I'm focusing on creationism as practised by abrahamic religions.....my basis are;

-The Public Figures who make a profession of denial of doctrinal inconsistencies..

-The mandatory "statement of faith",an oat to pledge allegiance of being a creationist...

-The money directed at the cause of creationism to promote its ideals to unsuspecting victims... e.g gotquestion and gotanswers website,appear to be a christian website but are actually creationist apologetic sites..

-The mandated belief of ancient stories as fact by the figure heads e.g ken ham pushing his "worldwide flood beliefs"

-The formulation of apologetics to account for inconsistencies I.e change in the speed of light....
If you have any contributions or object to the op,you are free to respond...

The only difference between a "cult" and a "religion", like atheism, is numbers of followers. A cult following is for low numbers, and a religion for larger numbers. Creationism and atheism are religions, not cults.

sinequanon:
The only difference between a "cult" and a "religion", like atheism, is numbers of followers. A cult following is for low numbers, and a religion for larger numbers. Creationism and atheism are religions, not cults.

So not believing in "god/gods" is a religion?.....so by your definition creationists have as many religions for the "god/gods" they don't believe in + the one they do believe in.
This sounds a whole lot like a typical creationist equivocation fallacy.

davien:
So not believing in "god/gods" is a religion?.....so by your definition creationists have as many religions for the "god/gods" they don't believe in + the one they do believe in.
This sounds a whole lot like a typical creationist equivocation fallacy.

Well, I look at your posting style, and almost every sentence you write or idea "you" have is not your own. Your language, mode of expression, examples, mistakes, misinterpretations (and reaction to having them pointed out) etc. are practically identical to the vast majority of atheists. That is what makes it a religion. You are a follower, not a thinker. Ultimately, whatever you are following so assiduously is your god.

Is evolution a cult?
What happens to those who don't subscribe to it? They are ridiculed, denied teaching jobs

-How much money is expended on evolution?
-How evolutionists spin garbage to explain away inconsistencies? Need examples? Distant star-light problem affects both worldviews. Go check how they work around it
- How much or evolution is critiqued? Is it not taken and presented as 'fact' whereas it is not even a theory?

In short, you are talking about evolution,remove the log in your eyes bro

davien:
I'm focusing on creationism as practised by abrahamic religions.....my basis are;

-The Public Figures who make a profession of denial of doctrinal inconsistencies..

-The mandatory "statement of faith",an oat to pledge allegiance of being a creationist...

-The money directed at the cause of creationism to promote its ideals to unsuspecting victims... e.g gotquestion and gotanswers website,appear to be a christian website but are actually creationist apologetic sites..

-The mandated belief of ancient stories as fact by the figure heads e.g ken ham pushing his "worldwide flood beliefs"

-The formulation of apologetics to account for inconsistencies I.e change in the speed of light....
If you have any contributions or object to the op,you are free to respond...

sinequanon:


Well, I look at your posting style, and almost every sentence you write or idea "you" have is not your own. Your language, mode of expression, examples, mistakes, misinterpretations (and reaction to having them pointed out) etc. are practically identical to the vast majority of atheists. That is what makes it a religion. You are a follower, not a thinker. Ultimately, whatever you are following so assiduously is your god.

And again by your logic since we follow alphabets(a-z) in english language,we are actually following the "god" of english language,lol
You can equivocate the terms "god,religion,atheism,creationism" all you want, it's not going to magically make anything you assert as true...

davien:
And again by your logic since we follow alphabets(a-z) in english language,we are actually following the "god" of english language,lol
You can equivocate the terms "god,religion,atheism,creationism" all you want, it's not going to magically make anything you assert as true...

No, that is not my logic. I don't attach any "truth value" to the alphabet. You could give me the French alphabet, or any writing system, and I could use that. I am not claiming that the English alphabet is "The Truth" or "the right one". I am using the alphabet as a tool, not following it as some sort of truth.

vooks:
Is evolution a cult?

I think something has to be a belief before it becomes a cult/religion

What happens to those who don't subscribe to it? They are ridiculed, denied teaching jobs

Actually a great deal of "non-subscribers"(using your term) are teaching....in fact the texas board for education was at a time headed by a creationist(not sure who is currently)

-How much money is expended on evolution?

It depends on what you mean....it is funded scientific and academically(that I can tell you)

-How evolutionists spin garbage to explain away inconsistencies? Need examples? Distant star-light problem affects both worldviews. Go check how they work around it

well it's a bit immature to call people "evolutionists" don't you think,I do wonder why you term yourselves "creationists" though..

- How much or evolution is critiqued? Is it not taken and presented as 'fact' whereas it is not even a theory?

No theory is taken as facts because knowledge is never 100% complete...theories rather encompasses facts to form predictive statements about reality and perhaps past occurrences..

