jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (130 posts)

Is Atheism Becoming Another Religion?

  1. jainismus profile image78
    jainismusposted 3 years ago

    Is atheism becoming another religion? I am asking this question because many atheists are loudly talking against 'other' religions, like many of the the propagandists of religions do.

    I myself am an atheist, and I think it is not necessary to speak against religions. Instead of that we should promote atheistic views, rational and logical thinking in masses. That will work better.

    1. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      re·li·gion
      noun \ri-ˈli-jən\

      : the belief in a god or in a group of gods

      1. bBerean profile image59
        bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        ...and now the rest of the story:

        re·li·gion
        noun \ri-ˈli-jən\

        : the belief in a god or in a group of gods

        : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

        : an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

        Full Definition of RELIGION
        1
        a :  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
        b (1) :  the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) :  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

        2:  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

        3: archaic :  scrupulous conformity :  conscientiousness

        4:  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

        Atheism always has been a religion.  It really fits even more definitions, but that argument takes more time than I have, so we will leave it with this.  Either way, it's a religion.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          </a>

          So, even though you yourself provided a definition, you didn't even understand it. You might as well say black is white, up is down, etc.

        2. Jerami profile image79
          Jeramiposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Point being ....   there may be a dozen different ways to define ...  lets say "blue" ?   Ya don't have to qualify with the whole dozen definitions in order to rightfully be called blue ... only one will do.

          I would say that the actions of the fanatical Atheists does adhere to A definition of RELIGIOUS behavior.   I have one neighbor who religiously goes fishing every weekend.   Another friend who religiously promotes his beliefs on Jogging and all that health food stuff.

          Some Atheists religiously speaking out against religious people?  Hypocrites speaking out against hypocrites. I could go on and on but why?

          It is SOooo easy to see the hypocrisy in others yet SOoo difficult to see our own; kinda like the back side of our knees, it is possible only with special effort which some of us don't take, too easy to see the back side of your knees than my own.    Too bad we don't listen to what other people can see that we can't.

        3. psycheskinner profile image81
          psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          So which one of the less common meanings did you intend? 

          Because if you specify that, the question answers itself.

          1. bBerean profile image59
            bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Either of the ones in bold are the easiest to explain, so I would go with them first.  If you purport atheists don't have a "belief" or "faith" you imply they know first hand things they don't.  They hear them, read them, and choose to take them on faith.  For most, what has been commonly called "Scientism" applies directly, although it seems most athiests protest and seek to deny it because they don't want to acknowledge having a religion.

        4. artblack01 profile image80
          artblack01posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Can you tell any of us atheists in what what atheism fits the definition of religion?  None of those match anything I believe. 

          Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

          We don't have meet ups with other atheists, we don't have "worship groups" we don't have dogmatic practices or any other rules that we must follow in order to be "true" atheists.
          You calling atheism a religion is more of a way of saying you are biased towards atheism and want to insult us somehow by calling us a religion because you think it hurts our feelings. The only thing it does is shows us your complete lack of intelligence in understanding the meaning of words.

        5. artblack01 profile image80
          artblack01posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          "with ardor and faith" is the key word that makes atheism the opposite of a religion, since atheism is not a belief system it's the lack of a belief in a God.  It's no more a religion than not believing in UFOs or Faeries or Ghosts is a religion.  It isn't about faith, it's about evidence, and if you don't have evidence for the existence of something you can't have a belief in it, and since evidence is opposite to faith atheism is not a religion, we have a lack of faith in God, not a faith that their is no God.  Is there a God?  I don't really know, but I know enough to say that the existence of a God, the need for a God in our universe, as defined in every religion on Earth, is unlikely.  It's not a faith and it's not about faith.  It's about someone having a claim about something and being skeptical that the claim is true, basically, we don't believe you until you can provide evidence.
          I'm an atheist, but if you provide me with evidence for your God I will believe in God.  Atheism challenges specifically the question of God, we don't blindly believe in your God nor do we blindly believe there is no God, all though, we can unblindly say whether or not a God is likely given the current evidence we have of the universe (the difference between strong and weak atheism)  Now many atheists in our world are weak atheists, meaning they don't believe in God because there is no evidence but believe that there may be evidence out there that could prove whether or not one exists, they are agnostic atheists...  Others, like myself, have seen enough evidence to at least say, there is no definition of God that is likely responsible for existence and probably doesn't exist at all.  If you can not only give me a definition and give me evidence for why you believe such a being is real and is irrefutable I would change my mind but considering my research into the subject I don't think you are likely to do that or logically be able to do that, or sanely.  One of the main reasons is the definition people often give is God is not a physical being and can only be perceived through the holy spirit and so on...  problem with that is you can imagine such a thing, you can make yourself believe anything of any fantasy you could possibly imagine and think that it's 100% real and be 100% convinced it's truth.  However, you will never convince any skeptic at any time that what you believe in is anything but fantasy.  It's how people believe they are abducted by aliens, or see ghosts, or have out of body or near death experiences or report big foot or loc ness monsters or the chupacabra, etc....  all which have been traced and explained away.  Especially the Chupacabra which I can tell you has an origin in 1992.

          In conclusion, Atheism is the lack of a religion and saying otherwise is like I said to Eric, WILLFULLY IGNORANT.

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "with ardor and faith". It's interesting you use these words to make your point.  Since it is with ardor that atheists square off against theists; passionately arguing in defense of their belief. Because, whether or not the passionate defender of atheism chooses to accept it; a stand on the non existence of God is no more provable than the opposite stand. Both sides have faith in their own judgment. Faith in their own experience. It is a firm faith in their own ability to reason which brings them to the table to argue in defense of their belief.

