• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

False Equivalents

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
Looks like anger to me, so many words.

OK, it's anger.

Being a hypocrite needs neither religion or atheism, the only requirement is to be human.

And if a religion cannot cope with criticism then the problem is with the religion.

Uh, no.

"coping with criticism" is one thing.

Being the target of hatred, disdain, disparagement, physical violence and hypocrisy is quite another. I'm fine with
CRITICISM. I'm NOT fine with having rocks thrown at me, physically or metaphorically, and believe me, I've had both.

And since when is it the fault of the victim when s/he is being bullied? You wouldn't say that about anybody ELSE, would you? Is it just religion that is the 'no matter what is said, it's the fault of the religion" thing?

I'm so tired of that.

Here's an example.....a very real world example. TWO of 'em, actually, from the same group of people. The incidents themselves aren't remotely equivalent, of course, but the reaction/excuses for both?.....you decide.

About a hundred and fifty years ago, or so, a group of men rode into a small settlement called Haun's Mill. They killed the men, including an 89 year old who had given up his gun (he was carved 'to doll rags) and three boys under the age of ten. One of those boys was dragged out from underneath a table, and his brains literally blown out, with the comment 'nits make lice and he would have been a mormon when he grew up." Nineteen men and boys died that day.

About fifty years ago, I was a missionary in England. My companion and I were walking down the main street, when a group of evangelical Protestant type Christians ran out of their store front church and began throwing rocks at us. Hit us, too; I still have a scar (OK, pretty much faded now, but it is still there; the cut needed stitches).

But these incidents aren't what I'm talking about. I have been told, MANY times and by many different people, that Haun's Mill was the fault of the Mormons of the time, because of a speech given; the speech stated that if people attacked the Mormons again, that the Mormons would defend themselves (they never did, actually....they left, instead). All the deaths, the persecutions, the diatribes, the burning of printing presses and homes, etc.,...were the fault of the Mormons who died, were persecuted, were yelled at and burned out. In fact, the LAST time I heard that was...hmn....last week sometime.

I can't tell you how many times I have been told that the rock throwing thing was my fault; I had NO BUSINESS being on a street full of shops on a Wednesday afternoon if I knew that there was a store front church there. I had no business wanting to buy milk or veggies. My fault. Not theirs. Not ever theirs. Catholics have told me this. Protestants have. ATHEISTS have.

This happens all over, to, and from, pretty much everybody. I hate it whenever it happens, to whomever it happens.

And I will NEVER do the 'can't you take criticism?" thing when I see it. That's the same thing as 'can't you take a joke?" or "just joking..."

Because it's never just a joke. A joke that's a joke is instantly recognizable AS a joke. Criticism that is honest, and questioning, isn't objectionable; that sort of criticism is simply an opportunity to 'set things straight,' or correct misunderstandings, or explain, and that sort of criticism is also easy to identify. One doesn't have to say 'can't you guys take a joke/criticism?'

No, Christine, I can take criticism, no problem. I get very angry at unwarranted and hypocritical attacks from people who are just as, if not more, guilty of the stuff they are criticizing than I am.

And I do not feel the least bit obligated to shut up and take it. I don't like it when I'm the target, and I don't like it when others are, either....no matter how silly *I* think their beliefs might actually be.



Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

OK, you are doing the false equivalency thing yourself now. I AGREE with you that 'atheism' isn't a religion. I've written that in almost every post I have submitted. YOU are equating atheism and religion. I'm not.

You may make up all sorts of bull to discredit atheism but the fact remains that atheism is the disbileaf or lack of belief in god or gods. Nothing more, nothing less.

that's true. Until you add on all the stuff that can make some atheists look and act just like the religions they claim to despise.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods.

When you add (as some atheists do) 'and the world would be better off If everybody agreed with us that there isn't a god or god, and the world would be better off without theism and theists, and we need to do something to ensure that," you have a whole different kettle of beans. NOW you have a doctrine, a purpose, a group, an aim, meetings, recruitment....wow.

Looks like a 'religion' to me.

Did you check out the American Atheist website?

ATHEISM isn't a religion, but THEY sure look like one. Shoot, I think they stole some of their language from evangelical counter-cult anti-(insert just about anything here) groups.

I am not equating 'atheism' with religion.

You are.

I am simply saying that BEING an atheist doesn't mean that you CAN'T be 'religious' or act like you belong to one.

and as soon as the atheists adds something to "non-belief in a deity or deities," well.....

Exactly like THEISM isn't a religion until a theist adds 'and God looks/behaves/wants something like this." Then it becomes a religion.
 
Last edited:

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
OK, it's anger.



