What religion did you choose to follow?

Accusing someone of doing a cut and paste, as a slam meant to dismiss, denigrate or discredit someone, and that's usually how it's meant, usually infers that the material in question is not their own work. I do my own writing and should I ever quote someone, I credit the source by name and/or with a link and it should be clear that it’s a quote. Quotes are permissible but my comment in question (link given, below) does not quote another author, in this case.

http://www.sodahead.com/livin...

If you mean by “cut and paste” that I repeat myself on occasion, I do at times, especially when it comes to my own writing on my own religious sentiments and views. They are what they are. If you don’t like that, fine, but I don’t think that was your point. I think you knowingly left a false and accusatory inference dangle there in a most inflammatory manner. Yes, I sometimes cut and paste things from my blog, comments and/or profile(s) and then edit them, sometimes heavily, sometimes just a bit, to best fashion a well-tailored answer to a question. That does not warrant a “cut and paste” jab aimed at the entirety of a comment, however and you should not only sufficiently explain yourself but also link to the place where I supposedly cut and paste from now, or you should cease and desist at this point. I think that’s only fair.

If you mean by “cut and paste” that I cut and paste URLs (web addresses), that is common practice. People often don’t type those out for obvious reasons and pasting in a URL certainly does not warrant a “cut and paste” jab aimed at the entirety of a comment that is on topic and provides related links, in good form. As for the URLs, the first two point to my blog pages where I do my own writing and where I **explain things relevant to the question**. The last two URLs also point to other resources **also relevant to the discussion**. My comment did not cut and paste or quote from these other sources.


You might want to clarify yourself when it’s suitable and you’re asked to do so but you have repeatedly refused and instead reasserted an unexplained accusatory dangly (that I supposedly cut and paste) or added another odd unexplained statement ("I'm not sure you really exist").

I don’t believe I cut and paste from one of my previous comments in this case, I really don’t, but even if I did so…what is your point? That you’re annoyed that I dare restate what my religious views, at all or at any length? Does this have anything to do with the fact that you’re a Conservative Christian and I’m a polytheist (with nontheistic leanings)? That's actually a fair question and you kind of asked for it, in this case.

I’d like to state my views and feelings on religion without your off topic, uncalled for and questionable input, thank you very much!

FYI - Atheism is NOT a Religion.

Perhaps it would also help to examine what a religion is. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, in its article on Religion, lists some characteristics of religions. The more markers that are present in a belief system, the more "religious like" it is. Because it allows for broader grey areas in the concept of religion, I prefer this over more simplistic definitions we can find in basic dictionaries. Read the list and see how atheism fares :

Belief in supernatural beings (gods).

A distinction between sacred and profane objects.

Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.

A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods.

Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual, and which are connected in idea with the gods.

Prayer and other forms of communication with gods.

A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it.

A more or less total organization of one's life based on the world view.

A social group bound together by the above.

To try and claim that atheism is a religion requires, it should be pretty obvious from the above, a radical ad hoc redefinition in what it is that "being a religion" is supposed to mean, resulting in a radically equivocal use of the new term-- if atheism is a religion, then just what isn't a religion?