            Sorry, your opening line throws atheism into the realm of religion. Many recognized religions revolve around things other than God. You can't simply say     'I don't believe in God, therefore I am not religious'.  We can't all ignore the faith and ardor within atheistic arguments.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The believer is incapable of understanding arguments and evidence, or lack thereof, stating emphatically that their faith in gods have equivalent status in reality as anything else. They are then compelled to assert the understanding others have of the world around them is faith based beliefs.

            2. aliasis profile image95
              aliasisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              "Faith in no God", Emile, is misleading phrasing. You say "faith" but in actuality, atheists don't have "faith."

              What is faith, especially in terms of religion? Faith is the belief in something against reason and logic, the belief that something is true even without any evidence. It's the cornerstone of the Abrahamic religions - that any questioning of validity of religious claims is met with accusations of "lack of faith."

              Recognizing science, however, does not take faith. First, because we don't have to believe the supernatural like gods exist by default. I don't believe in Santa just because there's no "proof" he doesn't exist, or fairies, or leprechauns. While we might admit - rightly so - that there are a lot of things in this world we don't know about, and almost anything might have a chance, no matter how miniscule, or being true, that doesn't mean we have to entertain it as a reasonable claim.

              Second, science is the opposite of faith. If I say I am partial to the Big Bang Theory, it's not "faith" because scientific theories are the result of evidence, which comes from experimentation and observation. It takes no faith. Furthermore, any (good) scientist or interested person SHOULD recognize that theories can be proven wrong - the nature of science is to evolve and hopefully get closer and closer to the truth. If tomorrow, scientists realize that the Big Bang theory is illogical, and the, I don't know, Giant Cat theory is the new result of analysis, I will say, "okay." No faith involved, only recognition of the latest scientific achievements.

            3. artblack01 profile image80
              artblack01posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              In your ignorance you ignore the facts of the definitions of various words.  First, faith is to atheists, the stupid affirmation of the absurd, belief without evidence.  I can't believe a God exists any more than you can believe you've been abducted by aliens.  Have you?  And if you say no, how do you know?  Is it faith?  If you say yes to that then our conversation is over because you are not only willfully ignorant but completely dishonest. 
              As far as Ardor, that is not a fundamental trait of religion, yes I am passionate about many many things, I love scooters, circuits, psychology, astrophysics, music but that does not make any of those things a religion, what about equal rights for all people, or justice, I am very passionate about those topics....  religion?  still no.  To say that being an atheist, and fighting off the religious extremists who try and create laws that are religious based, is a religion then you ARE willfully ignorant and dishonest

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...it's usually a duck no matter if it knows it, or not. Ducks are stupid that way.

                1. artblack01 profile image80
                  artblack01posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Unless you think a rooster is a duck and haven't learned the difference.

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I suppose that point might hold water...until the duck quacked. Then, only the duck doesn't understand  it's a duck. Everyone else hears the quacking. And, maybe that's the problem. It's a delusional duck who is hard of hearing with a bit of a speech impediment. What should we do? Let it continue in it's delusions, or attempt to bridge the communication gap? I suppose we could appease it by pretending it's a new species, but would dishonesty be good for the duck?

    2. Claire Evans profile image88
      Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      When atheist churches start springing up then it is a kind of religion. There is a church called, "Sunday Assembly".

      http://sundayassembly.com/

      "The Sunday Assembly is a godless congregation that meets to hear great talks, sing songs and generally celebrate the wonder of life. It’s a service for anyone who wants to live better, help often and wonder more."

      1. aliasis profile image95
        aliasisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Nope.

        Is the Girl Scouts a religion because they gather, hang out, and try to do good? Is school a religion?

        Some people choosing to enjoy the community or feel-good element of church without religion, does not make atheism a religion.

        Again, atheism is, by definition, NOT a religion.

        1. Claire Evans profile image88
          Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Girls scout don't exactly make their group exclusively for non believers.  It has nothing to do with countering religion. 

          Why should the Sunday Assembly be restricted to atheists if they are just gathering and trying to do good? Why emphasize that they are godless?

          Atheism in its true sense is usually just a lack of belief in God.  Those atheists don't care and they certainly don't try and deconvert Christians.  They find that as appealing as trying to disprove Spiderman. 

          There are atheists, however, that "worship" science and reason.  Then is becomes a cult.  This is how all religions start. There are atheist churches out there:

          "Home

          With the First Church of Atheism you can become ordained quickly, easily, and at no cost.

          Since its inception, the First Church of Atheism has amassed quite a following around the world. FCA ministers come from all walks of life. They are every race, ethnicity, age, and creed. The one thing binding every FCA minister is his or her belief in science, reason, and reality.

          The First Church of Atheism wants you to pursue and cherish your realistic beliefs without interference from any outside agency, including government or church authority. We provide our service for free, as we believe it is every atheists right to perform these clergy functions.

          You may become a legally ordained minister for life, without cost, and without question."

          http://firstchurchofatheism.com/

      2. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        But, it's not a church. Nowhere does it say it is a church. Do you know what a church is?

        1. Claire Evans profile image88
          Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          "With the First Church of Atheism you can become ordained quickly, easily, and at no cost.

          Since its inception, the First Church of Atheism has amassed quite a following around the world. FCA ministers come from all walks of life. They are every race, ethnicity, age, and creed. The one thing binding every FCA minister is his or her belief in science, reason, and reality.

