NationStates Jolt Archive

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary,

pg. 969
religion: #4 A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

pg. 408
(1) faith: 2 b (1) firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) complete confidence 3 something that is believed esp with strong conviction; esp: a system of religious beliefs
(2) faith: BELIEVE, TRUST

pg. 70
atheism: 1 b the doctrine that there is no diety

pg. 333
doctrine: 2 b principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief


Thus:
Atheism is doctrine, or set of principles, and since there is no concrete proof, you must have faith in it.
Thus:
Atheism is principles that are held with faith.

I'm seeing a pattern here, but maybe that's just me...


Why can't I ever get the stupid polls to work???

What is your point for posting this? Do you know atheists? Have you talked to them about atheism? If so, you wouldn't be posting this

yeah you should attend one of our services some time. its way more fun than the southern baptists have.

Well, to prove the absence of something, you don't really have to have proof for it.

Example: I can say that there is no Aztec god Tangulitcathúc because there is no proof of it's existance. That is not a religion. The proof is in the absence of proof against it.

What? How could holding rattlesnakes (was going to say snake handling, but I saw ways that could be manipulated) be less fun than atheists?

What is your point for posting this? Do you know atheists? Have you talked to them about atheism? If so, you wouldn't be posting this

I'd really like people to explain things like this. Why do you say this? Or are you just going to be gnomic like that?

yeah you should attend one of our services some time. its way more fun than the southern baptists have.

eh, that I would believe. Though, a SB preacher can really get you fired up, if he's good. (I 'spose that goes for any preacher/preist/etc., eh?)
And the music is catchy too :wink: .

What? How could holding rattlesnakes (was going to say snake handling, but I saw ways that could be manipulated) be less fun than atheists?

whoa SB's are snake handlers?
i take it back.

Well, to prove the absence of something, you don't really have to have proof for it.

Example: I can say that there is no Aztec god Tangulitcathúc because there is no proof of it's existance. That is not a religion. The proof is in the absence of proof against it.

Ah, but you can't prove he doesn't. I could just as easily say that he does exist, because there's no proof that he doesn't.


What? How could holding rattlesnakes (was going to say snake handling, but I saw ways that could be manipulated) be less fun than atheists?

wow, you dodged the bullet on that one. :wink:
And I'd imagin it would be more fun. Come to think of it, I can't really think of anything less fun, except for maybe mormons, and possibly muslisms :wink: .

What is your point for posting this? Do you know atheists? Have you talked to them about atheism? If so, you wouldn't be posting this

I'd really like people to explain things like this. Why do you say this? Or are you just going to be gnomic like that?

no, really. what is your point?

explain things like what? you didn't ask a question in your thread, or say that you wanted anything explained at all. If you want answers, it's usually a good idea to ask a question first. :roll:

What? How could holding rattlesnakes (was going to say snake handling, but I saw ways that could be manipulated) be less fun than atheists?

whoa SB's are snake handlers?
i take it back.

We are? I guess I should start going to Sunday School and Wednesday nights...

Hmm...maybe Steve Irwin is SB? Who knows...

Don't know about Mormons, but I suppose 'America is evil! America is evil! Jihad against the infidels! Death to the infidels! Allah ackbar!' could be more fun

What is your point for posting this? Do you know atheists? Have you talked to them about atheism? If so, you wouldn't be posting this

I'd really like people to explain things like this. Why do you say this? Or are you just going to be gnomic like that?

yeah you should attend one of our services some time. its way more fun than the southern baptists have.

eh, that I would believe. Though, a SB preacher can really get you fired up, if he's good. (I 'spose that goes for any preacher/preist/etc., eh?)
And the music is catchy too :wink: .

An explanation? Well, first off religions are organized. Atheism isn't organized. They don't hold any sort of services beyond the occasional support group for those who are bashed with crap like you have posted here.

Atheism is not a belief in the lack of a deity. It is a lack of belief in any deity. Many atheists can strongly support why they do not believe in any deity through life experiences, contradictions in different religious texts, or other such means.

Finally, since atheism is a lack of belief, their "proof" comes in the form that there is no proof a deity exists. If you could prove that a deity exists, and atheists continued to be atheistic, then it would be a religion because they would have to have faith that no deity exists when evidence exists to the contrary.

Now it is your turn to answer my question. Have you ever seriously talked with atheists about atheism?

What? How could holding rattlesnakes (was going to say snake handling, but I saw ways that could be manipulated) be less fun than atheists?

whoa SB's are snake handlers?
i take it back.

We are? I guess I should start going to Sunday School and Wednesday nights...

Hmm...maybe Steve Irwin is SB? Who knows...

CRIKEY

i didnt think you were, sb is too mainstream for that stuff.

What is your point for posting this? Do you know atheists? Have you talked to them about atheism? If so, you wouldn't be posting this

I'd really like people to explain things like this. Why do you say this? Or are you just going to be gnomic like that?

no, really. what is your point?

explain things like what? you didn't ask a question in your thread, or say that you wanted anything explained at all. If you want answers, it's usually a good idea to ask a question first. :roll:

Point. But I expected arguements when I posted this. Key word there, arguements, not random posts that make no sense...

And does that mean he has to lower himself to my level? If I'm so stupid, then enlighten me, please...

What is your point for posting this? Do you know atheists? Have you talked to them about atheism? If so, you wouldn't be posting this

I'd really like people to explain things like this. Why do you say this? Or are you just going to be gnomic like that?

yeah you should attend one of our services some time. its way more fun than the southern baptists have.

eh, that I would believe. Though, a SB preacher can really get you fired up, if he's good. (I 'spose that goes for any preacher/preist/etc., eh?)
And the music is catchy too :wink: .

An explanation? Well, first off religions are organized. Atheism isn't organized. They don't hold any sort of services beyond the occasional support group for those who are bashed with crap like you have posted here.

Atheism is not a belief in the lack of a deity. It is a lack of belief in any deity. Many atheists can strongly support why they do not believe in any deity through life experiences, contradictions in different religious texts, or other such means.

Finally, since atheism is a lack of belief, their "proof" comes in the form that there is no proof a deity exists. If you could prove that a deity exists, and atheists continued to be atheistic, then it would be a religion because they would have to have faith that no deity exists when evidence exists to the contrary.

Now it is your turn to answer my question. Have you ever seriously talked with atheists about atheism?

Mere lack of a belief would be agnosticism. Atheism is defined as a doctrine.

What is your point for posting this? Do you know atheists? Have you talked to them about atheism? If so, you wouldn't be posting this

I'd really like people to explain things like this. Why do you say this? Or are you just going to be gnomic like that?

no, really. what is your point?

explain things like what? you didn't ask a question in your thread, or say that you wanted anything explained at all. If you want answers, it's usually a good idea to ask a question first. :roll:

Point. But I expected arguements when I posted this. Key word there, arguements, not random posts that make no sense...

And does that mean he has to lower himself to my level? If I'm so stupid, then enlighten me, please...

Boom, already did. Look up

Atheists ignore the fact of God, therefore, they acknowledge His presence by ignorning him.

OK
to be a religion doesnt there have to be some kind of formal organization? meetings? dues?
some unifying belief in some supernatural force of some kind?
a bunch of people who all dont beleive the same thing isnt much of a religion

What is your point for posting this? Do you know atheists? Have you talked to them about atheism? If so, you wouldn't be posting this

I'd really like people to explain things like this. Why do you say this? Or are you just going to be gnomic like that?

yeah you should attend one of our services some time. its way more fun than the southern baptists have.

eh, that I would believe. Though, a SB preacher can really get you fired up, if he's good. (I 'spose that goes for any preacher/preist/etc., eh?)
And the music is catchy too :wink: .

An explanation? Well, first off religions are organized. Atheism isn't organized. They don't hold any sort of services beyond the occasional support group for those who are bashed with crap like you have posted here.

Atheism is not a belief in the lack of a deity. It is a lack of belief in any deity. Many atheists can strongly support why they do not believe in any deity through life experiences, contradictions in different religious texts, or other such means.

Finally, since atheism is a lack of belief, their "proof" comes in the form that there is no proof a deity exists. If you could prove that a deity exists, and atheists continued to be atheistic, then it would be a religion because they would have to have faith that no deity exists when evidence exists to the contrary.

Now it is your turn to answer my question. Have you ever seriously talked with atheists about atheism?

Mere lack of a belief would be agnosticism. Atheism is defined as a doctrine.

Agnosticism is not a religion either. Agnostics believe that you cannot know if there is or is not a diety. Atheists lack any faith in a diety all together. Note the difference.

Atheists ignore the fact of God, therefore, they acknowledge His presence by ignorning him.

If God was a fact it wouldn't be a religion.

Atheists ignore the fact of God, therefore, they acknowledge His presence by ignorning him.

i dont understand what you mean by that

seems like another reason why the ACLU is a waste of just about everything. I don't see how leaving the ten commandments in buildings is anything but agnoledging the history of America.

What is your point for posting this? Do you know atheists? Have you talked to them about atheism? If so, you wouldn't be posting this

I'd really like people to explain things like this. Why do you say this? Or are you just going to be gnomic like that?

yeah you should attend one of our services some time. its way more fun than the southern baptists have.

eh, that I would believe. Though, a SB preacher can really get you fired up, if he's good. (I 'spose that goes for any preacher/preist/etc., eh?)
And the music is catchy too :wink: .

An explanation? Well, first off religions are organized. Atheism isn't organized. They don't hold any sort of services beyond the occasional support group for those who are bashed with crap like you have posted here.

Atheism is not a belief in the lack of a deity. It is a lack of belief in any deity. Many atheists can strongly support why they do not believe in any deity through life experiences, contradictions in different religious texts, or other such means.

Finally, since atheism is a lack of belief, their "proof" comes in the form that there is no proof a deity exists. If you could prove that a deity exists, and atheists continued to be atheistic, then it would be a religion because they would have to have faith that no deity exists when evidence exists to the contrary.

Now it is your turn to answer my question. Have you ever seriously talked with atheists about atheism?

Mere lack of a belief would be agnosticism. Atheism is defined as a doctrine.

Agnosticism is not a religion either. Agnostics believe that you cannot know if there is or is not a diety. Atheists lack any faith in a diety all together. Note the difference.

I know agnosticism is not a religion, that was my point. (Nitpick: agnostics also may just be doubtful about the existence of a deity.) Atheists lack faith in a deity, but believe (have faith) that there is none. That is the difference between atheists and agnostics.

Atheists ignore the fact of God, therefore, they acknowledge His presence by ignorning him.

That means absolutely nothing.

where do atheists go to church?

I know agnosticism is not a religion, that was my point. (Nitpick: agnostics also may just be doubtful about the existence of a deity.) Atheists lack faith in a deity, but believe (have faith) that there is none. That is the difference between atheists and agnostics.

The difference between agnostics and atheists is that agnostics say maybe and atheists say no.

What is your point for posting this? Do you know atheists? Have you talked to them about atheism? If so, you wouldn't be posting this

I'd really like people to explain things like this. Why do you say this? Or are you just going to be gnomic like that?

yeah you should attend one of our services some time. its way more fun than the southern baptists have.

eh, that I would believe. Though, a SB preacher can really get you fired up, if he's good. (I 'spose that goes for any preacher/preist/etc., eh?)
And the music is catchy too :wink: .

An explanation? Well, first off religions are organized. Atheism isn't organized. They don't hold any sort of services beyond the occasional support group for those who are bashed with crap like you have posted here.

Atheism is not a belief in the lack of a deity. It is a lack of belief in any deity. Many atheists can strongly support why they do not believe in any deity through life experiences, contradictions in different religious texts, or other such means.

Finally, since atheism is a lack of belief, their "proof" comes in the form that there is no proof a deity exists. If you could prove that a deity exists, and atheists continued to be atheistic, then it would be a religion because they would have to have faith that no deity exists when evidence exists to the contrary.

Now it is your turn to answer my question. Have you ever seriously talked with atheists about atheism?

That is a good point. And i've talked with them more or less. Nothing serious, but there's gotta be a first time eh?
But atheism is organized. Most pro-abortion, gay rights, stuff like that, is all coming from atheistic views. And science class might as well be a sermon.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Meaning for or against. So according to the constitution, I should at least hear one word about Creation Theory along with the big bang. Yes yes, big bang is more scientific that Creation, but as i've explained elsewhere, there's no more proof for it that for Creation. So everytime they don't talk about it, they're preaching atheism.

For the record: "Separation of church and state" is nowhere in the constitution. Don't believe me? The Constitution (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti[url)

I know agnosticism is not a religion, that was my point. (Nitpick: agnostics also may just be doubtful about the existence of a deity.) Atheists lack faith in a deity, but believe (have faith) that there is none. That is the difference between atheists and agnostics.

The difference between agnostics and atheists is that agnostics say maybe and atheists say no.

That's exactly what I said. And since there is no proof that there is no god, atheism is a faith, which would make it a religion by the definitions of the original poster.

