Atheist Theology: It's a hoax folk!

Yes, Spade certainly has never been able to absorb the idea that an atheist is not someone who has a belief, but rather rejects a belief. That's understandable to a certain extent, because there are militant atheists who peddle atheism as a belief set. But Spade is not ammenable to correction or learning--it does absolutely no good to point out to him that theism and atheism are not two sides of a coin. For the theist, it is a desparate necessity to portray atheism as a belief.

But you did not answer anything I said, since it was so dumb...If we believed Santa existed...and you labeled yourself as the belief of No existence of Santa, rather than calling yourselves what you truly are...Free thinkers, doubters. Skeptics etc...it is no different, it just has a spin on it, but your main centralism still focuses on Santa, or no Santa....You should call yourselves what you are, if people misinterpret you, and you find it irritating...the person who did this originally here, was not saying it to be offensive...may I point that out again!! you decided to attack him for saying that...when it says more about your character, than about him being shallow...

Really, the way atheism is explained...it is no different than saying you have a religion or belief against God, rather than saying your free thinkers, skeptics etc...And if this is so utterly untrue, you would not see Atheist theology, at all...ever, for they would never be confused, and mixed up!!

That problem lies within your own classifications of yourself...not about other people being shallow!

I am calling a spade, a spade...

Really, the way atheism is explained...it is no different than saying you have a religion or belief against God, rather than saying your free thinkers, skeptics etc...And if this is so utterly untrue, you would not see Atheist theology, at all...ever, for they would never be confused, and mixed up!!

And to show you this is true, any theology, and atheism this works for if you reversed it...and called it the opposite of what it is...

the only one that doesn't work is agnostics, for there right in the middle...

I think he's peeking again. Personally, i don't know if there is a god--and i don't care. I have no god, i don't believe any of the god bullshit. That's sufficient for me.

If someone wants a separate space for ceremonies like weddings and funerals away from the association of religion does that make them a hypocrite?

If they are anti-religion, and they call that space a church, yes.

I don't think that those behind the temple are particularly anti-religionist.

You’ll never win an argument with that one. He’s a one-way ticket. He’s never wrong!

Your original post spoke of churches, not temples, so i don't know what you're on about, and don't really care. If they call it a temple, they're still using the trappings of religion. Community center would be better--but if they use the space to proselytize their alleged "un-belief," then they're still barking hypocrites, because they'd be no different than the religionists.

By extension, would you condemn writers like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins for trying to proselytise?

Yes, i would and i do, and my record on that is clear at this site. I do make a distinction between proselytizing and simply saying "i don't believe that." In my never humble opinion, Dawkins crosses that line, as did Mr. Hitchens while he still lived. I have spoken out vociferously against the abuses of religions, but i don't suggest that anyone should think as i do. I only want to make clear how such fanaticism can do serious harm to individuals and society. I have spoken out about the same abuses from political fanaticism

Finally, i have applied my knowledge of history to these questions, to hope to find the truth, and have said repeatedly that for whatever reasons wars start, politics and money trump religion every time. So, for example, during the Thirty Years war, Catholic France subsidized Protestant Sweden to fight the Catholic Holy Roman Empire, because the Empire was seen by Richelieu as a threat to France. In wartime, politics and money trump all other considerations every time.

I heard that during the Battle of the Boyne the pope supported protestant King William.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/jul/12/northernireland.comment

Could be, i never made a particular study of that campaign. I don't have a problem with cataloguing the horrors of religion--i do have a problem with the kind of anti-religious hysteria which characterizes organized religion as the eternal and overwhelming root of all evil.

Certainty is staunchly opposed to learning. And when I was christian, my fellows really didn't care for the fact that I believed that way...

Atheism existed before man invented God. It just wasn't called atheism because there was no theism to compare it to. So there was not invention of atheism. It just was from the very beginning.

Some would say the opposite is true, that what distinguishes homo sapiens from other hominids is religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_religion

When man invented God is irrelevant to my statement.

No it isn't...It just throws a wrench into your belief that atheism was here before religion was...

And you don't think it was? just asking.

No I don't, for Adam and Eve knew God, before they sinned and were cast out...

God revealed himself to them, before, they knew right and wrong...

That is not the same as Atheism...If your asking me...