          The First Church of Atheism wants you to pursue and cherish your realistic beliefs without interference from any outside agency, including government or church authority. We provide our service for free, as we believe it is every atheists right to perform these clergy functions.

          You may become a legally ordained minister for life, without cost, and without question."

          http://firstchurchofatheism.com/

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Congratulations Claire, you found ONE internet site. You do realize that this site merely mocks and ridicules churches, don't you? Kinda like the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

            1. Claire Evans profile image88
              Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              That is their religion.  To ridicule Christians. It's kind of like Muslims trying to debunk Christianity and Christianity trying to debunk Islam.

              The springing up of these church, or movements to pacify you, is a carefully concocted plan by Freemasons from way back.  Religion is losing its power and so this is where science dictatorship begins:

              “The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles, and mysteries. Under a scientific dictatorship, education will really work' with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.”

              - Huxley, Brave New World Revisited, 116

              Huxley was a Freemason.  They are based on the occult by the way. 

              Another influential Freemason Albert Pike laid on the plans for World War 1,2 and three:

              lbert Pike's letter to Mazzini, dated August 15, 1871:

              "The First World War must be brought about in order to permit the Illuminati to overthrow the power of the Czars in Russia and of making that country a fortress of atheistic Communism. The divergences caused by the "agentur" (agents) of the Illuminati between the British and Germanic Empires will be used to foment this war. At the end of the war, Communism will be built and used in order to destroy the other governments and in order to weaken the religions."

              "The Second World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences between the Fascists and the political Zionists. This war must be brought about so that Nazism is destroyed and that the political Zionism be strong enough to institute a sovereign state of Israel in Palestine. During the Second World War, International Communism must become strong enough in order to balance Christendom, which would be then restrained and held in check until the time when we would need it for the final social cataclysm."

              "The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists , and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time."

              I don't know much about War War 1 but the Nazis were destroyed in World War 2 and Israel did become a sovereign state.

              We know that the western world is at war with Islam.  The western world are pro-Israel and are thus Zionists.  The atheists and nihilists have been "unleashed".  Thanks for carrying out Pike's desires even though he despises atheists.  The atheist movement will definitely help people be disillusioned with Christianity.  They will be fooled into believing Lucifer is the way.   Then Christianity and atheists will be done away with.   So atheists like you are very instrumental to these evil people.  They want people like you to disillusion Christians.  And Christianity, too, is also very useful to them.  The Pope is advocating the dissolution of Christianity by urging the world religions to merge.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                lol Good one, Claire. You sure know how to dream up some doozies.



                Ah yes, "science dictatorship"... hilarious. No problem, Claire, just get rid of your computer, internet connection and all the other things in your life "science dictatorship" has provided for you and go live in a cave. You'll have no problem with "science dictatorship" or hypocrisy.

                The rest of your post is just nonsensical word salad.

                1. Claire Evans profile image88
                  Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm not dreaming it up.  Read what PIke said.  I'm just reporting on what HE said.  Anyway, naive people like you are very useful to evil people.  They just cooperate without question.





                  You are not understanding.  Science dictatorship refers to the worship of logic and science.  It is something people feel negates the existence of God.  We owe a lot to science but there is another science that enslaves people.  Huxley was a Freemason.

                  An example is that the "first science institution" was the Freemasonic "British Royal Society" which was responsible for science propaganda and so whatever came from that was a Freemasonic belief.  For example, Darwin's Theory of Evolution was based on the occult idea that man can evolve from an unenlightened state to god-like.  The Lunar Society that preceded and influenced the "British Royal Society" had an interesting member, Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of Charles Darwin.   A chief science writer, Jonathan Tennenbaum, wrote:

                  “Now, it is easy to show that Darwinism, one of the pillars of modern biology, is nothing but a kind of cult, a cult religion. I am not exaggerating. It has no scientific validity whatsoever. Darwin's so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons.”

                  And I agree it is a cult because atheists cling onto it because they are terrified of the alternative: intelligent design.



                  Interesting.  You always moan at people who personally attack you and are condescending when you cannot even take the plank out of your own eye.

                  Belittle and put your head in the sand all you like and think you are right all the time. It won't change the truth.

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Excellent contradiction there, Claire. Well done.



                    Complete nonsensical gibberish that defies reality, facts and evidence.



                    Calling your ideas nonsensical word salad or gibberish is not the same thing as someone attacking you personally, Claire.

              2. Zelkiiro profile image83
                Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                So you make a nonsensical claim of a "scientific dictatorship" based on the writings of the same guy who wrote Brave New World, easily one of the worst-written and most unoriginal novels of the 20th century, and you're expecting us to take you seriously?

                yeah ok

              3. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                The Nazi Party was founded as the nationalist and antisemitic German Workers' Party in January 1919.  [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism ]

                And Albert Pike wrote of Nazis in 1871, 50 years before the first Nazi? "This war must be brought about so that Nazism is destroyed..."  Seems someone is dreaming here.

                1. Ericdierker profile image80
                  Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Wow wilderness that wiki is really a bad one. But I do note that it says "associated with" as a disclaimer as to it's truth. Nazi's did not form with anti Semitic sentiment. That came after several years of prosperity under the Nazi's. Yes "Nazi's" are "associated with the holocaust and Adolf" but that was not in the foundation.
                  One could easily have attacked the notion of a workers party as early as Marx who died in the late 1800's. Please this does not mean I accept any of these notions -- just getting it straight.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Sometimes they are - you just have to accept and understand that.

                    So where is it basically wrong?  The only real thing I pulled from it was that the Nazi party was formed in 1919 - that before that the term was not used.  An even in 1919, it still wasn't called Nazi, but "German Workers Party". 