Unfortunately, those definitions are wrong. Atheism is not a religion.

Edit: Nevermind. The definitions are fine, but atheism does not qualify as a religion according to them.

OOHHHH so you want to define atheism as a religion so you can gut the science departments of public schools and put your religious interpretations in instead

well there, im SURE that the supreme court is gonna want to hear this. maybe you should email them

I know agnosticism is not a religion, that was my point. (Nitpick: agnostics also may just be doubtful about the existence of a deity.) Atheists lack faith in a deity, but believe (have faith) that there is none. That is the difference between atheists and agnostics.

The difference between agnostics and atheists is that agnostics say maybe and atheists say no.

Which is why atheism is a religion. They say no, when there is no proof, which makes it something held with faith, etc. etc.

You just said:
Atheism is not a belief in the lack of a deity. It is a lack of belief in any deity. Many atheists can strongly support why they do not believe in any deity through life experiences, contradictions in different religious texts, or other such means.

Now you're saying that they DO believe in the lack of a diety...

Hmm....coughhypocricycough :roll:

Don't know about Mormons, but I suppose 'America is evil! America is evil! Jihad against the infidels! Death to the infidels! Allah ackbar!' could be more fun That's a completely unfair a prejudiced view of a religion which you obviously know nothing about. I am not a Muslim, nor do I claim to know a lot about the religion, but I know people who are Muslim, and they are nothing like that. next time, think before you place a completely unfair and generalized to the point of racism view on a religion, please.

Atheists ignore the fact of God, therefore, they acknowledge His presence by ignorning him.The fact? Do you want to prove God to agnostic people like me. As far as I'm concerned, you can't. You can't prove that he exists, and you can't prove that he doesn't.

What is your point for posting this? Do you know atheists? Have you talked to them about atheism? If so, you wouldn't be posting this

I'd really like people to explain things like this. Why do you say this? Or are you just going to be gnomic like that?

yeah you should attend one of our services some time. its way more fun than the southern baptists have.

eh, that I would believe. Though, a SB preacher can really get you fired up, if he's good. (I 'spose that goes for any preacher/preist/etc., eh?)
And the music is catchy too :wink: .

An explanation? Well, first off religions are organized. Atheism isn't organized. They don't hold any sort of services beyond the occasional support group for those who are bashed with crap like you have posted here.

Atheism is not a belief in the lack of a deity. It is a lack of belief in any deity. Many atheists can strongly support why they do not believe in any deity through life experiences, contradictions in different religious texts, or other such means.

Finally, since atheism is a lack of belief, their "proof" comes in the form that there is no proof a deity exists. If you could prove that a deity exists, and atheists continued to be atheistic, then it would be a religion because they would have to have faith that no deity exists when evidence exists to the contrary.

Now it is your turn to answer my question. Have you ever seriously talked with atheists about atheism?

That is a good point. And i've talked with them more or less. Nothing serious, but there's gotta be a first time eh?
But atheism is organized. Most pro-abortion, gay rights, stuff like that, is all coming from atheistic views. And science class might as well be a sermon.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Meaning for or against. So according to the constitution, I should at least hear one word about Creation Theory along with the big bang. Yes yes, big bang is more scientific that Creation, but as i've explained elsewhere, there's no more proof for it that for Creation. So everytime they don't talk about it, they're preaching atheism.

For the record: "Separation of church and state" is nowhere in the constitution. Don't believe me? The Constitution (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti[url)Separation is implied in the Establishment Clause and the first amendment which gurantees freedom of/from religion.

I know agnosticism is not a religion, that was my point. (Nitpick: agnostics also may just be doubtful about the existence of a deity.) Atheists lack faith in a deity, but believe (have faith) that there is none. That is the difference between atheists and agnostics.

The difference between agnostics and atheists is that agnostics say maybe and atheists say no.

That's exactly what I said. And since there is no proof that there is no god, atheism is a faith, which would make it a religion by the definitions of the original poster.

Unfortunately, those definitions are wrong. Atheism is not a religion.

Edit: Nevermind. The definitions are fine, but atheism does not qualify as a religion according to them.

'bout ta say, that's webster you're arguing with...


OOHHHH so you want to define atheism as a religion so you can gut the science departments of public schools and put your religious interpretations in instead

well there, im SURE that the supreme court is gonna want to hear this. maybe you should email them

No, not really, no. That's a plus though. And wouldn't you do the same damn thing if they were teaching nothing but Christianity? Hmm, wait, someone already did.

It's fine that they teach Big Bang, they should just at least mention the other stuff...like i said, there's no more proof for BB than for Creation, and according to scientific theory crap, that makes Creation just as viable a theory. More so, since scientific theory also dictates that the simpler answer is usually correct.

There is no proof that I am not a sentient cheese soufflé. Therefore if you believe that I am not a cheese soufflé, you have just as much faith as someone who believes I am a cheese soufflé.

Atheism is not a religion. It is not a faith. It is the lack of either.

That is a good point. And i've talked with them more or less. Nothing serious, but there's gotta be a first time eh?
But atheism is organized. Most pro-abortion, gay rights, stuff like that, is all coming from atheistic views. And science class might as well be a sermon.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Meaning for or against. So according to the constitution, I should at least hear one word about Creation Theory along with the big bang. Yes yes, big bang is more scientific that Creation, but as i've explained elsewhere, there's no more proof for it that for Creation. So everytime they don't talk about it, they're preaching atheism.

For the record: "Separation of church and state" is nowhere in the constitution. Don't believe me? The Constitution (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti[url)

First off, most pro-choice and gay rights groups have nothing to do with atheism directly. So what if a large amount of their supporters are atheists (or agnostics for that matter)? They are not groups of atheists getting together to support and talk about atheist issues. Those groups are people getting together to support and talk about the issues of gay rights and/or pro-choice issues. There are many pro-choice and pro gay rights Christians too. Gay rights and abortion have nothing to do with atheism being or not being a religion.

Second, science is not a religion. It is a field of study. When you are sitting in a science class you are having science lectured at you. If you don't like science, then find somewhere rural, swear off electricity, medicine, and all the other modern wonders of the world and live off the land. Science has brought us these things, not atheism. Heck, Christian monks did the beginnings of many scientific studies. Ever heard of Gregor Mendel?




Finally, since you brought up Seperation of Church and State, here's my rant on that. I borrowed for Stephistan in it.

Myth:

The First Amendment only prohibits an "establishment" a national church.



Response:

It is true that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention wanted to prevent anyone from setting up a national church. Although established churches and intolerance towards minority religious beliefs had been common in the colonies, that time had nearly come to an end. Most people at the time were Protestants (out of a population of around 4 million, about 25 thousand were Catholic and fewer than 10 thousand were Jewish), but there was a great deal of variety among the Protestants.

When the Constitution went into effect, only four states - Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Maryland - still had established state churches. By this time, there were Anglicans, Baptists, Quakers, Mennonites, Methodists, and many more. If anyone had tried to take any one of these Protestant sects and established them as the official, national form of Christianity, it likely would have led to a civil war.

That was not, however, the only reason for prohibiting a national church. Another important factor was that most delegates genuinely believed that every person needed to have freedom of conscience. In practice, this meant that every person needed to be able to choose their own religious path without interference from the government. The government should not tell people what to believe, how to believe, or how to practice. This philosophical background is why it is a mistake to believe that a "national church" was their only concern.

The above myth normally relies upon one of two misunderstandings. The first is that the First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty is only about preventing the government from setting up some particular church to which all must belong. The second is that the First Amendment does not prohibit the government form "multiple establishments" - showing equal preference for many different religions or denominations.

The first misunderstanding is the easiest to clear up. If it really is true that the First Amendment only prevents the federal government from setting up its own church, then the First Amendment does not guarantee religious liberty. Why? Well, the words "religious liberty" and "religious freedom" certainly do not appear:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

If the "no establishment only" interpretation were accurate, then the federal government could enforce compliance with the rules or dogmas of particular religious beliefs, and so long as it created no national church and allowed people to follow their own, separate, religious rules, this would not be unconstitutional. But does anyone really think that it would be permissible for the government to force all men to wear yarmulkes, or prohibit women from wearing jewelry?

This is the misunderstanding which lies behind the common myth that "freedom of religion" is wholly distinct from "freedom from religion." In reality, however, the former requires the existence of the latter, which means that the government is not simply prevented from creating a single national church. It is, instead, prevented from enforcing anyone's religious rules on everyone else.

Sometimes you will find someone arguing that "establishment" only refers to setting up a national church, and therefore does not mean that the government cannot actively support some church or religion. You won't find this too often, because it would obviously result in religious discrimination. How many really believe that it would be permissible for the government to help fund the Roman Catholic Church or the Jehovah's Witnesses while all other religious groups have to try and survive on their own?

The second misunderstanding has become popular in some conservative circles in recent years and is often known as "accommodationism" or "non-preferentialism." According to this view, it is permissible for the federal government to "accommodate" religion by supporting religion, but only so long as it does so without "preference" - that is to say, so long as all religions which ask for assistance are treated equally.

The premise behind this is that the First Amendment prohibits (so they say) an establishment of religion, but not many establishments of religion (it also helps if one tries to simultaneously argue for the above - that "establishment" only means setting up a church and does not refer to simply supporting a church or multiple churches). Unfortunately, the arguments offered by supporters fail, and on two accounts.

The first is that it fails even based upon their own understanding of the law, known sometimes as "originalism." According to this view, the Constitution means what the authors meant it to mean - nothing more and nothing less. Thus, if "no law respecting an establishment of religion" was intended only to refer to setting up a national church, then that is all it means. Anything else is permitted, even if that would otherwise infringe upon abstract notions of religious liberty.

The problem with this is that there is ample evidence that the authors of the Constitution did not intend merely to prohibit the creation of a single, national church. James Madison, who is responsible for much of the Constitution, wrote his "Memorial and Remonstrance" specifically denouncing multiple establishments in his native Virginia.

Moreover, the House of Representatives and the Senate considered different versions of the First Amendment which would have allowed for non-preferential support of religion. None of them were passed and the record of their discussions shows that they did not support nonpreferentialist support of religion. In addition, the records of the debate on ratification from Virginia also show that those legislators did not support such nonpreferentialism.

I do not, however, agree with the premises behind "originalism" - there seems no good reason to assume that a literal reading of the text and ignoring the principles behind the text is the only or even the most valid means of interpreting it. So, if we look instead to the principle of "religious liberty" and accept that people should be forced neither to adopt the rules nor support the maintenance of any church or religion other than their own, non-preferentialism loses any value it might have claimed for itself.

~Stephistan

There are many Supreme Court cases where the court ruled to separate church and state:

Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)

Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Burstyn v. Wilson, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)

Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

Court holds that the state of Maryland can not require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.

Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)

Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)

Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)

State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state’s attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)

Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment’s separation of church and state: 1) the government action must have a secular purpose; 2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion; 3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)

Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)

State’s moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)

Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.

Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)

Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.

Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave. , Inc. v. Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993)

City’s ban on killing animals for religious sacrifices, while allowing sport killing and hunting, was unconstitutional discrimination against the Santeria religion.

The most important of these can be argued to be Lemon v. Kurtzman because of the three steps it outlined for government violation of separation of church and state.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." - Thomas Jefferson - 1801

I know agnosticism is not a religion, that was my point. (Nitpick: agnostics also may just be doubtful about the existence of a deity.) Atheists lack faith in a deity, but believe (have faith) that there is none. That is the difference between atheists and agnostics.

The difference between agnostics and atheists is that agnostics say maybe and atheists say no.

That's exactly what I said. And since there is no proof that there is no god, atheism is a faith, which would make it a religion by the definitions of the original poster.

Unfortunately, those definitions are wrong. Atheism is not a religion.

Edit: Nevermind. The definitions are fine, but atheism does not qualify as a religion according to them.

'bout ta say, that's webster you're arguing with...


OOHHHH so you want to define atheism as a religion so you can gut the science departments of public schools and put your religious interpretations in instead

well there, im SURE that the supreme court is gonna want to hear this. maybe you should email them

No, not really, no. That's a plus though. And wouldn't you do the same damn thing if they were teaching nothing but Christianity? Hmm, wait, someone already did.

It's fine that they teach Big Bang, they should just at least mention the other stuff...like i said, there's no more proof for BB than for Creation, and according to scientific theory crap, that makes Creation just as viable a theory. More so, since scientific theory also dictates that the simpler answer is usually correct.Big bang is a theory that CAN be proved/disproved (though we do not have the technology to do so), whereas Creation requires faith in a religion and thusly cannot be proved/disproved.

Don't know about Mormons, but I suppose 'America is evil! America is evil! Jihad against the infidels! Death to the infidels! Allah ackbar!' could be more fun That's a completely unfair a prejudiced view of a religion which you obviously know nothing about. I am not a Muslim, nor do I claim to know a lot about the religion, but I know people who are Muslim, and they are nothing like that. next time, think before you place a completely unfair and generalized to the point of racism view on a religion, please.

it was a joke dude...