In short, you are talking about evolution,remove the log in your eyes bro

Yes I am talking about evolution,not proselytizing it, thank you for the clarification

sinequanon:


No, that is not my logic. I don't attach any "truth value" to the alphabet. You could give me the French alphabet, or any writing system, and I could use that. I am not claiming that the English alphabet is "The Truth" or "the right one". I am using the alphabet as a tool, not following it as some sort of truth.

So do atheists attach "truth value" to atheism?

davien:
So do atheists attach "truth value" to atheism?

Yes.

Just go through the posts on this forum. All the swearing and ranting by atheists is over what they believe to be true or untrue. Most of them do not adopt a position of indifference.

sinequanon:


Yes.

Just go through the posts on this forum. All the swearing and ranting by atheists is over what they believe to be true or untrue. Most of them do not adopt a position of indifference.

I understand that a majority of atheists here are "strong atheists",a truth value cannot be assigned to an agnostic(or lack of knowledge) position....if you still insist that a truth value can be assigned to a "lack of knowledge",then I urge you to fish one outside of theism/atheism e.g bigfoot or ojuju

davien:
I understand that a majority of atheists here are "strong atheists",a truth value cannot be assigned to an agnostic(or lack of knowledge) position....

You can be an atheist, or have an atheistic outlook, without being religious. You can be an atheist without following athe[b]ism[/b], or anything else. I have suggested that there are atheists who are indifferent, (or even 'strong atheists' who can account for themselves maturely and articulately in their own words), but these are few and far between.

All I am saying is that their is a religion of athe[b]ism[/b]. And most atheists follow that religion.

davien:
if you still insist that a truth value can be assigned to a "lack of knowledge",then I urge you to fish one outside of theism/atheism e.g bigfoot or ojuju

I cannot decipher your point, if any, here.

sinequanon:


You can be an atheist, or have an atheistic outlook, without being religious. You can be an atheist without following athe[b]ism[/b], or anything else. I have suggested that there are atheists who are indifferent, (or even 'strong atheists' who can account for themselves maturely and articulately in their own words), but these are few and far between.

There is no such thing as an "atheist outlook",the minimum requirement to be an atheist is to not be convinced of the "god/gods" claims people make.

All I am saying is that their is a religion of athe[b]ism[/b]. And most atheists follow that religion.

There's not a "religion of atheism",you are merely equivocating terms...
much like saying since 2 is a number,and 6 is also a number...therefore 2=6.

I cannot decipher your point, if any, here.

Can a position that is about the lack of knowledge of a substance,make a truth value stance about said substance?

davien:
There is no such thing as an "atheist outlook"...

There is no point us discussing something you don't see.

sinequanon:


There is no point us discussing something you don't see.

One of us is an atheist and the other a creationist who has to rationalize and filter reality to match mythology...so now tell me where you got the idea of an "atheist outlook" from,I am very interested to know...

davien:
One of us is an atheist and the other a creationist who has to rationalize and filter reality to match mythology...so now tell me where you got the idea of an "atheist outlook" from,I am very interested to know...

Which mythology are you trying match? That in itself influences your outlook.

sinequanon:


Which mythology are you trying match? That in itself influences your outlook.

This is really pathetic....is this how you creationists get when you're cornered?

davien:
This is really pathetic....is this how you creationists get when you're cornered?

I think that is a question you should ask yourself.

The reason you cannot lay out your points specifically and directly is indeed pathetic. The reason you do it is because you lack confidence in your own opinions, and know that you cannot express them convincingly.

sinequanon:


I think that is a question you should ask yourself.

The reason you cannot lay out your points specifically and directly is indeed pathetic. The reason you do it is because you lack confidence in your own opinions, and know that you cannot express them convincingly.

You don't seem to understand anything here.. you awoke a dead topic just because you where ticked it addressed creationism differently..and now you're accusing me of not expressing my points convincingly,if that were true then you wouldn't need to comment in the first place now would you?

davien:
You don't seem to understand anything here.. you awoke a dead topic just because you where ticked it addressed creationism differently..and now you're accusing me of not expressing my points convincingly,if that were true then you wouldn't need to comment in the first place now would you?

Dude, the discussion ended when you said there is no such thing as an "atheist outlook".

This is an irreconcilable difference of opinion.

I enjoyed your childish and amateurish use of psychology to try to extend the discussion, but all good things have to come to an end.

sinequanon:


Dude, the discussion ended when you said there is no such thing as an "atheist outlook".

This is an irreconcilable difference of opinion.

I enjoyed your childish and amateurish use of psychology to try to extend the discussion, but all good things have to come to an end.

I made a correction that the minimum requirement required to be an atheist is to not be convinced "god/gods" exist....and thank you for the ad hominems,that only shows your inability to continue in a coherent discussion like this....