religion is maintaining a set of committments?

You mention the "ideology of atheism" but I don't see an ideology. There is not shared belief between atheists except the belief that God doesn't exist. Beyond that what you believe is as diverse as the array of world religions. Not all atheists are materialists, or believe that morality comes from natural law. For example, I believe that humans create morality.

When you call atheist organizations pathetic, you seem to be implying that religion is good, because if we simply realized we were a religion, then our organizations would thrive.

Anyway, I think most of us still disagree with your definition of religion.

Here is Merriam-Webster's definition of religion:

Here is its definition secularism:

Finally, here is its definition of atheism:

mongrel

So, if one is committed to staying alive for as long as possible, is eating, drinking and breathing one's religion?

usartist

No genius!
Atheism is not a religion, just as theism is not a religion.

Atheist organizations are religions.

You need to make that distinction. Why can you not recognize that distinction, [insult deleted] :banghead:

Where have I written, "Atheism is a religion?"

atheist

You truly are revolutionary, usartist. However, with the twisted sense of context you apply to everything, I'm not even sure what that means anymore.

usartist

I did not realize I was attaining secular.

you are recognizing the under-development of atheist organization.

Atheist organization has been successfully opressed throughout history by the success of theocracy, and the intolerance for anyone claiming to be an infidel. Here in the United States theism enjoyed a long period of success, only because every organized religion was required to tolerate each the others, and the predominate ideology was Christianity.

What is happening is the "Freedom of religion" concept has deteriorated the adherence of congregation.

Atheist organization is unable to pursue specific ideologies, because they are so desperate for membership. The atheist organization cannot descriminate yet. When they do gather large enough membership the organization will divide, most likely the division will be between materialist and spiritualists.

That is in the future, when there are enough members to constitute a congregation for both ideologies.

yes

Wake up genius! Do think I do not know what these definitons are?

The only problem is the defintion of "RELIGION."

It has most atheist all screwed up.

usartist

Yes

King Rat

Well, for starters, right here :

Granted you also waffle and equivocate in consecutive posts, but your position is clear to me.

Hyndis

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

I think that about sums up usartist's position.

He seems to want to try to redefine words until athetists no longer exists. Well, by arbitrarily changing the definition of words by fiat, you end up with a lot of confusion and not a lot of communication.

I can't remember a day in my life that I've been religious. Does that mean that I am religious?

All of this equivocation and redefining commonly used words isn't constructive to any debate; its just plain confusing! And insulting as well, as usartist tries to define me out of existance.

I'd call him a troll if he hadn't already shown a remarkable persistance...

Mat Wilder

If breathing and eating are a religion, then that definition of religions seems useless, because then everything is a religion.

I thought you said that was what you were trying to do.

I thought you were against religion (i.e. atheist organizations). Isn't that why you cut yourself off from all friends (as you said in your OP)?