Separation is implied in the Establishment Clause and the first amendment which gurantees freedom of/from religion.

It most certainly isn't :!: If it were, then that would mean that there is no one for the president to answer to, meaning he could do whatever the hell he wants. It's the same principle as Divine Right of kings, which is why we made america in the first place.

And, as i said, the gov't can't establish a religion, including atheism, which means the state literally cannot separate from religion.
And do you really expect a president to just drop his religious beliefs? "I know I'm going to go to hell and burn for eternity for this, but I can't be a Christian as president..." Uh huh. That'll happen.

What that "implies" is that the gov't can't tell you what to believe, including atheism.

[

Mere lack of a belief would be agnosticism. Atheism is defined as a doctrine.
http://www.kent.gov.uk/sp/kentregserv/graphics/rupert.GIF

Agnostics are people who aren't convinced by either argument for a God or not.
Atheists are people who 'know' no deity exists. It is no form of religion at all because they don't concern themselves with the subject unless they're asked.

I know agnosticism is not a religion, that was my point. (Nitpick: agnostics also may just be doubtful about the existence of a deity.) Atheists lack faith in a deity, but believe (have faith) that there is none. That is the difference between atheists and agnostics.

The difference between agnostics and atheists is that agnostics say maybe and atheists say no.

Which is why atheism is a religion. They say no, when there is no proof, which makes it something held with faith, etc. etc.

You just said:
Atheism is not a belief in the lack of a deity. It is a lack of belief in any deity. Many atheists can strongly support why they do not believe in any deity through life experiences, contradictions in different religious texts, or other such means.

Now you're saying that they DO believe in the lack of a diety...

Hmm....coughhypocricycough :roll:

Swing and a miss. Atheists support why they do not believe in a diety because people harass them about it. This support does not make it a faith. You miss the point again. Atheists do not have to prove that a diety does not exist. I do not believe that fuzzy pink elephants are going to eat me, and I can support this because fuzzy pink elephants do not exist. This does not make me part of a religion.

Separation is implied in the Establishment Clause and the first amendment which gurantees freedom of/from religion.

It most certainly isn't :!: Supreme Court thinks a bit differently, and interprets the Establishment Clause as Separation of State and Church.

And, as i said, the gov't can't establish a religion, including atheism, which means the state literally cannot separate from religion.
And do you really expect a president to just drop his religious beliefs? "I know I'm going to go to hell and burn for eternity for this, but I can't be a Christian as president..." Uh huh. That'll happen.The State is atheist. Atheism is not a religion. It is a lack thereof. Although I guess I should say that the state is agnostic, since it won't go either way.

Big bang is a theory that CAN be proved/disproved (though we do not have the technology to do so), whereas Creation requires faith in a religion and thusly cannot be proved/disproved.

And who says we can't make some radar that detects God?
Ask a ghost-hunter. They swear they can prove the existance of ghosts with technology. Most of them do a pretty good job of it, too.

In fact, I have theory: Viruses are really demons. I don't want to argue about this, it's just a point in case.
In biblical times, they called any sickness a demon, regardless of what caused it. So, maybe they were demons, and we now have the technology to see them. They just take the form of what we call viruses. And it's not like anyone can really explain where viruses come from (i've heard an explaination, and it was ok, but still full of holes).

Anyway, what happens when we do create such a technology?

im not gonna hold my breath

Big bang is a theory that CAN be proved/disproved (though we do not have the technology to do so), whereas Creation requires faith in a religion and thusly cannot be proved/disproved.

And who says we can't make some radar that detects God?
Ask a ghost-hunter. They swear they can prove the existance of ghosts with technology. Most of them do a pretty good job of it, too.

In fact, I have theory: Viruses are really demons. I don't want to argue about this, it's just a point in case.
Anyway, what happens when we do create such a technology?Again, God is a part of faith, not a lack thereof. Also, the Big Bang is by no means atheist. Quite a few Christians accept it over Creationism. And your theory is disprovable. So your point is moot. If we ever have technology to find out if the Big Bang existed or not, well, then either we'll have a proven theory, or we'll have scientists searching for another, plausible, theory.

Big bang is a theory that CAN be proved/disproved (though we do not have the technology to do so), whereas Creation requires faith in a religion and thusly cannot be proved/disproved.

And who says we can't make some radar that detects God?
Ask a ghost-hunter. They swear they can prove the existance of ghosts with technology. Most of them do a pretty good job of it, too.

In fact, I have theory: Viruses are really demons. I don't want to argue about this, it's just a point in case.
In biblical times, they called any sickness a demon, regardless of what caused it. So, maybe they were demons, and we now have the technology to see them. They just take the form of what we call viruses. And it's not like anyone can really explain where viruses come from (i've heard an explaination, and it was ok, but still full of holes).

Anyway, what happens when we do create such a technology?

So you are saying we will be able to quantitatively measure GOD one day? How arrogant are you?

Viruses are viruses. They have no supernatural powers. They follow the same rules as everything else in the universe. People thought diseases caused by viruses were daemons because they did not know any better. They also thought that diseases cause by bacteria were daemons. They also thought that mental problems caused by chemical imbalances in the brain were daeomons. Now we do know better. Or in your case, should know better.

Separation is implied in the Establishment Clause and the first amendment which gurantees freedom of/from religion.

It most certainly isn't :!: Supreme Court thinks a bit differently, and interprets the Establishment Clause as Separation of State and Church.

well, i'm guessing you can figure out how i feel about the people running the supreme court.

And, as i said, the gov't can't establish a religion, including atheism, which means the state literally cannot separate from religion.
And do you really expect a president to just drop his religious beliefs? "I know I'm going to go to hell and burn for eternity for this, but I can't be a Christian as president..." Uh huh. That'll happen.The State is atheist. Atheism is not a religion. It is a lack thereof. Although I guess I should say that the state is agnostic, since it won't go either way.

Well, ya can't really use that as an arguement, since that's what we're arguing about now. That's akin to using the word in the definition of said word.

And obviously the state isn't agnostic, since it's obviously atheist. Even if you don't think atheism is a religion, you have to admit that it's not any other religion, and that prohibits those other religions from being practiced by the people in the state. Those people are citizens too, so they can have whatever religion they want. So even if atheism isn't a religion, the state still can't be atheistic.

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary,

pg. 969
religion: #4 A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

pg. 408
(1) faith: 2 b (1) firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) complete confidence 3 something that is believed esp with strong conviction; esp: a system of religious beliefs
(2) faith: BELIEVE, TRUST

pg. 70
atheism: 1 b the doctrine that there is no diety

pg. 333
doctrine: 2 b principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief


Thus:
Atheism is doctrine, or set of principles, and since there is no concrete proof, you must have faith in it.
Thus:
Atheism is principles that are held with faith.

I'm seeing a pattern here, but maybe that's just me...

You have made a logical leap here by defining atheism as being based on faith and not rationality, thus your argument falls apart in construction.

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3265843#3265843

I'd also like to see this 'proof' of ghosts please.

Big bang is a theory that CAN be proved/disproved (though we do not have the technology to do so), whereas Creation requires faith in a religion and thusly cannot be proved/disproved.

And who says we can't make some radar that detects God?
Ask a ghost-hunter. They swear they can prove the existance of ghosts with technology. Most of them do a pretty good job of it, too.

In fact, I have theory: Viruses are really demons. I don't want to argue about this, it's just a point in case.
Anyway, what happens when we do create such a technology?Again, God is a part of faith, not a lack thereof. Also, the Big Bang is by no means atheist. Quite a few Christians accept it over Creationism. And your theory is disprovable. So your point is moot. If we ever have technology to find out if the Big Bang existed or not, well, then either we'll have a proven theory, or we'll have scientists searching for another, plausible, theory.

Then they are, quite simply, not Christians. They may believe that God made a big bang, but then that's Creation, not Big Bang.

And no, Creation is not disprovable. And if it is, then disprove it.

Separation is implied in the Establishment Clause and the first amendment which gurantees freedom of/from religion.

It most certainly isn't :!: Supreme Court thinks a bit differently, and interprets the Establishment Clause as Separation of State and Church.

well, i'm guessing you can figure out how i feel about the people running the supreme court.

And, as i said, the gov't can't establish a religion, including atheism, which means the state literally cannot separate from religion.
And do you really expect a president to just drop his religious beliefs? "I know I'm going to go to hell and burn for eternity for this, but I can't be a Christian as president..." Uh huh. That'll happen.The State is atheist. Atheism is not a religion. It is a lack thereof. Although I guess I should say that the state is agnostic, since it won't go either way.

Well, ya can't really use that as an arguement, since that's what we're arguing about now. That's akin to using the word in the definition of said word.

And obviously the state isn't agnostic, since it's obviously atheist. Even if you don't think atheism is a religion, you have to admit that it's not any other religion, and that prohibits those other religions from being practiced by the people in the state. Those people are citizens too, so they can have whatever religion they want. So even if atheism isn't a religion, the state still can't be atheistic.

Last I checked the U.S. Constitution does not keep people employed by the State (either U.S. national government or the states within the U.S.) from practicing any religion. *checks* Yep, still doesn't.

Atheists ignore the fact of God, therefore, they acknowledge His presence by ignorning him.

i dont understand what you mean by that

To invalidate something, someone must effectively admit its existense. To simply ignore something is to admit it exists and then do something to stop it from being there; for example, if your sister is crying in her sleep as a baby, and you're trying to sleep, you have to figure out how to make yourself immune to it. Thus, your ignoring validates her existense, as it bothers you and you take steps to correct that.

Atheism is the same way; you have to ignore God to not worship Him.

(Note: I'm not religious anymore myself).

Atheists ignore the fact of God, therefore, they acknowledge His presence by ignorning him.

i dont understand what you mean by that

To invalidate something, someone must effectively admit its existense. To simply ignore something is to admit it exists and then do something to stop it from being there; for example, if your sister is crying in her sleep as a baby, and you're trying to sleep, you have to figure out how to make yourself immune to it. Thus, your ignoring validates her existense, as it bothers you and you take steps to correct that.

Atheism is the same way; you have to ignore God to not worship Him.

(Note: I'm not religious anymore myself).

This would assume God exists to be ignored. If you don't have a little sister who is crying in her sleep, then you can't ignore her.

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary,

pg. 969
religion: #4 A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

pg. 408
(1) faith: 2 b (1) firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) complete confidence 3 something that is believed esp with strong conviction; esp: a system of religious beliefs
(2) faith: BELIEVE, TRUST

pg. 70
atheism: 1 b the doctrine that there is no diety

pg. 333
doctrine: 2 b principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief


Thus:
Atheism is doctrine, or set of principles, and since there is no concrete proof, you must have faith in it.
Thus:
Atheism is principles that are held with faith.

I'm seeing a pattern here, but maybe that's just me...

You have made a logical leap here by defining atheism as being based on faith and not rationality, thus your argument falls apart in construction.

Rational? You think Big Bang is rational? HA! Please, show me this rationality. (And again, explain these things!)

I'd also like to see this 'proof' of ghosts please.
Never said i believed them. But i've seen stuff where they use like, seismic sensors and "spectrograph" sommat-or-others. They're doing a good job of trying, i should say...

Separation is implied in the Establishment Clause and the first amendment which gurantees freedom of/from religion.

It most certainly isn't :!: Supreme Court thinks a bit differently, and interprets the Establishment Clause as Separation of State and Church.

well, i'm guessing you can figure out how i feel about the people running the supreme court.

And, as i said, the gov't can't establish a religion, including atheism, which means the state literally cannot separate from religion.
And do you really expect a president to just drop his religious beliefs? "I know I'm going to go to hell and burn for eternity for this, but I can't be a Christian as president..." Uh huh. That'll happen.The State is atheist. Atheism is not a religion. It is a lack thereof. Although I guess I should say that the state is agnostic, since it won't go either way.

Well, ya can't really use that as an arguement, since that's what we're arguing about now. That's akin to using the word in the definition of said word.

And obviously the state isn't agnostic, since it's obviously atheist. Even if you don't think atheism is a religion, you have to admit that it's not any other religion, and that prohibits those other religions from being practiced by the people in the state. Those people are citizens too, so they can have whatever religion they want. So even if atheism isn't a religion, the state still can't be atheistic.

Last I checked the U.S. Constitution does not keep people employed by the State (either U.S. national government or the states within the U.S.) from practicing any religion. *checks* Yep, still doesn't.

EXACTLY!!! You see my point! That would mean that the state isn't separated from the church, and by it's own rules, can't be!

I know agnosticism is not a religion, that was my point. (Nitpick: agnostics also may just be doubtful about the existence of a deity.) Atheists lack faith in a deity, but believe (have faith) that there is none. That is the difference between atheists and agnostics.

The difference between agnostics and atheists is that agnostics say maybe and atheists say no.

That's exactly what I said. And since there is no proof that there is no god, atheism is a faith, which would make it a religion by the definitions of the original poster.