Uh, no.

"coping with criticism" is one thing.

Being the target of hatred, disdain, disparagement, physical violence and hypocrisy is quite another. I'm fine with
CRITICISM. I'm NOT fine with having rocks thrown at me, physically or metaphorically, and believe me, I've had both.

And since when is it the fault of the victim when s/he is being bullied? You wouldn't say that about anybody ELSE, would you? Is it just religion that is the 'no matter what is said, it's the fault of the religion" thing?

I'm so tired of that.

Here's an example.....a very real world example. TWO of 'em, actually, from the same group of people. The incidents themselves aren't remotely equivalent, of course, but the reaction/excuses for both?.....you decide.

About a hundred and fifty years ago, or so, a group of men rode into a small settlement called Haun's Mill. They killed the men, including an 89 year old who had given up his gun (he was carved 'to doll rags) and three boys under the age of ten. One of those boys was dragged out from underneath a table, and his brains literally blown out, with the comment 'nits make lice and he would have been a mormon when he grew up." Nineteen men and boys died that day.

About fifty years ago, I was a missionary in England. My companion and I were walking down the main street, when a group of evangelical Protestant type Christians ran out of their store front church and began throwing rocks at us. Hit us, too; I still have a scar (OK, pretty much faded now, but it is still there; the cut needed stitches).

But these incidents aren't what I'm talking about. I have been told, MANY times and by many different people, that Haun's Mill was the fault of the Mormons of the time, because of a speech given; the speech stated that if people attacked the Mormons again, that the Mormons would defend themselves (they never did, actually....they left, instead). All the deaths, the persecutions, the diatribes, the burning of printing presses and homes, etc.,...were the fault of the Mormons who died, were persecuted, were yelled at and burned out. In fact, the LAST time I heard that was...hmn....last week sometime.

I can't tell you how many times I have been told that the rock throwing thing was my fault; I had NO BUSINESS being on a street full of shops on a Wednesday afternoon if I knew that there was a store front church there. I had no business wanting to buy milk or veggies. My fault. Not theirs. Not ever theirs. Catholics have told me this. Protestants have. ATHEISTS have.

This happens all over, to, and from, pretty much everybody. I hate it whenever it happens, to whomever it happens.

And I will NEVER do the 'can't you take criticism?" thing when I see it. That's the same thing as 'can't you take a joke?" or "just joking..."

Because it's never just a joke. A joke that's a joke is instantly recognizable AS a joke. Criticism that is honest, and questioning, isn't objectionable; that sort of criticism is simply an opportunity to 'set things straight,' or correct misunderstandings, or explain, and that sort of criticism is also easy to identify. One doesn't have to say 'can't you guys take a joke/criticism?'

No, Christine, I can take criticism, no problem. I get very angry at unwarranted and hypocritical attacks from people who are just as, if not more, guilty of the stuff they are criticizing than I am.

And I do not feel the least bit obligated to shut up and take it. I don't like it when I'm the target, and I don't like it when others are, either....no matter how silly *I* think their beliefs might actually be.





OK, you are doing the false equivalency thing yourself now. I AGREE with you that 'atheism' isn't a religion. I've written that in almost every post I have submitted. YOU are equating atheism and religion. I'm not.



that's true. Until you add on all the stuff that can make some atheists look and act just like the religions they claim to despise.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods.

When you add (as some atheists do) 'and the world would be better off If everybody agreed with us that there isn't a god or god, and the world would be better off without theism and theists, and we need to do something to ensure that," you have a whole different kettle of beans. NOW you have a doctrine, a purpose, a group, an aim, meetings, recruitment....wow.

Looks like a 'religion' to me.

Did you check out the American Atheist website?

ATHEISM isn't a religion, but THEY sure look like one. Shoot, I think they stole some of their language from evangelical counter-cult anti-(insert just about anything here) groups.

I am not equating 'atheism' with religion.

You are.

I am simply saying that BEING an atheist doesn't mean that you CAN'T be 'religious' or act like you belong to one.

and as soon as the atheists adds something to "non-belief in a deity or deities," well.....

Exactly like THEISM isn't a religion until a theist adds 'and God looks/behaves/wants something like this." Then it becomes a religion.


Too long, can you summarise?
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
Too long, can you summarise?

Basically.

I'm not equating atheism with religion. That's you.

I'm saying that simply being an atheist does NOT mean that one cannot belong to, or behave as if one belongs to, a religion.

If the only difference between 'religion' and 'atheistic belief system" is what it's CALLED, then it's a religion to all intents and purposes, and I have NEVER claimed that 'atheism' is a religion. Quite the opposite.

