If you enjoy what you read here you will also enjoy my novel
21 days in May
Please be aware this blog may be considered Illegal almost anywhere!

Is Atheism A Religion

Atheism: The lack of belief in a god or gods.

1. The atheist position:
What are you talking about? A god? What's that? Eh? Are you drunk? Sounds like you've imagined it!

2. The atheist philosophy:
To silently disbelieve unwarranted, unnecessary & unsubstantiated supernatural claims.

3. The atheist agenda:
To passively not believe all unsubstantiated claims for god or gods.

4. The atheist belief system:
The belief that whomever promotes claims for the existence of god or gods should substantiate those claims.

5. The atheist activist agenda:
To converse with whomever promotes supernatural fables as true and persuade them to simply admit there is no legitimate reason to promote unsubstantiated conjecture as fact. And that those of us too honest to do so, do not vomit projectile ectoplasm while our heads spin around.
Please Note:
Discourse associated with no.5 may only be achieved where the atheist makes points to illustrate how facets of faith have been misjudged.
The religiously indoctrinated often intuit the points made in such debates to be a set of commandments or principles in which the atheist believes (has faith).
This is not so.

I'll attempt to illustrate...
Debater A has a doctrine of instructions, commandments etc; a seemingly cohesive structure of concepts from which to argue her doctrine's position.
Debater B has no doctrine and so the debate may only proceed by way of presentation of each concept raised in Debater A's doctrine.
As the debate moves forward each point in the Debater A's doctrine is countered by Debater B (Whether or not these are won or conceded by either side, a posit of similar validity is made.) and by the end of the debate each point of doctrine has two explanations, the original doctrinal explanation presented by Debater A and the new alternative explanations to the doctrinal concepts presented by Debater B.
Debater A is confused as to why there even are alternatives, why her 'beloved' doctrine has not won hands-down; "it's the work of a god after all". Undeterred, however, she moves on to debate with Debater C, who also has no doctrine.
This time, when the debate was over, Debater A noticed the concepts offered as alternatives to the key points of her doctrine were almost exactly same set of concepts offered by Debater B. Debater A concludes "Debaters B and C must be following a doctrine of their own! My doctrine details that Good-guy-gramps has a supernatural archenemy with sneaky and bad, naughty, naughty ways; their apparently cohesive doctrine must be an Evil product thereof! Oooooh Spooky!"
Because doctrine has temporarily1 inhibited Debater A's reasoning capacities, she has failed to notice...
1. Doctrines remain unchanging so the same arguments will be repeatedly offered in opposition to doctrinal concepts, in every debate.
2. Many of the concepts for which her doctrine makes claims have actual, verifiable, real-world answers, which wholly differ from doctrinal claims and which cannot be overlooked as alternatives to doctrinal claims because they are facts.
3. All doctrines makes a set of claims. In any debate the set of responses countering those doctrinal claims will be perceived, by those taught to perceive everything via a religious framework, as a cohesive doctrine, structured similarly to their own doctrine's religious framework, but this is an illusion born of circumstance.
4. In the absence of a religious doctrine to set a framework, the set of concepts presented to counter that religious framework are not perceived of as a "set" but are merely an unconnected subset of all known concepts/data/knowledge.
Only when perceived through religiously tainted eyes do a subset of concepts look like a religion.
The religionists misapprehension "atheism is a religion" is born solely of the presence of their own religious framework.

For the rational it's clear, when a more reasonable description of atheism might be the ultimate absence religion, any person describing atheism as a religion, may only be viewed as having an agenda which necessitates such dishonesty, so the question here is...
Is the religionists disability of reasoning on this point, in and of itself, clear enough evidence of the terribly insidious influence over followers' honesty and thereby wider society these spurious tomes have?
You can probably guess what I think.

1 If Debater A were to accept that "immortal soul" is not fact but pretence she would be able to recover full reasoning capacities.

This is one of the Too Many Questions
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

No Compulsion In Religion

Only they feel obligated, by family, friend and social group's custom, culture or tradition, to practise the usually misogynistic and paternally prescribed family faith.

Only they feel obliged, by others who have been similarly indentured, to comply with the dogma's imposed compulsions, the pillars, if you will, of the tradition, the subjugation and enslavement of the self to the compulsions the dogma dictates; the imposed prostrations and recitations for supplicants.

Only they, in this haze of normalised oppression, feel the compulsion to spread these toxic tenets, as dictated by the author in this coercive manifesto.

Only they will be implored, bribed and coerced, by elders and "betters" to "conduct yourself properly in the superior ways, as prescribed for us in our unquestionably glorious supreme leader's unquestionably supreme manifesto".

Only they feel compelled to close or open their legs at the times the diktats prescribe.

Only they feel the compulsion to wear the uniform, the scripturally 'commended' religious garb and bling; always aware of the mantra "Purest Piety wins the Prize".

Only they feel the indoctrinated urge to coerce the still free, those not yet obligated to the 'supreme' path, to feel compelled to concede that ONLY this manifesto of coercive diktats, compelling submission to an unproven authority, is supreme above all, and other manifestos, which may seem to claim similarly are inferior counterfeits.

Only they are compelled to believe these "counterfeits" to be the works of demons and those who seek every opportunity to destroy the supreme path set forth by the supreme leader.

Only they fail to notice "there is no compulsion in religion" is a verse born of the doctrinal source of all their spiritual compulsions!

And all, and only, because a manifesto of spurious compulsions, which they were compelled to concede as true, has compelled them, via its coercions, to accept and promote what it compels!

And we, the un-shepherded, who are not they, know this because we have no doctrine and so none of the procedural compulsions to which the totalitarian manifestos compel their despairingly enormous flocks.

As I see it, "there is no compulsion in religion" cannot be described as anything other than wholly false, so the question this time is...

With compulsion being the foundation and scaffolding around which faiths are built, how can anybody who does not notice any of it, to the extent that they can feel comfortable and truthful proclaiming "there is no compulsion in religion" be trusted to even use a spoon without injury?

This is one of the Too Many Questions
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Join Islam

It's NOT funny coz it's true.

This is one of the Too Many Questions
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,


If you enjoy what you read here
you will also enjoy my novel
21 days in May

Please be aware this blog may be considered Illegal almost anywhere!

Too Many Questions - Headlines

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain

My new blog:
Left of Sinister
It's kind of political.


Lijit Ad Wijit