Unfortunately, those definitions are wrong. Atheism is not a religion.

Edit: Nevermind. The definitions are fine, but atheism does not qualify as a religion according to them.

'bout ta say, that's webster you're arguing with...



Well, your dictionary differs quite radically from my versions of Webster's, but I realized that you have the Collegiate version and I have the Unabridged and Comprehensive versions.

The main issue I have with your proof is the ardor part. It seems implausible to me that one can not-believe in something with ardor.

Atheists ignore the fact of God, therefore, they acknowledge His presence by ignorning him.

i dont understand what you mean by that

To invalidate something, someone must effectively admit its existense. To simply ignore something is to admit it exists and then do something to stop it from being there; for example, if your sister is crying in her sleep as a baby, and you're trying to sleep, you have to figure out how to make yourself immune to it. Thus, your ignoring validates her existense, as it bothers you and you take steps to correct that.

Atheism is the same way; you have to ignore God to not worship Him.

(Note: I'm not religious anymore myself).

This would assume God exists to be ignored. If you don't have a little sister who is crying in her sleep, then you can't ignore her.

EXACTLY!!! Why am I even arguing with you? You argue against yourself for me :wink: .

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary,

pg. 969
religion: #4 A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

pg. 408
(1) faith: 2 b (1) firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) complete confidence 3 something that is believed esp with strong conviction; esp: a system of religious beliefs
(2) faith: BELIEVE, TRUST

pg. 70
atheism: 1 b the doctrine that there is no diety

pg. 333
doctrine: 2 b principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief


Thus:
Atheism is doctrine, or set of principles, and since there is no concrete proof, you must have faith in it.
Thus:
Atheism is principles that are held with faith.

I'm seeing a pattern here, but maybe that's just me...

You have made a logical leap here by defining atheism as being based on faith and not rationality, thus your argument falls apart in construction.

Rational? You think Big Bang is rational? HA! Please, show me this rationality. (And again, explain these things!)

I'd also like to see this 'proof' of ghosts please.
Never said i believed them. But i've seen stuff where they use like, seismic sensors and "spectrograph" sommat-or-others. They're doing a good job of trying, i should say...

We are not responsible for your ignorance. We are not required to teach you the physics behind the big bang. If you want to know about the big band, then for the love of rationality use google instead of running your mouth.

Separation is implied in the Establishment Clause and the first amendment which gurantees freedom of/from religion.

It most certainly isn't :!: Supreme Court thinks a bit differently, and interprets the Establishment Clause as Separation of State and Church.

well, i'm guessing you can figure out how i feel about the people running the supreme court.

And, as i said, the gov't can't establish a religion, including atheism, which means the state literally cannot separate from religion.
And do you really expect a president to just drop his religious beliefs? "I know I'm going to go to hell and burn for eternity for this, but I can't be a Christian as president..." Uh huh. That'll happen.The State is atheist. Atheism is not a religion. It is a lack thereof. Although I guess I should say that the state is agnostic, since it won't go either way.

Well, ya can't really use that as an arguement, since that's what we're arguing about now. That's akin to using the word in the definition of said word.

And obviously the state isn't agnostic, since it's obviously atheist. Even if you don't think atheism is a religion, you have to admit that it's not any other religion, and that prohibits those other religions from being practiced by the people in the state. Those people are citizens too, so they can have whatever religion they want. So even if atheism isn't a religion, the state still can't be atheistic.

Last I checked the U.S. Constitution does not keep people employed by the State (either U.S. national government or the states within the U.S.) from practicing any religion. *checks* Yep, still doesn't.

EXACTLY!!! You see my point! That would mean that the state isn't separated from the church, and by it's own rules, can't be!

State != state employees.

Atheists ignore the fact of God, therefore, they acknowledge His presence by ignorning him.

i dont understand what you mean by that

To invalidate something, someone must effectively admit its existense. To simply ignore something is to admit it exists and then do something to stop it from being there; for example, if your sister is crying in her sleep as a baby, and you're trying to sleep, you have to figure out how to make yourself immune to it. Thus, your ignoring validates her existense, as it bothers you and you take steps to correct that.

Atheism is the same way; you have to ignore God to not worship Him.

(Note: I'm not religious anymore myself).

This would assume God exists to be ignored. If you don't have a little sister who is crying in her sleep, then you can't ignore her.

EXACTLY!!! Why am I even arguing with you? You argue against yourself for me :wink: .

I do not have a little sister. Therefore she cannot cry. Therefore I cannot ignore her crying. This does not mean that I am part of a religion that believes my little sister does not exist. It means I don't have a little sister.

I know agnosticism is not a religion, that was my point. (Nitpick: agnostics also may just be doubtful about the existence of a deity.) Atheists lack faith in a deity, but believe (have faith) that there is none. That is the difference between atheists and agnostics.

The difference between agnostics and atheists is that agnostics say maybe and atheists say no.

That's exactly what I said. And since there is no proof that there is no god, atheism is a faith, which would make it a religion by the definitions of the original poster.

Unfortunately, those definitions are wrong. Atheism is not a religion.

Edit: Nevermind. The definitions are fine, but atheism does not qualify as a religion according to them.

'bout ta say, that's webster you're arguing with...



Well, your dictionary differs quite radically from my versions of Webster's, but I realized that you have the Collegiate version and I have the Unabridged and Comprehensive versions.

The main issue I have with your proof is the ardor part. It seems implausible to me that one can not-believe in something with ardor.

Point. But that's what i'm trying to argue. That they do believe in something. They do believe that God doesn't exist. Not: They don't believe that he does exist.
You see the difference? Subtle, but very real.

State != state employees.

You helping me or trying to hurt me? I haven't a clue :shock: .

Atheists ignore the fact of God, therefore, they acknowledge His presence by ignorning him.

i dont understand what you mean by that

To invalidate something, someone must effectively admit its existense. To simply ignore something is to admit it exists and then do something to stop it from being there; for example, if your sister is crying in her sleep as a baby, and you're trying to sleep, you have to figure out how to make yourself immune to it. Thus, your ignoring validates her existense, as it bothers you and you take steps to correct that.


While your logic concerning validation is partly correct, your assessment of atheism holds no validity at all. Atheists do not "ignore the fact of god", they deny the existence of any god.

Atheists ignore the fact of God, therefore, they acknowledge His presence by ignorning him.

i dont understand what you mean by that

To invalidate something, someone must effectively admit its existense. To simply ignore something is to admit it exists and then do something to stop it from being there; for example, if your sister is crying in her sleep as a baby, and you're trying to sleep, you have to figure out how to make yourself immune to it. Thus, your ignoring validates her existense, as it bothers you and you take steps to correct that.

Atheism is the same way; you have to ignore God to not worship Him.

(Note: I'm not religious anymore myself).

This would assume God exists to be ignored. If you don't have a little sister who is crying in her sleep, then you can't ignore her.

EXACTLY!!! Why am I even arguing with you? You argue against yourself for me :wink: .

... edit.. rewriting ..

Aw, poo! And you had just proved my point yet again.
Atheists ignore God, thus, he has to be real in order for you to ignore him.
If your sister does not exist, then no, you can't ignore her. But, that would make you the equivalent of an agnostic, not an atheist.

Thank you, Teusday Heights. You are indeed wise, and I do most sincerely apologize for our earlier grievance!

State != state employees.

You helping me or trying to hurt me? I haven't a clue :shock: .

If state employees personally are religious, that does not mean that the state is religious, even if it is influenced by the (religious) principles of the employees.

Atheists ignore the fact of God, therefore, they acknowledge His presence by ignorning him.

i dont understand what you mean by that

To invalidate something, someone must effectively admit its existense. To simply ignore something is to admit it exists and then do something to stop it from being there; for example, if your sister is crying in her sleep as a baby, and you're trying to sleep, you have to figure out how to make yourself immune to it. Thus, your ignoring validates her existense, as it bothers you and you take steps to correct that.

Atheism is the same way; you have to ignore God to not worship Him.

(Note: I'm not religious anymore myself).

Anything as long as God exists, eh?

I personally think that God, the Devil, angels, demons, the whole works, all exist.

YES, YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST.

See, I think that all of these concepts, ideas and imaginary creatures are brought to life through the actions of those that believe in them. In other words, it's all in your head, dude. Call it "meme-ism", or "Black And White-ism" or something.

This means that the relatively fluffy god of Katganistan? Yep, he exists, to Katganistan. The pure evil, all-consuming, sadistic god of Raysia? Yep, that one too, at least as far as Raysia and his like-minded peers are concerned. Oh, and whatever mountain and river spirits Salishe believes in? Them too, to Salishe and whoever he worships them with.

However do any of these spirits exist without humans to believe in them?

Nah, I don't think so.

So getting back to your original point - that you think ignoring the idea of God proves its existance - no, no more than ignoring the lunatic who says that lizards rule the earth means that lizards rule the earth.

--
Moonshine
CrystalDragon on Espernet IRC

Last I checked the U.S. Constitution does not keep people employed by the State (either U.S. national government or the states within the U.S.) from practicing any religion. *checks* Yep, still doesn't.

EXACTLY!!! You see my point! That would mean that the state isn't separated from the church, and by it's own rules, can't be!

That would only be true if atheism was a religion. And since it is not, then there is no violation of seperation of church and state.

Atheists ignore the fact of God, therefore, they acknowledge His presence by ignorning him.

i dont understand what you mean by that

To invalidate something, someone must effectively admit its existense. To simply ignore something is to admit it exists and then do something to stop it from being there; for example, if your sister is crying in her sleep as a baby, and you're trying to sleep, you have to figure out how to make yourself immune to it. Thus, your ignoring validates her existense, as it bothers you and you take steps to correct that.

Atheism is the same way; you have to ignore God to not worship Him.

(Note: I'm not religious anymore myself).

This would assume God exists to be ignored. If you don't have a little sister who is crying in her sleep, then you can't ignore her.

EXACTLY!!! Why am I even arguing with you? You argue against yourself for me :wink: .

... edit.. rewriting ..

Aw, poo! And you had just proved my point yet again.
Atheists ignore God, thus, he has to be real in order for you to ignore him.
If your sister does not exist, then no, you can't ignore her. But, that would make you the equivalent of an agnostic, not an atheist.

While your logic concerning validation is partly correct, your assessment of atheism holds no validity at all. Atheists do not "ignore the fact of god", they deny the existence of any god.

Rhyno D: I say you're an atheist too. I just lack belief in one more god than you do.
Once you explain to me why you lack belief in all the other gods (Zeus, Odin, Ra, etc), I can explain why I lack belief in yours.

Aw, poo! And you had just proved my point yet again.
Atheists ignore God, thus, he has to be real in order for you to ignore him.
If your sister does not exist, then no, you can't ignore her. But, that would make you the equivalent of an agnostic, not an atheist.

Thank you, Teusday Heights. You are indeed wise, and I do most sincerely apologize for our earlier grievance!

You are making the assumption that god exists to ignore.

If my little sister does not exist to be ignored, I cant ignore her. Good we agree there. However, if that made me agnostic about the existance of my little sister, then I wouldn't be able to tell you for sure if she existed or not. And since she does not exist, being agnostic about her can be ruled out.

Atheism is a religion
Tell it to the courts, man. If I can get tax-exempt status on an atheist "church" I'm all for it.

Rhyno D: I say you're an atheist too. I just lack belief in one more god than you do.
Once you explain to me why you lack belief in all the other gods (Zeus, Odin, Ra, etc), I can explain why I lack belief in yours.

Clever boy!
But, that means that my atheism is a religion. Guess what! That means their version of atheism is too!!! They just believe in one less god than I do!

Rhyno D: I say you're an atheist too. I just lack belief in one more god than you do.
Once you explain to me why you lack belief in all the other gods (Zeus, Odin, Ra, etc), I can explain why I lack belief in yours.

Clever boy!
But, that means that my atheism is a religion. Guess what! That means their version of atheism is too!!! They just believe in one less god than I do!

So then your "argument" about how atheist teachings (science) is taught in school is moot. Since you've just established that you are an atheist, then you should not have a problem with atheist teachings (science).

Atheists ignore the fact of God, therefore, they acknowledge His presence by ignorning him.

i dont understand what you mean by that

To invalidate something, someone must effectively admit its existense. To simply ignore something is to admit it exists and then do something to stop it from being there; for example, if your sister is crying in her sleep as a baby, and you're trying to sleep, you have to figure out how to make yourself immune to it. Thus, your ignoring validates her existense, as it bothers you and you take steps to correct that.

Atheism is the same way; you have to ignore God to not worship Him.

(Note: I'm not religious anymore myself).

Anything as long as God exists, eh?

I personally think that God, the Devil, angels, demons, the whole works, all exist.

YES, YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST.

See, I think that all of these concepts, ideas and imaginary creatures are brought to life through the actions of those that believe in them. In other words, it's all in your head, dude. Call it "meme-ism", or "Black And White-ism" or something.