                    Were there Nazi's (by name, not just ideology) present before that?  Because the whole point of the post was that some yahoo 50 years prior did NOT write about Nazi's as there were no Nazi's.  Not unless he was pulling a Nostradamus, giving predictions that are then interpreted to mean whatever the reader wants them to mean, and Claire did not indicate that.  She specifically quoted Pike as using the term Nazism, with the term not existing for another 50 years.  According to Wiki, at least - did I do a baddie by accepting that at face value?

              4. artblack01 profile image80
                artblack01posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Talk about paranoid delusional conspiracy theories!  Wow!

                1. Claire Evans profile image88
                  Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  How is this delusional? I'm not making this up.  I'm reporting on what Pike said.

      3. artblack01 profile image80
        artblack01posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        When I join a club is that a religious practice?  I am or was in a Scooter club  not too long ago and we would talk about scooters or the community of scooterists, organize rides and events and do all sorts of scooter related and community and social related things in relation to our scooter enthusiasm.  Does this mean Scootering is a religion? 
        Merely calling a group of people a religion who like or believe in the same thing, even if they get together to talk or even celebrate about this or any particular topic is really the most ignorant thing I can think of.

        A religious practice specifically deals with a Deity(ies) and it's desires and dogmas for your life and the world.
        Atheism is just a word to describe one particular aspect of my belief which is I don't believe in a God(s) of any kind.  The fact that I might (but haven't) meet up to talk about or even celebrate this idea (which to me is silly in general) doesn't make my anti-religious beliefs a religion. 
        I think the mere subject (sorry Jain) is completely idiotic and the people who think atheism a religion are complete and total morons.

        1. Claire Evans profile image88
          Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Scootering has nothing to do with being a "godless" congregation.  The atheis mission is to deconvert the religious.


          Buddhists don't worship a god but it is a religion.  Religion can be defined as:

          ... is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence

          And so atheism is a world view relating to the order of existence.  It espouses that human existence did not come about with the help of God.  This is where belief comes from.   

          And when atheists start demanding religious protection like Christians then it strongly suggests religion. 


          http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_arti … religion-1

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Really? Seems more that there is no mission for atheists other than to show just how ridiculous religious beliefs are and how dangerous they can be to societies.

            1. Claire Evans profile image88
              Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Then atheists still have a mission that which other religions have.

              1. artblack01 profile image80
                artblack01posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I don't have that mission.... I don't feel it's my responsibility to educate the uneducated idiots of the world as to what reality is.  Do you know why?  Because those people will be left behind in this scientifically run world we live in.  Everything we have, everything that makes life better, everything that improves upon Humanity comes from one place and that has nothing to do with any God of any kind.  It comes from humanities use of science to actually fix the problems that exist within our society. 
                As an atheist, my only mission is to live my life better every day without the necessity of any God, just the understanding of what is real.  I care about what is real enough to question everything put to me that is claimed as something real.
                Do you care anything for reality to question your view of reality like we do?
                It doesn't look like it.

                1. Claire Evans profile image88
                  Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  So you think I don't question things? I get answers from other places where you don't even know about.  So your idea of what is reality may actually not be so.

    3. Tina DeLuca profile image60
      Tina DeLucaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      to me atheism is the only answer for religion...

    4. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, Jainismas,  I agree: you atheists should offer what you are very good at: teaching rational and logical thinking to those who have the ears to hear.
      However, you mention" masses."  Is this *urge to convert* what theists and atheists have in common? the compulsion to educate the virtual masses of people/citizens of society who we imagine are actually paying attention and/or who we consider

                                                       n e e d  s a v i n g ?

    5. 0
      Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Atheism by definition can never become a religion. Atheism is a lack of a belief in a deity..Now when it comes to the actions of some atheists, which you have stated is synonymous with the actions of Christians, Those actions are not completely relevant to the philosophy of atheism as a whole. Just as religion isn't sentient, The philosophy of atheism is not sentient either and should not be blamed for the actions of someone acting in a certain manner

    6. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      An organised group of individuals with a common theistic belief is no different to an organised group of individuals with a common non-theistic belief, or anti-theistic belief, in an anthropological sense. Functionally a religion is no different to a Justin Bieber fan club, humanist society, or a political party. The only difference is the specific belief that acts as the common denominator, which in turn determines the degree of cost members of that group are willing to incur to be part of that group. With the examples I've given this would range from subscribing to a newsletter at one end of the spectrum, to dying in a military conflict at the other.

      Organised religions are essentially social groups. They engender solidarity among those within the group. Being part of a social group enhances an individual's chances of survival. The adherence to certain beliefs and practices (which are usually costly to an individual) are an indicator of an individual's commitment to that group. They are the cost of membership if you will. They give assurance an individual is one of "us" (as opposed to one of the "others") and therefore worthy of the benefits associated with being in the group. So in terms of their social and biological function, Christianity, the Democratic Party, the Humanist Association, and the 'Bieber fever' club are functionally equivalent.

  2. 0
    Emile Rposted 3 years ago

    It's as bad as religion. Notice there are billions of Christians quietly living their lives. They get defined by the few idiots on TV. Notice there are billions of Muslims quietly living their lives. They get defined by a few idiots with bombs.

    There are probably hundreds of thousands of atheists quietly living their lives and they get defined by a few idiots too.