YOU have done that.

Now do us both a favor. Read the post.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Basically.

I'm not equating atheism with religion. That's you.

I'm saying that simply being an atheist does NOT mean that one cannot belong to, or behave as if one belongs to, a religion.

If the only difference between 'religion' and 'atheistic belief system" is what it's CALLED, then it's a religion to all intents and purposes, and I have NEVER claimed that 'atheism' is a religion. Quite the opposite.

YOU have done that.

Now do us both a favor. Read the post.


I suggest you re read your posts. You most certainly are equating atheism with religion. And accuese me of false equivalence when i i make a logical statement to show you are wrong. Also the vitriol you pour very much smacks of what you are complaining is a atheistic trait, we have discussed hypocrisy.

The only difference is the definition.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
I suggest you re read your posts. You most certainly are equating atheism with religion. And accuese me of false equivalence when i i make a logical statement to show you are wrong. Also the vitriol you pour very much smacks of what you are complaining is a atheistic trait, we have discussed hypocrisy.

The only difference is the definition.

Well, here's a challenge.

find me ONE QUOTE in which I equate 'atheism' with 'religion.'

You won't.

In fact, I'm not at all certain I have written a single post in this thread where the disclaimer isn't very clear...'atheism' is not 'religion.'
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Well, here's a challenge.

find me ONE QUOTE in which I equate 'atheism' with 'religion.'

You won't.

In fact, I'm not at all certain I have written a single post in this thread where the disclaimer isn't very clear...'atheism' is not 'religion.'

Quite "The point is, if an atheist has all the same attitudes as his religious target, belongs to a group...if not officially, then philosophically, attempts to change minds to agree with him, proposes actions that impact the target (the theist wants to make the atheist do something, the atheist wants to make the theist do something) and so forth, then from where I sit, they are the same."

Quote "So do the atheists that look and act as if they were members of the most 'evangelical' of religions."
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
Quite "The point is, if an atheist has all the same attitudes as his religious target, belongs to a group...if not officially, then philosophically, attempts to change minds to agree with him, proposes actions that impact the target (the theist wants to make the atheist do something, the atheist wants to make the theist do something) and so forth, then from where I sit, they are the same."

Quote "So do the atheists that look and act as if they were members of the most 'evangelical' of religions."

You will notice that these quotes are referring to individual atheists who DO belong to such groups, not the 'set' of 'atheism' or 'all atheists.'

What you are doing, here again, is committing the 'composition fallacy.' That is, you are claiming that if ONE (or a group) of atheists has a property, then ALL atheists (or "atheism") has that property. It is the other side of the 'No True Scott' fallacy.

The first quote very specifically refers to the atheist who 'has all the same attitudes as his religious target.." NOT all atheists, OR 'atheism." it also specifically refers to the atheist who 'belongs to a group...if not officially, then philosophically," and who "attempts to change minds to agree with him, proposes actions that impact the target..." Those are several limiting factors that apply to SOME atheists, not all atheists, or 'atheism.'

The second quote is not a claim. It is a description of a specific group. " ...the atheists that look and act as if they were members of the most 'evangelical' of religions.' that is NOT a claim that atheism...or all atheists, look and act as if they were members of the most 'evangelical' of religions. It is referring only to those atheists who do.

.............or are you attempting to say that any atheist who does these things is 'no true atheist?" I've heard that one.

Can you find anything else? Those don't work.

The second sentence of the first post I submitted to this thread was this:

I agree that atheism...AS ATHEISM...is not a religion.

That same post contained the following:

...some forms of atheism ARE indistinguishable from religion. Not all, or even most....but some.

and:

Is "ATHEISM" a relligion? No...but ATHEISTS can belong to one, or belong to an organization that is impossible to distinguish FROM a religion from the outside from it's attributes, organization, proselytization, activities, and so forth.

and:

Do I think that ALL atheists, or even atheism in general, is religious? No. Not even close. Do I think that NO atheist is religious simply because of the "A" word? Not a chance.

The above is my reasoning and my argument, and I haven't said anything ELSE in this entire thread.
Atheism isn't a religion.
Theism isn't a religion.
Theism contains a bunch of religions.
Atheists CAN be religious,,,,and many belong to groups and have belief systems that look and act exactly LIKE religions.

That can be a good thing or a bad one. I think, for instance, that secular humanism looks very much like a religion...with codes of behavior, doctrines, etc. Pretty good system of beliefs, too.

Anti-theists are ALSO, from my POV, religious....and take all the worst aspects of the most insular and intolerant of them.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
Did we watch the same video because I never saw that claim made anywhere

here's where the claim was made (or at the very least, it's validity assumed); when he specifically aknowledged that THEISM wasn't a religion, though theists generally belong to one. He also acknowledges that it is possible for a theist to NOT belong to a religion.