This means that the relatively fluffy god of Katganistan? Yep, he exists, to Katganistan. The pure evil, all-consuming, sadistic god of Raysia? Yep, that one too, at least as far as Raysia and his like-minded peers are concerned. Oh, and whatever mountain and river spirits Salishe believes in? Them too, to Salishe and whoever he worships them with.

However do any of these spirits exist without humans to believe in them?

Nah, I don't think so.

So getting back to your original point - that you think ignoring the idea of God proves its existance - no, no more than ignoring the lunatic who says that lizards rule the earth means that lizards rule the earth.

--
Moonshine
CrystalDragon on Espernet IRC


See, combine this with another comment about some atheists believing that the world doesn't exist, and that it's all fantasy, and you get the same result: God exists. (I think that post is in the "religion" thread in NS2).

See, combine this with another comment about some atheists believing that the world doesn't exist, and that it's all fantasy, and you get the same result: God exists. (I think that post is in the "religion" thread in NS2).

Now you are very confused. Atheists do not think that the world does not exist. An atheists thinks that the world and this life are all we have. That is a major point of atheism

Rhyno D: I say you're an atheist too. I just lack belief in one more god than you do.
Once you explain to me why you lack belief in all the other gods (Zeus, Odin, Ra, etc), I can explain why I lack belief in yours.

Clever boy!
But, that means that my atheism is a religion. Guess what! That means their version of atheism is too!!! They just believe in one less god than I do!

So then your "argument" about how atheist teachings (science) is taught in school is moot. Since you've just established that you are an atheist, then you should not have a problem with atheist teachings (science).

But i'm not the same kind of atheist. Just like Catholics aren't Protestants, and wouldn't like Protestant teachings in their masses.

And according to you, you shouldn't care if we do teach my version of atheism, since we're all atheists together. That would imply that it isn't a religion either (according to you), so you can't ban it from school.

Gotya :wink:

Rhyno D: I say you're an atheist too. I just lack belief in one more god than you do.
Once you explain to me why you lack belief in all the other gods (Zeus, Odin, Ra, etc), I can explain why I lack belief in yours.

Clever boy!
But, that means that my atheism is a religion. Guess what! That means their version of atheism is too!!! They just believe in one less god than I do!

So then your "argument" about how atheist teachings (science) is taught in school is moot. Since you've just established that you are an atheist, then you should not have a problem with atheist teachings (science).

So that means christian teachings should also? No? I thought atheism was based on rationality?

See, combine this with another comment about some atheists believing that the world doesn't exist, and that it's all fantasy, and you get the same result: God exists. (I think that post is in the "religion" thread in NS2).

Now you are very confused. Atheists do not think that the world does not exist. An atheists thinks that the world and this life are all we have. That is a major point of atheism

Don't look at me, I didn't say it. Check the post, man.

And actually, that would invalidate the earlier comment in this thread that atheism isn't a religion because everyone believes differently, and they have no set of doctrine. You just said they do.
Thank you! :wink:

Rhyno D: I say you're an atheist too. I just lack belief in one more god than you do.
Once you explain to me why you lack belief in all the other gods (Zeus, Odin, Ra, etc), I can explain why I lack belief in yours.

Clever boy!
But, that means that my atheism is a religion. Guess what! That means their version of atheism is too!!! They just believe in one less god than I do!

So then your "argument" about how atheist teachings (science) is taught in school is moot. Since you've just established that you are an atheist, then you should not have a problem with atheist teachings (science).

So that means christian teachings should also? No? I thought atheism was based on rationality?

What he said.

I know agnosticism is not a religion, that was my point. (Nitpick: agnostics also may just be doubtful about the existence of a deity.) Atheists lack faith in a deity, but believe (have faith) that there is none. That is the difference between atheists and agnostics.

The difference between agnostics and atheists is that agnostics say maybe and atheists say no.

That's exactly what I said. And since there is no proof that there is no god, atheism is a faith, which would make it a religion by the definitions of the original poster.

Unfortunately, those definitions are wrong. Atheism is not a religion.

Edit: Nevermind. The definitions are fine, but atheism does not qualify as a religion according to them.

'bout ta say, that's webster you're arguing with...



Well, your dictionary differs quite radically from my versions of Webster's, but I realized that you have the Collegiate version and I have the Unabridged and Comprehensive versions.

The main issue I have with your proof is the ardor part. It seems implausible to me that one can not-believe in something with ardor.

Actually, that doesn't matter. Even so, one definition of atheism makes it a religion. And just because it's only one, it doesn't mean it's not true. So, in a way, it's still a religion.

Rhyno D: I say you're an atheist too. I just lack belief in one more god than you do.
Once you explain to me why you lack belief in all the other gods (Zeus, Odin, Ra, etc), I can explain why I lack belief in yours.

Clever boy!
But, that means that my atheism is a religion. Guess what! That means their version of atheism is too!!! They just believe in one less god than I do!

So then your "argument" about how atheist teachings (science) is taught in school is moot. Since you've just established that you are an atheist, then you should not have a problem with atheist teachings (science).

But i'm not the same kind of atheist. Just like Catholics aren't Protestants, and wouldn't like Protestant teachings in their masses.

And according to you, you shouldn't care if we do teach my version of atheism, since we're all atheists together. That would imply that it isn't a religion either (according to you), so you can't ban it from school.

Gotya :wink:

Wrong again. You are atheistic about Zeus, but (if I may make the assumption that you are Christian) you are not atheistic about the Christian god. Therefore I can protest you wanting Christian teachings in the school since it is not atheistic.

Anyway, you are not an atheist. An atheist does not believe in a deity, meaning any deity. You have to not believe in all deities to be atheist. My point was to show that Hakartopia's definition of atheism is wrong. Sorry you missed that.

Rhyno D: I say you're an atheist too. I just lack belief in one more god than you do.
Once you explain to me why you lack belief in all the other gods (Zeus, Odin, Ra, etc), I can explain why I lack belief in yours.

Clever boy!
But, that means that my atheism is a religion. Guess what! That means their version of atheism is too!!! They just believe in one less god than I do!

So then your "argument" about how atheist teachings (science) is taught in school is moot. Since you've just established that you are an atheist, then you should not have a problem with atheist teachings (science).

But i'm not the same kind of atheist. Just like Catholics aren't Protestants, and wouldn't like Protestant teachings in their masses.

And according to you, you shouldn't care if we do teach my version of atheism, since we're all atheists together. That would imply that it isn't a religion either (according to you), so you can't ban it from school.

Gotya :wink:

Wrong again. You are atheistic about Zeus, but (if I may make the assumption that you are Christian) you are not atheistic about the Christian god. Therefore I can protest you wanting Christian teachings in the school since it is not atheistic.

Anyway, you are not an atheist. An atheist does not believe in a deity, meaning any deity. You have to not believe in all deities to be atheist. My point was to show that Hakartopia's definition of atheism is wrong. Sorry you missed that.

You have made a logical leap here by defining atheism as being based on faith and not rationality, thus your argument falls apart in construction.

Rational? You think Big Bang is rational? HA! Please, show me this rationality. (And again, explain these things!)


Hmmm... sidetracking to another topic doesn't make your logic any stronger.

I know agnosticism is not a religion, that was my point. (Nitpick: agnostics also may just be doubtful about the existence of a deity.) Atheists lack faith in a deity, but believe (have faith) that there is none. That is the difference between atheists and agnostics.

The difference between agnostics and atheists is that agnostics say maybe and atheists say no.

That's exactly what I said. And since there is no proof that there is no god, atheism is a faith, which would make it a religion by the definitions of the original poster.

Unfortunately, those definitions are wrong. Atheism is not a religion.

Edit: Nevermind. The definitions are fine, but atheism does not qualify as a religion according to them.

'bout ta say, that's webster you're arguing with...



Well, your dictionary differs quite radically from my versions of Webster's, but I realized that you have the Collegiate version and I have the Unabridged and Comprehensive versions.

The main issue I have with your proof is the ardor part. It seems implausible to me that one can not-believe in something with ardor.

Actually, that doesn't matter. Even so, one definition of atheism makes it a religion. And just because it's only one, it doesn't mean it's not true. So, in a way, it's still a religion.

Actually, one lone definition would not make it a religion. It would make it "a religion according to xxx dictionary," but I haven't seen a dictionary that would define religion in a way that would include atheism.

You have made a logical leap here by defining atheism as being based on faith and not rationality, thus your argument falls apart in construction.

Rational? You think Big Bang is rational? HA! Please, show me this rationality. (And again, explain these things!)


Hmmm... sidetracking to another topic doesn't make your logic any stronger.

Neither does leaving your logic completely unexplained.

I know agnosticism is not a religion, that was my point. (Nitpick: agnostics also may just be doubtful about the existence of a deity.) Atheists lack faith in a deity, but believe (have faith) that there is none. That is the difference between atheists and agnostics.

The difference between agnostics and atheists is that agnostics say maybe and atheists say no.

That's exactly what I said. And since there is no proof that there is no god, atheism is a faith, which would make it a religion by the definitions of the original poster.

Unfortunately, those definitions are wrong. Atheism is not a religion.

Edit: Nevermind. The definitions are fine, but atheism does not qualify as a religion according to them.

'bout ta say, that's webster you're arguing with...



Well, your dictionary differs quite radically from my versions of Webster's, but I realized that you have the Collegiate version and I have the Unabridged and Comprehensive versions.

The main issue I have with your proof is the ardor part. It seems implausible to me that one can not-believe in something with ardor.

Actually, that doesn't matter. Even so, one definition of atheism makes it a religion. And just because it's only one, it doesn't mean it's not true. So, in a way, it's still a religion.

Actually, one lone definition would not make it a religion. It would make it "a religion according to xxx dictionary," but I haven't seen a dictionary that would define religion in a way that would include atheism.

Point, but still, I would think Webster is pretty trustworthy, and i'm sure i could follow the same train of thought in any other dictionary.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. It's a logical fallacy that means argument from ingnorance. It basically states that just because something hasn't been proven true, you can't claim it to be false. Or the other way around, if it hasnt been proven false, you can't claim it to be true. So logically, you are all wrong :) I guess the only ones that are safe are agnostics and their "maybe". But then again, how many religions are based on logic?

Rhyno D: I say you're an atheist too. I just lack belief in one more god than you do.
Once you explain to me why you lack belief in all the other gods (Zeus, Odin, Ra, etc), I can explain why I lack belief in yours.

Clever boy!
But, that means that my atheism is a religion. Guess what! That means their version of atheism is too!!! They just believe in one less god than I do!

So then your "argument" about how atheist teachings (science) is taught in school is moot. Since you've just established that you are an atheist, then you should not have a problem with atheist teachings (science).

But i'm not the same kind of atheist. Just like Catholics aren't Protestants, and wouldn't like Protestant teachings in their masses.

And according to you, you shouldn't care if we do teach my version of atheism, since we're all atheists together. That would imply that it isn't a religion either (according to you), so you can't ban it from school.

Gotya :wink:

Wrong again. You are atheistic about Zeus, but (if I may make the assumption that you are Christian) you are not atheistic about the Christian god. Therefore I can protest you wanting Christian teachings in the school since it is not atheistic.

Anyway, you are not an atheist. An atheist does not believe in a deity, meaning any deity. You have to not believe in all deities to be atheist. My point was to show that Hakartopia's definition of atheism is wrong. Sorry you missed that.

And you're atheistic about my god...Point? Then I get the same right to disapprove of your "teachings."

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. It's a logical fallacy that means argument from ingnorance. It basically states that just because something hasn't been proven true, you can't claim it to be false. Or the other way around, if it hasnt been proven false, you can't claim it to be true. So logically, you are all wrong :) I guess the only ones that are safe are agnostics and their "maybe". But then again, how many religions are based on logic?

EXACTLY EXACTLY EXACTLY!!!
That would mean atheism is taken on faith, which makes it a religion.

You have made a logical leap here by defining atheism as being based on faith and not rationality, thus your argument falls apart in construction.

Rational? You think Big Bang is rational? HA! Please, show me this rationality. (And again, explain these things!)


Hmmm... sidetracking to another topic doesn't make your logic any stronger.

Neither does leaving your logic completely unexplained.

:?:
I haven"t made any logical argument to explain here, just pointed out where the construction of yours failed.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. It's a logical fallacy that means argument from ingnorance. It basically states that just because something hasn't been proven true, you can't claim it to be false. Or the other way around, if it hasnt been proven false, you can't claim it to be true. So logically, you are all wrong :) I guess the only ones that are safe are agnostics and their "maybe". But then again, how many religions are based on logic?

Hehe.. Amen to that.

Ive been keeping up witht the thread and now i just have to jump in... As to wether or not atheism is a religion or not, I dont think it qualifies, but im not taking a strong stance.