  3. Robephiles profile image86
    Robephilesposted 3 years ago

    There is a kind of movement among atheists to try and create a value system that is universal among atheism.  For instance, Sam Harris wrote a book called The Moral Landscape which makes the claim that ethics can be based on science despite the fact that this has been debunked by philosophers for a couple hundred years and was picked apart pretty convincingly by philosophers after publication, the book remains pretty popular among certain atheists. 

    Richard Dawkins wrote a book called The Magic of Reality which makes epistemological claims based on an extreme scientific empiricism.  Never mind that the claim is illogical and that science only functions through the acceptance of certain axioms and a certain degree of logical induction, this book is also popular in certain atheist circles.  I have also seen books that make certain metaphysical claims based on atheism which is also nonsense. 

    Being an atheist says nothing about ones positive beliefs about ethics, epistemology and metaphysics. .  It does however say something about what we do not believe, which is that these things come from God.  The attempt to link ethical, epistemological and metaphysical beliefs strictly to atheism is an attempt to turn atheism into a kind of ideology and one could say that it is a kind of religion.  Philosophers often refer to this movement as sciencism. 

    Of course the fact that none of these claims hold water shows that Atheism is NOT be a religion.  A lack of belief in something can not be the basis of a religion.  Religion tells people the basis for truth, ethics and reality all come from God.  Atheism rejects this assumption but it does not tell you where it comes from.  An atheist can ethically be a Utilitarian, a Kantian, an Egoist or believe in Virtue Ethics.  A religious person can accept these ethical schools of thought as well, but if he truly is religious then he is being a hypocrite, since there are contradictions to these ethical theories and the virtues taught by most major religions.

    1. Ericdierker profile image80
      Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I think philosophers call that a straw man argument. You take three hand picked positions that you can easily refute and Dawkins is an easy one along with Harris. And then come to a universal conclusion. However just like a communist an atheist does not fit the common notion of a religion. I would say your conclusion is correct. Of course I would say that about a non-religious Christian also. Belief in a God does not religion make.

      1. Robephiles profile image86
        Robephilesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I actually cannot tell what you are saying here.  What is my conclusion that I came to that is universal?  I say "some" when referring to these views, 

        My overall point is that atheists are not bound to think a certain way on ethics, metaphysics or epistemology by virtue of their atheism but religious people are bound to think a certain way about these things by virtue of their religious dogma. 

        I really don't think I will take a lecture on philosophy or logic from a person who cannot even clearly read and understand a text. 

        I personally am an ATHEIST.  However, whenever I make a criticism of any prominent atheist. (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens) etc. I find that other atheists immediately pile on me for daring to criticize any other atheist and almost always mistake me for a religious person. 

        My point is that there are certain atheists who insist on dogmatic thinking and this adds fuel to the arguments that religious people make about atheism being a religion.  I am not the first person to point out that the tactics that the "NEW ATHEISTS" use are similar to the very techniques that religious leaders use.

        1. bBerean profile image59
          bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          They're simply lacking Cheer.

          1. bBerean profile image59
            bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I hear it can make your "Brights" brighter.  wink  (If you know what I meme).

  4. Ericdierker profile image80
    Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago

    Insofar as religion is concerned this proposition could be correct. If you go after something with others in belief and a dogmatic and orderly fashion it sure smells like religion. But religion basically smells. A person who follows the teachings of one other and has a connection with a higher power is not necessarily religious if he holds true to a personal relationship as opposed to a generally accepted one. So in theory a Christian could be non religious and an Atheist religious. The being of a Christian is not oriented toward religion but rather toward a personal God. Whereas an Atheist could easily follow a charismatic professor and blindly believe what the professor says and in some collegiate atmospheres it feels like a cult style religion. Many followers of Darwin just ignore failings and gaps in logic and go on blind faith.
    We to often equate religions (which has been shown here to mean many things) with faith and belief. How sad. And how inappropriate. Religion is about how man relates to man. Faith and belief are how man relates to ideals and theories and deities and hope and love and so on. Atheists can act the way of religions, if they want to.
    But in general to my experience they do not. They are independent and self evaluators and critics of all things taken for granted or assumed.

    1. Robephiles profile image86
      Robephilesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Dogmatic thinking is common everywhere in human society.  What makes a religion is 1. A belief in a deity.  2.  A belief of a creation myth.  3.  Values and morals that are created by that are meant to be universally followed. 

      Even a new age religion like Scientology has all three of these things.   

      Just because something is ideologically dogmatic does not make it a religion.

      1. bBerean profile image59
        bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I haven't the time to argue atheism has all three, so I will simply take issue with your definition and ask, according to who are these the defined parameters making up the definition of religion?

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Never yet met an atheist that had a belief in a deity.

          If you want to call the theory of the big bang a myth, I guess you can, but few people equate "theory" with "myth".

          1. bBerean profile image59
            bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Right, much bigger argument so I am looking instead to clarify the definition that dismisses atheism as a religion, as outlined by Robephiles, from I don't know what source.  Needing to go away from keyboard now but will check back when I can for that.

          2. bBerean profile image59
            bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Spoiler alert for when there is time though wilderness:  Many if not most atheists basically deify nature and/or science, which is what has resulted in the term "scientism" being applied to those that do.  Nearly all deny it, but the argument can certainly be made that is exactly what most do.


                de·i·fy
                ˈdēəˌfī/
                verb
                verb: deify; 3rd person present: deifies; past tense: deified; past participle: deified; gerund or present participle: deifying
                    1.        worship, regard, or treat (someone or something) as a god.
                    "she was deified by the early Romans as a fertility goddess"
                    synonyms:    worship, revere, venerate, reverence, hold sacred;
                    immortalize
                    "she was deified by the early Romans"
                    idolize, lionize, extol, hero-worship;
                    idealize, glorify, aggrandize, overpraise, put on a pedestal
                    "he was deified by the press"

            1. Robephiles profile image86
              Robephilesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              This is incorrect.  Scientism is an epistemological belief not a belief in a deity.  It is an extreme version of empiricism. 