Yet he makes no such equivalent claim for atheism; he presents his argument with the assumption that atheism isn't a religion (and he's right, it's not) but even though he specifically makes the above disclaimers for theism, he makes no such disclaimer for atheism. He simply uses the idea that no atheist (or rather 'atheists' in general, or 'atheism') cannot include the idea of a religion, or anything that looks like one. Indeed, if he thought that it did, all his arguments using atheism would fall flat on the table and lie quivering in absurdity.

That's where he made the claim; it was the assumption used.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
I had to stop watching the video at the atheism/religion thing.

I agree that atheism...AS ATHEISM...is not a religion.
I also agree that theism...AS THEISM...is not a religion.

However, some forms of atheism ARE indistinguishable from religion. Not all, or even most....but some.

....especially one form of atheism, which can best be described as a form of 'anti-theism." These folks have meetings, have web-sites, engage in real persecution, (well, verbal abuse, certainly, and in the case of, say, Stalinism, very physical and fatal abuse) and, when thinking in terms of 'doctrine,' the 'the world would be better off without religion so let's kill off the theists' is a pretty solid statement of doctrine.
So, as an illustration of the religious nature of some forms of atheism, the definition of religion would be a group of people that has meetings and web-sites, engages in persecution, and subscribes to the doctrine that "the world would be better off without religion so let's kill off the theists."

Hmmm.. . . . . . Ya know, I don't think this one is going to make it out of dry dock.


Is "ATHEISM" a relligion? No...but ATHEISTS can belong to one, or belong to an organization that is impossible to distinguish FROM a religion from the outside from it's attributes, organization, proselytization, activities, and so forth.
The telling attributes of a religion being: a group of people that has meetings and web-sites, engages in persecution, and subscribes to the doctrine that "the world would be better off without religion so let's kill off the theists."


.
.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
You will notice that these quotes are referring to individual atheists who DO belong to such groups, not the 'set' of 'atheism' or 'all atheists.'

What you are doing, here again, is committing the 'composition fallacy.' That is, you are claiming that if ONE (or a group) of atheists has a property, then ALL atheists (or "atheism") has that property. It is the other side of the 'No True Scott' fallacy.

The first quote very specifically refers to the atheist who 'has all the same attitudes as his religious target.." NOT all atheists, OR 'atheism." it also specifically refers to the atheist who 'belongs to a group...if not officially, then philosophically," and who "attempts to change minds to agree with him, proposes actions that impact the target..." Those are several limiting factors that apply to SOME atheists, not all atheists, or 'atheism.'

The second quote is not a claim. It is a description of a specific group. " ...the atheists that look and act as if they were members of the most 'evangelical' of religions.' that is NOT a claim that atheism...or all atheists, look and act as if they were members of the most 'evangelical' of religions. It is referring only to those atheists who do.

.............or are you attempting to say that any atheist who does these things is 'no true atheist?" I've heard that one.

Can you find anything else? Those don't work.

The second sentence of the first post I submitted to this thread was this:

I agree that atheism...AS ATHEISM...is not a religion.

That same post contained the following:

...some forms of atheism ARE indistinguishable from religion. Not all, or even most....but some.

and:

Is "ATHEISM" a relligion? No...but ATHEISTS can belong to one, or belong to an organization that is impossible to distinguish FROM a religion from the outside from it's attributes, organization, proselytization, activities, and so forth.

and:

Do I think that ALL atheists, or even atheism in general, is religious? No. Not even close. Do I think that NO atheist is religious simply because of the "A" word? Not a chance.

The above is my reasoning and my argument, and I haven't said anything ELSE in this entire thread.
Atheism isn't a religion.
Theism isn't a religion.
Theism contains a bunch of religions.
Atheists CAN be religious,,,,and many belong to groups and have belief systems that look and act exactly LIKE religions.

That can be a good thing or a bad one. I think, for instance, that secular humanism looks very much like a religion...with codes of behavior, doctrines, etc. Pretty good system of beliefs, too.

Anti-theists are ALSO, from my POV, religious....and take all the worst aspects of the most insular and intolerant of them.



Whatever makes you happy
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Ah.

Well, my husband used to say that to me when he lost an argument, too. I loved him anyway.


Only i haven't lost, i gave simply given up showing you the evidence written in your own hand yet you deny it means what it says. I have no time or patients for such silly games
And bigging your self up under false pretences is rather pathetic don't you think?
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
Only i haven't lost, i gave simply given up showing you the evidence written in your own hand yet you deny it means what it says. I have no time or patients for such silly games
And bigging your self up under false pretences is rather pathetic don't you think?