The one thing that I did want to refute though is the argument that by not aknowledging somthing makes it real. That is simply not true!!!! No way. I ignore and dont think that pink dragons with cotton arms and feet made of jello exist. So acording to you, because I think they dont exist I acctually say they do. That is the most retarted thing i have ever heard.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. It's a logical fallacy that means argument from ingnorance. It basically states that just because something hasn't been proven true, you can't claim it to be false. Or the other way around, if it hasnt been proven false, you can't claim it to be true. So logically, you are all wrong :) I guess the only ones that are safe are agnostics and their "maybe". But then again, how many religions are based on logic?

EXACTLY EXACTLY EXACTLY!!!
That would mean atheism is taken on faith, which makes it a religion.

The only problems is that one bit of faith doesn't make a religion. I believe that fuzzy pink elephants aren't going to eat me. I can't prove that there are not fuzzy pink elephants. This does not make my belief that fuzzy pink elephants are not going to eat me a religion.

You have made a logical leap here by defining atheism as being based on faith and not rationality, thus your argument falls apart in construction.

Rational? You think Big Bang is rational? HA! Please, show me this rationality. (And again, explain these things!)


Hmmm... sidetracking to another topic doesn't make your logic any stronger.

Neither does leaving your logic completely unexplained.

:?:
I haven"t made any logical argument to explain here, just pointed out where the construction of yours failed.

No, actually, you didn't "point out" where i was wrong, you just said i was wrong. No pointing, just talking. You say religion is irrational, and atheism isn't, so it's not a religion. That's arguing against what i'm saying, so yes, you are arguing, but badly. And anyway, I'm arguing against you, and asking you to explain. Again, if I'm so stupid, then why don't you enlighten me so I can be not stupid?

The only problems is that one bit of faith doesn't make a religion. I believe that fuzzy pink elephants aren't going to eat me. I can't prove that there are not fuzzy pink elephants. This does not make my belief that fuzzy pink elephants a religion.

No, but if you had a set of doctrine about the fuzzy pink elephants, then yes, you would have a religion, albeit a strange, stupid, and pathetic one.

I'm loving this arguement, but it's 1:30 a.m., and I have to get up in the morning. I'll post again tomorrow/today, though I may be a bit slow with my posting, since i have to read the new stuff.

The only problems is that one bit of faith doesn't make a religion. I believe that fuzzy pink elephants aren't going to eat me. I can't prove that there are not fuzzy pink elephants. This does not make my belief that fuzzy pink elephants a religion.

No, but if you had a set of doctrine about the fuzzy pink elephants, then yes, you would have a religion, albeit a strange, stupid, and pathetic one.

So what are the doctrined of atheism? What are the commandmends? Where are the churches? Where's the bible?

The only problems is that one bit of faith doesn't make a religion. I believe that fuzzy pink elephants aren't going to eat me. I can't prove that there are not fuzzy pink elephants. This does not make my belief that fuzzy pink elephants a religion.

No, but if you had a set of doctrine about the fuzzy pink elephants, then yes, you would have a religion, albeit a strange, stupid, and pathetic one.

Ahh.. and now we have hit the root. It took long enough too. There is nothing sepcific about atheism other than that atheists do not believe in a deity. Atheists have no doctorine. Neither do agnostics. A group of poeple who share a belief in a deity, but who do not get any more specific than that are not members of a religion either. ("a deity" does not mean a specific deity)

No Rhyno. He is saying because he DOESNT belive in the pink elephants does not make them real like you claim God to be by the same logic. (Im not saying YOU belive God to be real, but your logic says that saying he isnt real makes him real.)

Well now I'm just offended, you should leave my fuzzy pink elephant religion out of this. But anyways, I definately agree with you on this one, atheism is a religion, a belief in the fact that no god exists. and by god, I don't mean the christian god...I mean any god. Now when I have all these goth/punk/whatever people professing they are athiests, it leads me to believe they are pushing their religion on me. Others might not have the same problem, it might just be me. I think the only non-religion is agnosticism, for the fact they don't know what to believe. It's all about belief/faith.

I know agnosticism is not a religion, that was my point. (Nitpick: agnostics also may just be doubtful about the existence of a deity.) Atheists lack faith in a deity, but believe (have faith) that there is none. That is the difference between atheists and agnostics.

The difference between agnostics and atheists is that agnostics say maybe and atheists say no.

That's exactly what I said. And since there is no proof that there is no god, atheism is a faith, which would make it a religion by the definitions of the original poster.

Unfortunately, those definitions are wrong. Atheism is not a religion.

Edit: Nevermind. The definitions are fine, but atheism does not qualify as a religion according to them.

'bout ta say, that's webster you're arguing with...



Well, your dictionary differs quite radically from my versions of Webster's, but I realized that you have the Collegiate version and I have the Unabridged and Comprehensive versions.

The main issue I have with your proof is the ardor part. It seems implausible to me that one can not-believe in something with ardor.

Actually, that doesn't matter. Even so, one definition of atheism makes it a religion. And just because it's only one, it doesn't mean it's not true. So, in a way, it's still a religion.

Actually, one lone definition would not make it a religion. It would make it "a religion according to xxx dictionary," but I haven't seen a dictionary that would define religion in a way that would include atheism.

Point, but still, I would think Webster is pretty trustworthy, and i'm sure i could follow the same train of thought in any other dictionary.

Perhaps, but you can't follow it in this dictionary, so maybe not..

Well now I'm just offended, you should leave my fuzzy pink elephant religion out of this. But anyways, I definately agree with you on this one, atheism is a religion, a belief in the fact that no god exists. and by god, I don't mean the christian god...I mean any god. Now when I have all these goth/punk/whatever people professing they are athiests, it leads me to believe they are pushing their religion on me. Others might not have the same problem, it might just be me. I think the only non-religion is agnosticism, for the fact they don't know what to believe. It's all about belief/faith.

Again, I will say that one belief does not make a religion. We all believe that 1+1=2, but that does not make math a religion.

Atheism is not a religion. It is not organized. It has no teachings. It has no message. Saying yes, no, or maybe does not make a religion. Religions are specific and detailed. Religions detail their gods, the gods’ works, and the beliefs that the followers of the religion share. Atheism has only one belief, and that does not make it a religion.

Well now I'm just offended, you should leave my fuzzy pink elephant religion out of this. But anyways, I definately agree with you on this one, atheism is a religion, a belief in the fact that no god exists. and by god, I don't mean the christian god...I mean any god. Now when I have all these goth/punk/whatever people professing they are athiests, it leads me to believe they are pushing their religion on me. Others might not have the same problem, it might just be me. I think the only non-religion is agnosticism, for the fact they don't know what to believe. It's all about belief/faith.

That may very well be, but that doesn't mean there are any other 'atheist beliefs' other than god's on-excistance.
So you can neither ban science because it's 'atheist religion', nor can you claim something like creationism to be on-par with the Big Bang.

Sorry, but that may have come off wrong. The story is, I know a handful of atheists, and it seems to me that they like to constantly say they don't believe in a god just to get a rise. When they start doing this religiously, professing their "faith" in no god, it leads me to believe that they have started their own elitist religion(perhaps like many out their today). Let me know if anyone else has seen this...or if I'm just on crack.

Maybe they're just being a bunch of pricks.
Compare it to Metellica-fans bothering Nirvana-fans or something.
Or people who play D&D bothering people who play WoD.
Or people who like one sports-team towards people who like another.

I got it. Atheism in and of its self is not a religion, although there are religions that would qualify one as being atheistic. Such as humanism, naturalism, blah blahism etc etc... They are all atheistic religions. ie. have no God. Religion does not necisarily imply God or Gods. So being atheism is not a religion, but a religion can be atheistic.

done and done.

I got it. Atheism in and of its self is not a religion, although there are religions that would qualify one as being atheistic. Such as humanism, naturalism, blah blahism etc etc... They are all atheistic religions. ie. have no God. Religion does not necisarily imply God or Gods. So being atheism is not a religion, but a religion can be atheistic.

done and done.

Exactly, just like all elephants are animals, but not all animals are elephants. Case closed!

Look, can I point out that many arguements against Atheism as a religion is because of its lack of a bible, commandments, ect...? The fact is, I doubt that is a true dictionary definition of a religion. So, PERHAPS, Atheism is a religion in that it is the faith that god doesn't exist, with no proof to that end. I'm not going to go on a dictionary hunt right now, maybe some one else will, but I'm saying, for now, that Atheism is technically a religion. HOWEVER: because of the lack of churches and such, popular definition says that Atheism is not a religion. I could say that scientific journals are TECHNICALLY magizines, but many people make a large distinction between them.

P.S.: If you protest my analogy, shut up, it's besides the point, and you know what I mean.

Well now I'm just offended, you should leave my fuzzy pink elephant religion out of this. But anyways, I definately agree with you on this one, atheism is a religion, a belief in the fact that no god exists. and by god, I don't mean the christian god...I mean any god. Now when I have all these goth/punk/whatever people professing they are athiests, it leads me to believe they are pushing their religion on me. Others might not have the same problem, it might just be me. I think the only non-religion is agnosticism, for the fact they don't know what to believe. It's all about belief/faith.

atheism is not a religion. it's not organised and the only thing that unifies atheists is the rejection of a belief in any gods. If you think rejecting gods is a religion because there is no proof that there are no gods, think about the following things:

-When you look at a theory that states 'god(s) exist', you will find that it explains nothing, it has no grounds for accepting it, the theory has no uses nor does other knowledge follow out of the theory and the theory raises new problems (where do gods come from? where do they live?). the philosophical/scientifical thing to do with such a theory is to reject it.

-By the logic that atheism is a religion, anyone saying that there is no purple whale living in a huge banana somewhere, but not in our universe or anying saying that any conspiracy theory is false , has just created a new religion. Just because you can't disproof the non-existance of things beyond our universe does not mean that the only rational thing to do is rejecting them. PS: i have spoken with someone who has spent the last 20 years developing several conspiracy theories, but his main one is that man has not been to space. He has spoken with 2 astronauts and tons of scientists and they all fail to disproof him in a way that satisfies him because he uses a semi-scientific 'proof' and he rejects a lot of empirical data because he says they are fraudulent. would you call it a religion to reject his theory?

-Because religious people see the world fundamentally different than atheists, agnosticism is not a real option for anyone who starts thinking about certain issues. religious people see a meaning in everything that happens, everything happens for a reason. Their lives develop according to a plan set out by a god. The very meaning of life and every little event is that it was created by a god and therefor it is not meaningless. atheists usually don't see a meaning in a lot of events. religious people believe there is an afterlife. religious people believe that god decides what is good and what is wrong and therefor something is either good or wrong and it will stay that way. atheists often think more in shades of gray with a lot of things being good and wrong at the same time. Someone who is religious sees god as the sumum of beauty, a convinced atheist god as the product of the greatest error of human thinking. because the atheist approach and the religious approach to a lot of issues will result in a fundamentally different answer and because the rational thing is rejecting religion (see above: if you have no reasons for accepting a theory you reject it) one has to be either religious or atheist. agnosticism isn't an option because this approach gives a lot of problems when you try to answer philosophical questions of the kind 'what is the meaning of life'. If you want to be able to try to formulate an answer to this question you will either start from god (for the religious ones) or you will start without god (for the athiests).

Mr Jackal has said a lot of what I was going to say, and I'm not going to go back through 6 pages of "gateway timeout" to fish out all the points, both for and against, that I would've taken up had I been awake before lunch today.

I will however take up on a couple of his (apologies if you're a "her") comments.

Atheism as he rightly points out is not a religion, but a rejection of religion. Religion implies (but does not require) a set of beliefs in one or more deities and/or guidelines set out by those deities or their representatives. There are also those who claim religious beliefs (and I imply no sarcasm in the word "claim") without subscribing to any of the major, or indeed minor Scriptures: Gaiaists, Pagans or simply those whose belief system revolves around some kind of internal "self-god" or similar concept. These people might be referred to as "spiritual" rather than "religious" but this is subjective and really a matter for they themselves to qualify should they so desire.

Similarly atheists fall into as many differing definitions. Some are former members of one Faith or other who have come dissillusioned. In this instance they could concievably be thought of as being "religous atheists". Others may have never believed in a God. Again, it is still really the prerogative of the individual to decide whether their own form of atheism constitutes a "religion" or not.

I must, however, take issue with Jackal's contention that agnosticism is not an option. Earlier in my life I did subscribe to an athiestic "there is not a god" standpoint. However after some interesting and thought-provoking conversations with both fellow "athiests" as well as religious aquaintances, I was forced to reevaluate my thoughts. To stand on a soap-box and state categorically that there is not a god because there is no proof is as arrogant and self-righteous as those who stand on my doorstep saying that there is because this here book says so. The agnostic standpoint is NOT fence-sitting or philosophically redundant, because it implies tolerance, and acceptance of the posibility that either side may be right.