              To deify is not the same as believing in a deity.  For instance, I might deify someone I am in love with, believing her to be perfect and getting angry at anybody who would criticize her but that does not mean I literally believe she is God. 

              By your definition any love struck teenager believes the object of their affections is God.

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You are merely arguing from a semantics viewpoint, using "definitions" of words that do not match with commonly accepted meanings and certainly do not match with what the OP referred to in the word "religion"

              Example:  From your quote here,
              "worship, regard, or treat (someone or something) as a god"   and
              "he was deified by the press"

              I would go so far as to say that the press has NEVER deified by the press to the point that anyone knelt and prayed to them.  The people that the press HAS "deified" (and there have been many) have NOT been worshipped as a god by anyone. 

              So, semantics.  Atheists do "deify" objects and people, I suppose, but not to the point they are worshipped as gods.  Merely as objects and people that are important somehow, or superior to other people in specific matters. 

              And no, Hero-worship does not mean to worship as a god, either.

        2. Robephiles profile image86
          Robephilesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          All religions that identify themselves as religions contain these three things.  If you wish to disprove me then I ask you to do two things. 

          1.  Name one religion that identifies itself as a religion that does not contain all three of these things. 

          2.  Name something else other than atheism that you consider a religion that does not contain all three things. 

          As for Atheism containing them: 
          1. Atheism by definition does not contain the first thing. 

          2, Atheism and science are not interchangeable.  Also, there is an alternative to the big bang theory in science, the steady state model, as well as plenty of other discarded theories.  Evolution could be disproved tomorrow and while it would take a while for most scientists to accept it, it would happen eventually.  Creationism has been disproved for over a century and religious people still haven't accepted it.  Atheists evolve in their beliefs about creation.  Religious people accept a myth.

          3.  I already argued how atheism does not dictate a set or morals that are universal and must be followed.  Some atheists are moral relativists like Nietzsche.  Some like Ayn Rand are egoists.  Some like Sam Harris are Utilitarian.  Some like myself are Kantians.

  5. aliasis profile image95
    aliasisposted 3 years ago

    Atheism is, by definition, not a religion. Atheism is, in practical usage, also not a religion - no organization, no beliefs, defined purely by... lack of religious beliefs.

    You might as well call political parties, or sports teams, or Justin Beiber fans a religion if we only want to define it by Internet dogpiling.

  6. A Troubled Man profile image60
    A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago

    This thread merely shows the desperation and depths believers will stoop to fight for their beliefs, causing more conflict in the world by fabricating false notions and redefining words to suit their agenda.

    Very sad, indeed.

    1. Ericdierker profile image80
      Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Could it be possible that a man dead set on finding the negative believes in that?

      1. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        There is nothing negative or positive in observing people's behavior. It is their behavior that can be judged thus, if you wish.

        1. Ericdierker profile image80
          Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          If one observes and his perception always leads him to a conclusion of faith and belief we say he is a spiritual man. Perhaps even a "religious" man. If one observes and his perception always leads him to a "down side", negative, glass is always half empty conclusion, then is it wrong to say "he is religiously negative"?. I think that is fair to understand. And I think having faith that one way of thought is always wrong is religious in nature and not scientific or logical.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No, we say he is a delusional man.



            Sorry, but that is false. Observing behavior has nothing to do with half empty glasses.



            No, it isn't fair.



            That would be a false assertion based on a false premise.

            1. Ericdierker profile image80
              Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I think your comment just showed us some religious zeal for a contrarian position at any cost. But we differ on that thought. I will not say you are wrong. Just that you have a different religion.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, I understand you believers view the world that way, that those who lack belief in your gods have "a different religion" but that just shows ignorance of what religions are.

              2. artblack01 profile image80
                artblack01posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I'd spam my first statement but that would be bad....  a religion deals specifically with the belief and reverence with a God...  by definition.  I'm sure you may be cherry picking parts of the definition out of the dictionary or even worse off the internet, without giving consideration to the whole of the definition.  Atheism is a lack of belief in any sort of God and therefore a lack of any sort of religious belief.  Eric, you are religious, and A Troubled Man, and myself, are not.  You claim to be a man of great knowledge but the more I read your words the more I disagree.

                1. Ericdierker profile image80
                  Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Is it possible that your definition of Religion is not the only one? Just saying that under Religion in Wiki your definition does not fly. I am not saying Webster is right or others are wrong. I am only pointing out there are rational differences here. Claiming only yours is right --- sure does look, smell and act like religious zealousness to me. But I am sure that is just because I lean toward the notion ascribed to by wiki.
                  But I am not set on that. I thought Marriage was between a man and woman until I re-read the new Websters.

                  1. artblack01 profile image80
                    artblack01posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    So having a difference of opinion and being in a group of like minded people who say the same thing is a religion?  Even if it has  nothing to do with God?  Like maybe, being repunlican is a religion, or being in a club is a religion.  You can use these loose terms to describe whatever you like.

                    As far as marriage and marriage equality are concerned, I don't care that much about what people consider a marriage because to me, it's a religious practice.  If it's done out of a religion then they can unite anyone they want and call it anything they want.  I don't care.  It's a non-issue. But as far as using words to correctly identify a group of people that's a totally different story, saying that someone is in a religion when they are not is completely idiotic...  you can do it if you like but it makes my opinion of you much less than it already is, destroys your credibility especially when you claim to be an "educated" person, and makes most of us look at you and people like you as....  jokes.

