ALTER2EGO -to- BLOOP:

I notice you're going to great pains to avoid using the word "atheist." Playing semantics by using the words "whatever non-theistic movement" is pointless, because everybody on this forum knows that a "non-theistic movement" is the synonym for "atheists."

ALTER2EGO -to- BLOOP:

I recall saying that secular humanism is the philosophy and the backbone of atheism--which is not the same as using secular humanism and atheism interchangeably.

Joseph Stalin obviously ascribed to the ideas of humanism: that people can do what's best for themselves without the need for instructions from God or gods. A secular humanist is simply someone who feels he or she does not need a god to instruct him or her. I've given the definition of "humanism" at least twice in this thread already, so if you can't accept it, so be it.

ALTER2EGO -to- BLOOP:

I know it did. It's not my problem that you refuse to make the connection, in that secular-humanism is the philosophical backbone of atheism. I believe I pointed that out several times already in this thread.

Think there's some advice for you on here Alter...

http://www.watchtower.org/e/201101c/article_01.htm

3. With whom am I associating? “Do not be misled. Bad associations spoil useful habits.”—1 Corinthians 15:33.

Do use electronic media to strengthen the ties you have with people who encourage you to develop good habits.—Proverbs 22:17.

Don’t fool yourself—you will adopt the standards, language, and thinking of those you choose to socialize with through e-mail, texting, TV, video, or the Internet.—Proverbs 13:20.

quote from wiki:
Not all atheists are Humanists, you are jumping to conclusions and posting incomplete definitions of Humanism.
Provide evidence that Humanism is the backbone of atheism and that atheism is centered around secular humanism.

It's not my personal interpretation, it's the courts interpretation.
I posted a link to official appeal and quote from that appeal.

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/GW1FCY9O.pdf

another quote from the same source:

EDIT: Atheists can have different life stances. Here is a table pasted from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrins...ntrinsic_value

Wait, this person's whole argument boils down to "why is evolution called a theory?" Really??

Ahahhahahahaha.

It's so funny when an ignorant person doesn't bother to understand what it is she is arguing. Open a book, Sunshine, you might learn something. And no, not the bible.

...and it's most frustrating when she skips over things like heliocentric theory and germ theory. Oh noes, that's different! lmao

ALTER2EGO -to- DOMINIC:

Below is a newspaper article that should give you an even better laugh. Everything in dark red is quoted verbatim. Enjoy!


Florida Court Sets Atheist Holy Day

By Gazette Staff Writer — Wednesday, December 17th, 2008


In Florida, an atheist created a case against the upcoming Easter & Passover holy days. He hired an attorney to bring a discrimination case against Christians, Jews & observances of their holy days. The argument was....it was unfair that atheists had no such recognized day(s).

The case was brought before a judge. After listening to the passionate presentation by the lawyer, the judge banged his gavel declaring, “Case dismissed.” The lawyer immediately stood objecting to the ruling saying, “Your honor, how can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas, Easter & others. The Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur & Hanukkah. Yet my client and all other atheists have no such holidays.” The judge leaned forward in his chair saying, “But you do. Your client, counsel, is woefully ignorant.” The lawyer said, “Your Honor, we are unaware of any special observance or holiday for atheists.” The judge said. The calendar says April 1st is April Fools Day. Psalm 14:1 states, “The fool says in his heart, there is no God.” Thus, it is the opinion of this court, that if your client says there is no God, then he is a fool. Therefore, April 1st is his day. Court is adjourned.


http://www.fillmoregazette.com/polit...heist-holy-day

omg you obviously didn't read comments:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/atheist.asp

(it's not true)

Remember that in law the courts will often slot concepts into certain categories to create the legal rights they are aiming to create. Often common words will have their definitions twisted to accomplish the legal goal. That's what happened here. The court is saying atheism isn't really a religion, but the for the purposes of the First Amendment will be treated as one and accorded certain protections. It's a deliberate legal fiction, and shouldn't be brought into non legal discussions.

When you talk about humanism you're talking about actually well-defined ideology that people have set out. The dictionary definition is very general, but it doesn't mean that ANYONE who believes they can get by will be a humanist by definition. Really, you've got to ascribe to a humanist ideology.

When (2) says "any system of thought or action" remember that its referring to a system - ie: a defined ideology.

As an atheist, I don't identify as a humanist, though I do say that I share certain beliefs with that ideology. If you are a humanist you believe you can get by without god, but believing that you can get by without god does not make you a humanist.

You've got the wrong comparison. It's not Stalin the "atheist" vs. Hitler the "christian". It's Stalin the "atheist" vs. Hitler the "theist". Whether Hitler was a true Christian or not doesn't matter. He's a theist.

That said I agree that both atheists and theists are capable of attrocities. But I think some atheists mangle the argument. It's not that atheists committ fewer atrocities than theists, it's that theism makes it easier to convince people to commit atrocities. It's hard to convince someone to committ an atrocity basing it on the absence of a belief in god, absent a military dictatorship at your back. However, individual theists can often work people up to commit horrible acts by appealing to the concept of a god wanting them to do so.

It's simply easier to do.

Another hoax
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/atheist.asp

You're coming into this conversation late, because you're repeating the same debunked arguments that other atheists have already presented in this thread.

You are accusing me of playing semantics here... That's ****ing rich to say the least. Non-theistic is used since there are plenty of non-theistic movements/religions that wants to have equal protection/rights under the first amendment/establishment clause. So it is most definately not a way to circumvent the usage of the word atheist. Read the footnote you like to trot out again.

You saying it doesn't make it so. It's that simple. Joseph Stalin the humanist. You are raping language and it is making my eyes bleed to see it. You really, really need to read up on what Secular humanism, humanism and religious humanism is. Joseph Stalin, the humanist. I want some of what you are smoking...


You have put forth your own warped perspective and strange definitions that is true. But most everyone does not subscribe to them.

From the wiki page on humanism:

Tell it to the people at the Fillmore Gazette. This is old news from 2008. Snopes has been known to present errors, by the way.

I read the thread. I was trying to clarify and elaborate on some things that others touched on yes. I don't think anything you've written in this thread debunks what I said - what posts do you think do that?

Why can't you stop posting in blue? Several people have asked this of you now. It's unecessarily hard on the eyes.