In my case I "believe" that there may or may not be a god/higher being. The chances are there IS some kind of "superior" (morally/scientifically/evolutionarilly - whatever) form of life out there - we live in a supposedly infinite universe after all. However, if there is I for one am not going to start offering up praises to it, following it's purported edicts, or showing any form of worship at all.
Why on earth should I.
I do not require the presence of such a creature to tell me how to live or give meaning to my existence. Nor do I blindly follow the rules of someone or something that has not even been proven to exist, let alone the fact that people can't even agree on which one of them exist or what their respective "requirements" are. This "radical agnosticism" (a phrase of Douglas Adams') or indeed ANY agnosticism is no less valid a viewpoint than any other, so please don't patronise us by implying that we are philosophically bankrupt.

If anarchy can be a type of governemnt, then atheism can be a religion.

Yes, they may be paradoxial(Anarchy as a government and Atheism as a religion), but someone can answer the question of "What religion are you?" with the answer of "I'm an atheist".

*throws agnostic monkeybrains at Klepto*

Yes, they may be paradoxial(Anarchy as a government and Atheism as a religion), but someone can answer the question of "What religion are you?" with the answer of "I'm an atheist".... thus implying that they haven't got one ...

I haven"t made any logical argument to explain here, just pointed out where the construction of yours failed.

No, actually, you didn't "point out" where i was wrong, you just said i was wrong. No pointing, just talking.

Here is where I pointed out your error in logic:
You have made a logical leap here by defining atheism as being based on faith and not rationality, thus your argument falls apart in construction.


You say religion is irrational, and atheism isn't, so it's not a religion.

Where did I say that? Please don't put word in my mouth.

That's arguing against what i'm saying, so yes, you are arguing, but badly.

Pointing out a flaw in your logic does not equal constructing a counter-argument. Others are doing that.

And anyway, I'm arguing against you, and asking you to explain. Again, if I'm so stupid, then why don't you enlighten me so I can be not stupid?

Lets work through your OP.

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary,

pg. 969
religion: #4 A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

pg. 408
(1) faith: 2 b (1) firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) complete confidence 3 something that is believed esp with strong conviction; esp: a system of religious beliefs
(2) faith: BELIEVE, TRUST

pg. 70
atheism: 1 b the doctrine that there is no diety

pg. 333
doctrine: 2 b principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief


Thus:
Atheism is doctrine, or set of principles, and since there is no concrete proof, you must have faith in it.
Thus:
Atheism is principles that are held with faith.


Step 1: You define religion as a belief held with faith.

Step 2: You define faith as being "...belief in something for which there is no proof". Irrational is defined here (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irrational) as being "not consistent with or using reason".

Step 3: You define atheism as a doctrine and doctrine as a belief.

Step 4: You claim that there is no proof for atheism and that it must be held on faith.

Your proof:
A is B.
B is C.
D is E.
Thus D is A.

You have skipped equating A with D.

Thus I said:
You have made a logical leap here by defining atheism as being based on faith and not rationality, thus your argument falls apart in construction.

This was a critique of the logical foundations of your argument, not a counter-argument.

(edited to clean up open tags)

well said zarozina and illich

i think the confusion comes from there being 2 kinds of atheists


those who are mad at their parents, their church, their god who hasnt run the universe to their benefit and so they get mad and reject god. these are the kind of people who spend alot of time announcing to everyone that they are atheists. they want to provoke a reponse from believers.

then there are the stone cold atheists. my dad was a stone cold atheist. god just didnt come into it. he no more questioned the existance of god than he questioned the existance of the tooth fairy. religion just wasnt a part of his life in any way.

i was raised catholic but over time i came to realize that none of it makes any sense. its all BS from ages past that we believe because we were taught to. if i had been raise hindu, i would have believed that religion. if i had been raised shinto (one of the worlds vaguest religions) i would have believed that. if there is no reason to believe one religion over another, there is no reason to believe in any religion.

as to that agnostic wonder of who created the universe.... well i dont know and i dont care. i dont see that it had to be created by SOMEONE; that that someone needs to still exist; that that someone is all powerful, all loving all wise; that that someone deserves or even WANTS to be worshipped. in fact, id say that lack of communication by that someone indicates that "he" either no longer exists or doesnt know/care about us.

personally i consider that my lack of caring about the issue qualifies me as an athiest.

and since it isnt a religion, i dont have to pass anyones test of faith to get into the club

I haven"t made any logical argument to explain here, just pointed out where the construction of yours failed.

No, actually, you didn't "point out" where i was wrong, you just said i was wrong. No pointing, just talking.

Here is where I pointed out your error in logic:
You have made a logical leap here by defining atheism as being based on faith and not rationality, thus your argument falls apart in construction.
I think Rhyno was constructing a hypothesis, rather than a defining argument. Not that I necessarily agree with him...

This is my opinion, most may/probably wil differ.

Faith: Belief in something without due cause.

Religion: Organised set of beliefs (and doctrines/ceremonies).

Atheism: The belief that there is no God/Gods. I've yet to see convincing scientific evidence for this or it's opposite, so atheism is a faith, but not a religion, unless you count religions like Buddhism, but no such religion represents the whole of the atheist faith.


I identify myself as an infidel- I have no faith, that is, I reject all non-neccessary beliefs, though I will make assumptions when called for. Whether God or Gods exists or not shouldn't really matter if He or She or It or S/he is a worthy and pragmatic ruler-
If I live a good life and don't harm others, what reason is there to punish me?
And would I want to spend eternity with someone who refused people entry into the afterlife for picking the wrong religion, or none at all, and living an otherwise blameless life?

The question of an all-mighty God, Goddess or Gods' existence is beyond human mind by the definitions of the terms. Just act good like they do, ignore dogma like they don't. Then again, if Stephen Hawking comes along tomorrow and gives us God's phone number, the whole things academic. Basically, human intelligence and sentience can't handle the idea as it's shown, so why bother? Just get on with making this world a better place.

Ok. First off. Religion is a terrible word. It implies cult followings. And though Atheism isn't a cult/religion, it is a dogma, just like all other beliefs.

That being said, most "atheists" aren't atheists, but agnostics who know that any current religion is full of crap.

And since when did the dictionary become the final word.

Webster's used to define atheism as "The denial of the existence of God."

That not only 1) puts "god" in caps, as though a celestial deity uses english as it's first language and likes the name "God", but it also defines a god as an entity and not an abstract concept.
2) Furthermore, it blatantly utilizes the word "denial" to affirm Noah Webster's religious background.

One time my friend and I had a bet. I mocked his English accent, and he called me racist.
I said that racism cannot apply to nationality. He said that according to the dictionary it can.
We looked it up, and guess who won?

What a load of crap. Nationality is not race. The dictionary was wrong, and to this day, I am no longer dogmatic about anything coming from reference books.

Learn a lesson from this.

OR DIE!!!

mwuahahahahaha.

QED

The only problems is that one bit of faith doesn't make a religion. I believe that fuzzy pink elephants aren't going to eat me. I can't prove that there are not fuzzy pink elephants. This does not make my belief that fuzzy pink elephants a religion.

No, but if you had a set of doctrine about the fuzzy pink elephants, then yes, you would have a religion, albeit a strange, stupid, and pathetic one.

So what are the doctrined of atheism? What are the commandmends? Where are the churches? Where's the bible?

Let's take a look...

See, combine this with another comment about some atheists believing that the world doesn't exist, and that it's all fantasy, and you get the same result: God exists. (I think that post is in the "religion" thread in NS2).

Now you are very confused. Atheists do not think that the world does not exist. An atheists thinks that the world and this life are all we have. That is a major point of atheism

Don't look at me, I didn't say it. Check the post, man.

And actually, that would invalidate the earlier comment in this thread that atheism isn't a religion because everyone believes differently, and they have no set of doctrine. You just said they do.
Thank you! :wink:

Doctrine...

What is your point for posting this? Do you know atheists? Have you talked to them about atheism? If so, you wouldn't be posting this

I'd really like people to explain things like this. Why do you say this? Or are you just going to be gnomic like that?

yeah you should attend one of our services some time. its way more fun than the southern baptists have.

eh, that I would believe. Though, a SB preacher can really get you fired up, if he's good. (I 'spose that goes for any preacher/preist/etc., eh?)
And the music is catchy too :wink: .

An explanation? Well, first off religions are organized. Atheism isn't organized. They don't hold any sort of services beyond the occasional support group for those who are bashed with crap like you have posted here.

Atheism is not a belief in the lack of a deity. It is a lack of belief in any deity. Many atheists can strongly support why they do not believe in any deity through life experiences, contradictions in different religious texts, or other such means.

Finally, since atheism is a lack of belief, their "proof" comes in the form that there is no proof a deity exists. If you could prove that a deity exists, and atheists continued to be atheistic, then it would be a religion because they would have to have faith that no deity exists when evidence exists to the contrary.

Now it is your turn to answer my question. Have you ever seriously talked with atheists about atheism?

That is a good point. And i've talked with them more or less. Nothing serious, but there's gotta be a first time eh?
But atheism is organized. Most pro-abortion, gay rights, stuff like that, is all coming from atheistic views. And science class might as well be a sermon.

Organization...

Services...

Bible would be almost any science textbook.

And another tid-bit i'd like to throw out there:
And that's as sure as we ever are of anything. We believe it enough to act as though it's true. When we're that sure, we call it knowledge. Facts. We bet our lives on it.
Speaker for the Dead
Which means that atheism is not, in fact, rational. It may be more rational than other religions, but it's not rational. When it gets down to it, you really can't know anything 100%, so everything has to be based at least a little on faith. No, fuzzy pink elephants don't exist, but it's impossible for you to show that they don't. For all we know, there could be a planet of fuzzy pink elephants on the other side of the Milky Way. You can, however, show that it is very very unlikely, and so no one really thinks that there can be, except for Neo-Tommunism. That is what fact is. Atheism has very very little proof, and so you cannot count it as fact. You need even more faith to believe it, since it isn't something we would call a fact.

Oh, and for all the people that say atheists don't all believe the same thing (despite Contopon's excellent quote above), you should hear the differences in Christianity alone. If that were true, then there would be no religion: take buhdism...Completely, utterly, and grossly different from christianity. So, that would mean that Christians and Buhdists are part of a religion, since we don't believe the same things.

Atheists ignore the fact of God, therefore, they acknowledge His presence by ignorning him.

If God was a fact it wouldn't be a religion.

Gotta love Contopon. Thanks once again for another excellent quote.
No, the existance of God is not fact, thus it is a religion. The non-existance of God isn't fact either, so atheism is a religion, by the same rules you're using to define Christianity as a religion...

Oh, and let's bring some physics into this...(do know that i'm not a physicist...do correct me if I'm wrong here...)
Light exists as particles and waves at the same time.
Ex: the whole cat in a box thing. At any time, the cat may be alive, or it may be dead. You don't know which, thus, it is both. But at the same time, it is one or the other, you just don't know.

The existance of God is the same way. None of us know that he is or is not real. But, it is either one or the other. To not be a religion, you'd have to be in the middle of the wave, thus agnostics. Atheism, though, is at one end, Christianity, Islam, etc. at the other. Being in the middle requires no faith, since you aren't saying it is or it isn't. By being at the crest of the wave though, you are making a statement, one not based on fact, as I've shown over and over again...So atheism is based on faith.

In other words, religion is acting as a wave. If it were a particle, it wouldn't be a religion. But both "religion" and atheism are part of the wave, and we can't know where the particle is until you die or God comes back.

*cough* Come join the Atheist Empire!

The rationalist place on earth! :lol:

*cough* Come join the Atheist Empire!

The rationalist place on earth! :lol:

I'm serious. Join now, bi1ches.
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/21596/page=display_region

I have not read the whole thread, nor do I intend to. I am only here to add my two cents to the original prompt: Atheism is a Religion.

I say that this is true, even though they used Webster's Dictionary to prove it. No offense to Webster's, or the English language...but neither one of them are accurate or set in stone.

I, however, believe that Atheism is a religion, because, what is religion, really? To me, it's a belief in anything. My personal religion is music. I find that listening to it, as well as playing it lifts my soul in some sort of positive way. Like I said, the English language is not accurate, so it's near impossible to describe what music does for me. Anyway, that aside, religion is a belief. Atheists believe that there is no god, afterlife, devil, hell, so on and so forth. From a non-christian standpoint, they also don't believe in karma, reincarnation, and polytheism. And essentially by not believing in any of that, they have made a new set of beliefs, which is in fact the lack of beliefs, and thus, that is the religion they follow. It is that which gives them peace, and makes them whole.

And that is why atheism is a religion.

I have not read the whole thread, nor do I intend to. I am only here to add my two cents to the original prompt: Atheism is a Religion.

I say that this is true, even though they used Webster's Dictionary to prove it. No offense to Webster's, or the English language...but neither one of them are accurate or set in stone.