                  2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    So, in other words, you want to redefine words because you believe defined words are like religious zealotry. And, of course, the words you want to redefine align with your beliefs. That's dishonest, dude.

  7. Ericdierker profile image80
    Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago

    jainismus, I think it becomes a point of contention that atheists who give it much thought do not want to be called followers of a religion. Definitions of religion are split on whether or not a deity must be involved. If we view religion as simply an assortment of dogmas and rules and procedure and hierarchy then we could say that certain atheists are becoming or are religious. If we say that a deity must be involved then far fewer atheists are becoming religious. Heavy thinking atheists are definitely not in any sense religious. Although the same can be said for believers.
    Another very important point is that the nature of an atheist generally, and again I speak not of the masses who give it little thought, precludes following a dogma or a charismatic approach to leading ones' life. While they may follow their process of determining a truth like a liturgy they are quicker to discard that than accept it -- leading to a improbable mass following of any thought. As we are fond to say "getting atheists to agree is like herding kittens". They just refuse to eat the pablum.

    So it would seem that in the depths of thinking believers they do not fit within religion. They simply believe and the dogmas and church buildings are no more than what clothes they wear. And are not necessarily religious.
    And so it would seem that in the depths of thinking atheists they do not fit within a religion. The simply think that proofs and empirical data are always open for review, "what they learned in college" is no more than the clothes they wear. They are not disciples of a school of thought.
    Those that make up their own minds and beliefs and do not follow a school of thought or preached rules and affirmations and confirmations of a structured larger group are not religious.
    Except for a very few atheists do not belong to a group. They belong to themselves. For believers the opposite is true.
    So a real area of inquiry is whether or not atheists are becoming more followers than thinkers. I believe that on this forum we have the thinkers. So we are not going to get a good picture of the masses of atheists. I would venture that a person who does not really think about it much may find himself not believing in "God". Then he latches on to the concept of atheism and again does not think about it much. And then just blindly follows what he is told. And that is quite near what we think of as religion.
    The atheists we meet here will not be anything like that, having come to atheism through a process of thought not the absence thereof.
    My wife is a Christian and not religious as she pays absolutely no attention to any dogma was not converted by man but by an experience. I am a student of various religions and not religious because I came to conscious thought that religion interferes with faith and is man made.
    I feel confident that our friends here are not religious atheists but thinkers who came to know what they know through inquiry not teachings of dogma.

    So the clear answer is yes. The masses on both sides of the believer/atheist spectrum are becoming more religious. But those with introspection and deep thought are becoming less religious.

    1. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It sure is funny to see that the more zealous a believer is the less likely they are to understand the concept of religion.

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      A good answer, although I would disagree on the fundamental concept of what "religious" means.

      I would not put it to the follower of dogma, but rather to the believer in the spiritual, god inhabited supernatural world we cannot see.  Someone who sits in a pew and follows dogma as necessary to maintain their status in the church without truly believing in the words of a god is not religious.  They wish to give the appearance of being religious, but are not but are only fraud.

      This puts your wife, and I assume, into the religious group by definition but not the atheist that follows a non-church "dogma".  I believe that most people would side with me here - that religious people believe in their god and that the pew fillers are not necessarily religious.

      1. Ericdierker profile image80
        Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Being a believer I like these two concepts of religion:
        "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." - James 1:27 and; Our friend Dalai Lama,"Any religion-based answer to the problem of our neglect of inner values can never be universal, and so will be inadequate. What we need today is an approach to ethics which makes no recourse to religion and can be equally acceptable to those with faith and those without: a secular ethics,"

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The first applies what I said - a belief in a god - and the second appears to be a recognition that religion can no longer supply morals and ethics because so few are religious.  Which makes perfect sense to me, although there is a major problem in getting Christians to accept that most universal of all morals; the Golden Rule.

          1. Ericdierker profile image80
            Ericdierkerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            And your final point is why many atheists and many Christians chafe at the bit of being labeled religious.
            (perhaps we need to do like we do with catholic. Catholic small "c" means whole world where as big "C" are those Roman Catholics and Orthodox)
            Perhaps I am religious but do not follow a Religion.
            And I have issues with the Golden Rule with caps. As I feel that empathy must be a part of that equation --- "if you were them". I do not buy my 89 year old mom a baseball glove, even though I would like it.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I don't understand why a refusal to accept the golden rule would make a Christian dislike to be called religious.  You lost me there.

              Nor do I understand your definition of catholic.  Are Pagans, Hindus, witches and all all others catholic, just not Catholic?  Lost me here, too.