That's because I'm very careful in how I word things. I DO 'mean what I write,' and when a screw up, I acknowledge it.

But I refuse to allow someone else to tell me what I 'really' meant, when the words I used were quite clear.

I'm also not quite as prone to head instantly for the insult as some.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
That's because I'm very careful in how I word things. I DO 'mean what I write,' and when a screw up, I acknowledge it.

But I refuse to allow someone else to tell me what I 'really' meant, when the words I used were quite clear.

I'm also not quite as prone to head instantly for the insult as some.

Nope, i quoted what you wrote, if that was done carefully then it is worse than I thought.

Considering you have insulted atheism from the start of this thread then what is your point! You attempted to big yourself up at my expense and claim its insult to mention it? I wonder why
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
Nope, i quoted what you wrote, if that was done carefully then it is worse than I thought.

Considering you have insulted atheism from the start of this thread then what is your point! You attempted to big yourself up at my expense and claim its insult to mention it? I wonder why

Yes you did quote what I wrote, and I showed you that what I actually wrote was not what you insist that I 'really' meant to say.

Try a little exegesis.

er....and if you can show me how "And bigging your self up under false pretences is rather pathetic don't you think?" is NOT a personal insult, I'd appreciate it.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Yes you did quote what I wrote, and I showed you that what I actually wrote was not what you insist that I 'really' meant to say.

Try a little exegesis.

er....and if you can show me how "And bigging your self up under false pretences is rather pathetic don't you think?" is NOT a personal insult, I'd appreciate it.


What i quoted was copied directly from your posts. Maybe you meant different than what your words actually said, i dont know.

Why. I am a literalist, i dont make pretty stories up to sugar coat things.

You mean
Well, my husband used to say that to me when he lost an argument, too.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
What i quoted was copied directly from your posts. Maybe you meant different than what your words actually said, i dont know.

Why. I am a literalist, i dont make pretty stories up to sugar coat things.

You mean

Actually, I meant precisely what I wrote.

YOU just read into what I wrote things that were not there. Use your grammar. NOwhere have I said that 'all atheists are religious' or 'atheism is religious or a religion." I wrote that SOME atheists belong to groups that are, and I described THOSE atheists.

THOSE atheists do not represent the group 'all atheism' any more than the Jehovah's Witnesses represent the group 'all theists.'

However, SOME theists are indeed Jehovah's Witnesses.
Just because some theists are Jehovah's Witnesses, it doesn't mean that ALL theists are.
Or that theism is.

SOME atheists are religious, or belong to groups that look and act just like religions.
Just because some atheists are religious, or belong to groups that look and act just like religions, it doesn't mean that ALL atheists are.
or that 'atheism' is.

So if you want to differentiate between the atheists who are NOT religious or belong to such groups, you clearly identify the ones who do.

The way I did in the quotes you showed. Notice: I didn't write that all atheists were this or that. I wrote about the atheists who WERE 'this or that,' which have properties that the group 'atheism' as a whole doesn't have.

Christine, again I need to ask.

Are you determined to misread what I write because you don't think I, being me, CAN write something you would approve of or understand? Is the thought of ME agreeing with you in any way so horrific?
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Actually, I meant precisely what I wrote.

YOU just read into what I wrote things that were not there. Use your grammar. NOwhere have I said that 'all atheists are religious' or 'atheism is religious or a religion." I wrote that SOME atheists belong to groups that are, and I described THOSE atheists.

THOSE atheists do not represent the group 'all atheism' any more than the Jehovah's Witnesses represent the group 'all theists.'

However, SOME theists are indeed Jehovah's Witnesses.
Just because some theists are Jehovah's Witnesses, it doesn't mean that ALL theists are.
Or that theism is.

SOME atheists are religious, or belong to groups that look and act just like religions.
Just because some atheists are religious, or belong to groups that look and act just like religions, it doesn't mean that ALL atheists are.
or that 'atheism' is.

So if you want to differentiate between the atheists who are NOT religious or belong to such groups, you clearly identify the ones who do.

The way I did in the quotes you showed. Notice: I didn't write that all atheists were this or that. I wrote about the atheists who WERE 'this or that,' which have properties that the group 'atheism' as a whole doesn't have.

Christine, again I need to ask.

Are you determined to misread what I write because you don't think I, being me, CAN write something you would approve of or understand? Is the thought of ME agreeing with you in any way so horrific?

What you wrote was very clear, as was the anger you showed when writing it
 
Top