              I use caps just to give an indication it isn't something I made up - that it is indeed the most universal moral concept we have, accepted nearly everywhere.  And yes, empathy absolutely is a part of it.  The rule is never black and white, partially because of the empathy required.  (Although if you bought your mom a baseball glove, she might give it back...smile )

      2. artblack01 profile image80
        artblack01posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Just to put this at rest, at least for me because this argument is ridiculously idiotic.
        To the scholar: A religion is any belief involving God, therefore atheism, being the rejection of the claim that there is no God, is not a religion, it has no dogmas, no rules that apply to it, anyone who does not believe in a God or Gods of any kind is an atheist no matter what they believe and any belief or dogma is not a product of atheism but of some other idea based on secularism, which is also not a religion.
        To the layman, the uneducated, and the person who uses words of the English language in their unintended mean, like slang words: Religion is anything involving a group, or a passionately held activity (doing something religiously), or an almost zealotry ideology. 
        This also involves other words in this argument, like theory.
        To the scholar, a theory is a set of facts used to describe a given phenomenon, like the theory of Gravity, Relativity, and Evolution.
        To the Uneducated Layman: a theory is a guess (which is similar to hypothesis is science), so when ideas like the Theory of evolution comes up they assume it's just a guess, and are confused when used with gravity "Gravity is a fact not a theory"....  but oh uneducated ones, look at what Theory means to scholars and scientists.  This is probably the confusion here in this forum. 
        So If we go with layman and the uneducated, atheism is a religion to everyone who is not an atheist, theory is a guess to everyone is an uneducated religious layman, and everything is cool.  Now proceed with this silly argument.

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          lol lol lol lol

          So thinks a believer. Those who are learned think as I do. Compare that to comments by those you consider to be religious. They believe those who are learned (by their standards) think as they do. Those who disagree are ignorant.

          Hear the quacking?

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Actually Emile, that post describes you perfectly, the uneducated laymen. The standards are not set by the individual.

            1. 0
              Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You have missed the point, entirely. But, isn't that your MO?

              What is truth? something factual: the thing that corresponds to fact or reality . Yes?

              So, if truth is that which corresponds to fact or reality; it is , as you say, not set by the individual; but, agreed to by consensus. Now, the metaphysical is not science, however; we can certainly determine truths that are agreed upon by consensus.

              What truths, in a metaphysical sense, are agreed upon by consensus?  You have billions upon billions of believers. They may not agree on much, but we can certainly accept the fact that they agree on the existence of a God. That is their reality. That is truth they have agreed upon by consensus.

              We have, what?, a couple of hundred thousand who agree that there is no God. And they, too, don't agree on much more than that. They, too, have their individual philosophies. Yet, the non existent of a God is their reality. That is the truth they have agreed upon by consensus.

              Billions upon billions against hundreds of thousands.  Sour grapes appears to have those of you who are in the minority attempting to belittle the majority in an effort to create an illusion of truth. You attempt to appeal to authority in hopes of convincing the individual that they must bow to the observations of other individuals and agree with your conclusions. Not at all unlike the televangelists and theistic hubbers who insist their conclusions are also worthy of being accepted as universal truth.

              Unfortunately, the metaphysical is about individual perception not group perception. Since billions and billions of individuals alive today have had experiences which have led them to declare the existence of something outside of the realm of our physical senses and they are unified in the proclamation that there is a God; and hundreds of thousands (at the most) have come to a different conclusion; what is truth?

              1. artblack01 profile image80
                artblack01posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                So if everyone agreed that unicorns, UFOs and the Loc Nes Monster are all true then they are????  You are a nut job and I think everyone here agrees.

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Really.


                  HEY ALL HUBBERS!!!!! I need a show of hands as to who thinks I'm a nut job.. Thanks. smile

                  Edit. But not you ATM.

                  1. 0
                    Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I plead the fifth.. Besides, I can't see around the nutjob plank in my eye to try to remove the speak in yours...LOL.. J/k

                2. 0
                  Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  That's your religion's version of "you're going to hell". I love and detest all of you religionists simultaneously. smile

              2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                No Emile, I don't miss much, despite you having to say so continuously. It usually boils down to you being misinformed about many things.



                That is called a fallacy, Emile. Appeal to popularity, appeal to belief.

                Not only that, but with science, there are not many thousands of different factions disagreeing with one another on the facts and evidence, Emile. This is where your analogy fails miserably.



                No, it isn't a consensus based on agreement with each other, it is an understanding of the lack of evidence, just like any other lack of evidence for something claimed to exist, Emile.



                Again, that is a fallacy.



                That is entirely false, each individual is free to understand the world around them, no one is trying to convince them of anything. I have no conclusions, I have only what reality shows me, which is what everyone has, despite the believers tendency to ignore or deny it.



                Sorry, but that is entirely false, atheists are not trying to convince anyone of the facts and evidence of the world around us, Emile, or insisting anything is a universal truth. You are just making up nonsense based on your misinformed opinions.



                lol The truth is not based on your misinformed opinions and use of fallacies.

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You really are obtuse at times. We aren't comparing science to religion. What we are doing is comparing your belief structure to that of others. Unless, you are implying that you are science, at which point I think we have more problems here than simply a failure to agree.



                  I'm not sure if this is an example of your tendency to be obtuse, or simply you ignoring the obvious.  I have already explained this once but, here goes..... You may lack evidence. Apparently billions and billions of people don't. What does this say? That you, and only you are right? Can you say ego?



                  So, if you trivialize their understanding of reality that is OK, but they are not free to ignore yours. HMMMM.



                  lol lol Well, if you aren't attempting to convince anyone of anything you certainly are spending a lot of time and exerting a great deal of effort into not doing it.



                  I'm afraid your reading comprehension problems are assisting in the problems here.



                  Pot-kettle ATM

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    And, you are misinformed and ignorant. Feel better, now?



                    Yes, I understand you believers base everything on belief systems, that is why you are so misinformed and ignorant of the world around you.



                    You wouldn't know science if it stepped on you.



                    Your misinformed opinions and ignorance are what is obvious.

                     

                    Can you say fallacy?



                    Sorry, but I have no personal reality, it is shared by us all. Again, that is your misinformed opinions and ignorance showing again.



                    Your lack of comprehension skills are now showing again. Try reading what others write as opposed to what you want to see.

 
working