I, however, believe that Atheism is a religion, because, what is religion, really? To me, it's a belief in anything. My personal religion is music. I find that listening to it, as well as playing it lifts my soul in some sort of positive way. Like I said, the English language is not accurate, so it's near impossible to describe what music does for me. Anyway, that aside, religion is a belief. Atheists believe that there is no god, afterlife, devil, hell, so on and so forth. From a non-christian standpoint, they also don't believe in karma, reincarnation, and polytheism. And essentially by not believing in any of that, they have made a new set of beliefs, which is in fact the lack of beliefs, and thus, that is the religion they follow. It is that which gives them peace, and makes them whole.

And that is why atheism is a religion.

WTf are you on about? He's saying that Religon is about faith not facts.

"Proof Deny's Faith and without faith I am nothing"

Thats really is in the bible right, not just in the Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy?

I have not read the whole thread, nor do I intend to. I am only here to add my two cents to the original prompt: Atheism is a Religion.

I say that this is true, even though they used Webster's Dictionary to prove it. No offense to Webster's, or the English language...but neither one of them are accurate or set in stone.

I, however, believe that Atheism is a religion, because, what is religion, really? To me, it's a belief in anything. My personal religion is music. I find that listening to it, as well as playing it lifts my soul in some sort of positive way. Like I said, the English language is not accurate, so it's near impossible to describe what music does for me. Anyway, that aside, religion is a belief. Atheists believe that there is no god, afterlife, devil, hell, so on and so forth. From a non-christian standpoint, they also don't believe in karma, reincarnation, and polytheism. And essentially by not believing in any of that, they have made a new set of beliefs, which is in fact the lack of beliefs, and thus, that is the religion they follow. It is that which gives them peace, and makes them whole.

And that is why atheism is a religion.

Which is basically what I've been saying lol. I just tried to use webster cuz i've been criticized before for "not proving" what i say...

WTf are you on about? He's saying that Religon is about faith not facts.

"Proof Deny's Faith and without faith I am nothing"

Thats really is in the bible right, not just in the Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy?

Um...*blinks*

Not sure if that's in the Bible. But you have to realize that Christians believe that the Bible is fact.

Atheists believe that Big Bang, etc. is fact.

But the fact is, that neither can be proven, so you have to take it on faith.

*cough* Come join the Atheist Empire!

The rationalist place on earth!

Come on dude, no recruitment spam. I don't want this thread locked!

True, however (once again, having not read the whole thread) the impression I have gotten is that you are using God (or the lack of) to prove atheism is a religion. God is simply a product of major stuctured religions, which I dislike. A lot. So by using a major figure from a religion, you are only proving that Atheists are pagans. Which, to the christians, muslims, jews, and others...is true. But, by making the generalization that religion is faith-based...you prove that the atheism is a religion, because the atheists have no more proof to the gods existance than the christians: it's is only in how faith guides them. The atheist walk the path that they have chosen out of faith...and I think I am rambling in circles now...

True, however (once again, having not read the whole thread) the impression I have gotten is that you are using God (or the lack of) to prove atheism is a religion. God is simply a product of major stuctured religions, which I dislike. A lot. So by using a major figure from a religion, you are only proving that Atheists are pagans. Which, to the christians, muslims, jews, and others...is true. But, by making the generalization that religion is faith-based...you prove that the atheism is a religion, because the atheists have no more proof to the gods existance than the christians: it's is only in how faith guides them. The atheist walk the path that they have chosen out of faith...and I think I am rambling in circles now...

Yeah, i think you are :wink: .

Speaking of which...The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy is the GREATEST humor series EVER!!!

State != state employees.

You helping me or trying to hurt me? I haven't a clue :shock: .

If state employees personally are religious, that does not mean that the state is religious, even if it is influenced by the (religious) principles of the employees.

I completely agree. I may be a Christian, I may have a Christian influence upon you, but I don't necessarily force my Christian views down your throat.

There is no proof that I am not a sentient cheese soufflé. Therefore if you believe that I am not a cheese soufflé, you have just as much faith as someone who believes I am a cheese soufflé.

Atheism is not a religion. It is not a faith. It is the lack of either.

I had to comment on this one...

You are exactly correct sir (or ma'am). One does have to have a small fraction of faith to believe that you aren't a souffle.
But, unlike religion, there is enough proof to show that you most likely not be a souffle. The same does not go for atheism. There is little proof, if any, for it.

Whens the movie coming out?

I'd just like to point out that science and atheism are not linked. For that matter, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. You can believe in a religion without believing in every single doctrine of that religion. You can read the Bible (or any religious work) and not believe that every single word in there is the word of God. A person who ha total faith in such a work might disagree strongly, but in all honest they don't have an argument to stand on.

Getting back to my original point: science is not the doctrine of the atheist. I find nothing more ridiculous than when an atheist attempts to feel morally and intellectually superior by attempting to take ownership of scientific theories. I would remind you that most of these theories were created by people who believed in a religion, such as Einstein or Newton. It is obvious that they were able to reconcile their discoveries with their own beliefs, so why do you attempt to make the argument that the only true believer of science is the atheist?

I have nothing personal against atheism, as both my father and sister are atheists. However, I have noticed that many atheists have this strange sense of superiority when it comes to dealing with religion. They point at any flaw in a religion as a reason to throw it away in its entirety. I will not deny that there are certain flaws in the various religions, but I do not find them to be insurmoutable. Only a fool would believe that posessing a different belief system makes you a superior human being.

Atheism is a belief system, not a religion. But the difference lies only in structure. Atheism has no true structure to it, although there are different groups of atheists who group together based on similar beliefs. However, this difference is an unimportant one. What does it matter if a religious group goes to a house of worship and an atheist group goes to a chatroom?

Some of the people who have posted in this topic have become very belligerent on the topic of whether atheism is a religion or not. I would agree with them that it is not, but that does not explain the simmering anger that I have felt beneath their words (in some, not all). So you have proved atheism not to be a religion; it is of no consequence. Atheism is still created by belief, not fact. You perceive your belief to be more rational than mine, but that does not mean that yours is anything more than a belief.

What movie? What souffle? What God?

I'm lost...

Is there really such a thing as cheese souffle? It sounds good...

While I do agree that atheism is a religion, what relevance has it to anything? yes "Rhyno", while you may be trying to prove this to people, what will you have accomplished once it is proven? As far as I can see, all you have done is ticked a whole bunch of people off. Everyone here seems pretty much set in their views. Everyone believes that they are right, and no one will say that they're wrong.

It's a religious issue whether you think atheism is a relgion or not. Yes, I do believe it is so. But if atheists do not wish to perceive themselves as such, how does that affect you? This is a controversial issue that need not be controversial at all.

State != state employees.

You helping me or trying to hurt me? I haven't a clue :shock: .

If state employees personally are religious, that does not mean that the state is religious, even if it is influenced by the (religious) principles of the employees.

I completely agree. I may be a Christian, I may have a Christian influence upon you, but I don't necessarily force my Christian views down your throat.

But you're still a Christian. That means that you haven't separated yourself from your religion. You don't have to make other people believe it...And since the state is made of "you" then the state hasn't been separated from its religion.

State != state employees.

You helping me or trying to hurt me? I haven't a clue :shock: .

If state employees personally are religious, that does not mean that the state is religious, even if it is influenced by the (religious) principles of the employees.

I completely agree. I may be a Christian, I may have a Christian influence upon you, but I don't necessarily force my Christian views down your throat.

But you're still a Christian. That means that you haven't separated yourself from your religion. You don't have to make other people believe it...And since the state is made of "you" then the state hasn't been separated from its religion.

The state is not made by my religious beliefs. It is run by ME, not my religious beliefs. While my religious beliefs WILL influence the decisions I make within a "state", it does not make my state of that religion. Again, may I point out that my state does not participate in my religion, nor do I force them too.
Of course this is all assuming that I am running a real state within the United States of America.

While I do agree that atheism is a religion, what relevance has it to anything? yes "Rhyno", while you may be trying to prove this to people, what will you have accomplished once it is proven? As far as I can see, all you have done is ticked a whole bunch of people off. Everyone here seems pretty much set in their views. Everyone believes that they are right, and no one will say that they're wrong.

It's a religious issue whether you think atheism is a relgion or not. Yes, I do believe it is so. But if atheists do not wish to perceive themselves as such, how does that affect you? This is a controversial issue that need not be controversial at all.

But pissing people off is fun. And I wish to show them how they are wrong, so that they may become right. (In my opinion, of course...). Which is why they argue back, I would think. If I have knowledge, it is my duty to give it to other people. And if they choose not to accept it, then that's cool, but I've done my part.
Besides, it's fun to argue.
And I like hearing what other people have to say.

I'd just like to point out that science and atheism are not linked. For that matter, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. You can believe in a religion without believing in every single doctrine of that religion. You can read the Bible (or any religious work) and not believe that every single word in there is the word of God. A person who ha total faith in such a work might disagree strongly, but in all honest they don't have an argument to stand on.

Getting back to my original point: science is not the doctrine of the atheist. I find nothing more ridiculous than when an atheist attempts to feel morally and intellectually superior by attempting to take ownership of scientific theories. I would remind you that most of these theories were created by people who believed in a religion, such as Einstein or Newton. It is obvious that they were able to reconcile their discoveries with their own beliefs, so why do you attempt to make the argument that the only true believer of science is the atheist?

I have nothing personal against atheism, as both my father and sister are atheists. However, I have noticed that many atheists have this strange sense of superiority when it comes to dealing with religion. They point at any flaw in a religion as a reason to throw it away in its entirety. I will not deny that there are certain flaws in the various religions, but I do not find them to be insurmoutable. Only a fool would believe that posessing a different belief system makes you a superior human being.

Atheism is a belief system, not a religion. But the difference lies only in structure. Atheism has no true structure to it, although there are different groups of atheists who group together based on similar beliefs. However, this difference is an unimportant one. What does it matter if a religious group goes to a house of worship and an atheist group goes to a chatroom?

Some of the people who have posted in this topic have become very belligerent on the topic of whether atheism is a religion or not. I would agree with them that it is not, but that does not explain the simmering anger that I have felt beneath their words (in some, not all). So you have proved atheism not to be a religion; it is of no consequence. Atheism is still created by belief, not fact. You perceive your belief to be more rational than mine, but that does not mean that yours is anything more than a belief.

Too true. Science and religion can coincide. But, it's not religion that excludes science, it's science that excludes religion. Ex: Some Christians believe that God made the Big Bang, which includes science, yes?
But when I learn BB in science class, they imply that God had nothing to do with it, which excludes "religion." I wouldn't mind them teaching BB, because it is a perfectly viable explaination. But so is Creation. And as I said before, there may come a day when we can explain Creation using scientific methods. I'm trying to include everything. They're excluding me. (And they say Christians are close minded... :roll: )

I'd just like to point out that science and atheism are not linked. For that matter, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. You can believe in a religion without believing in every single doctrine of that religion. You can read the Bible (or any religious work) and not believe that every single word in there is the word of God. A person who ha total faith in such a work might disagree strongly, but in all honest they don't have an argument to stand on.

Getting back to my original point: science is not the doctrine of the atheist. I find nothing more ridiculous than when an atheist attempts to feel morally and intellectually superior by attempting to take ownership of scientific theories. I would remind you that most of these theories were created by people who believed in a religion, such as Einstein or Newton. It is obvious that they were able to reconcile their discoveries with their own beliefs, so why do you attempt to make the argument that the only true believer of science is the atheist?

I have nothing personal against atheism, as both my father and sister are atheists. However, I have noticed that many atheists have this strange sense of superiority when it comes to dealing with religion. They point at any flaw in a religion as a reason to throw it away in its entirety. I will not deny that there are certain flaws in the various religions, but I do not find them to be insurmoutable. Only a fool would believe that posessing a different belief system makes you a superior human being.

Atheism is a belief system, not a religion. But the difference lies only in structure. Atheism has no true structure to it, although there are different groups of atheists who group together based on similar beliefs. However, this difference is an unimportant one. What does it matter if a religious group goes to a house of worship and an atheist group goes to a chatroom?

Some of the people who have posted in this topic have become very belligerent on the topic of whether atheism is a religion or not. I would agree with them that it is not, but that does not explain the simmering anger that I have felt beneath their words (in some, not all). So you have proved atheism not to be a religion; it is of no consequence. Atheism is still created by belief, not fact. You perceive your belief to be more rational than mine, but that does not mean that yours is anything more than a belief.

-YEAH!!! WAY TO STICK IT TO THE MAN!!! (Roughly translated: I agree with you)

-One analogy I though of while reading this is:

Anarchy is to politics as Atheism is to religion.


-And, I also would like to point out, that it is not just the atheists who think themselves superior, but it is in fact the thoughts of all religions. This is inherant in any faith-based system. If you don't think your faith is the best, then why are you believing in it?

But on the other hand, I think it is entirely possible to think your religion supperior withoug having to bash someone elses. Therefore, it is not everyone in the religion who bash, it's just the stupid people who can't resort to other rational options of expressing their beliefs.


-And before I leave: The Dahli Lama once said that people should try to find peace with their religion, rather than convert to another. He felt that all religions have merit, and for that, I almost became a buddhist.

Im going to say it again because i dont think everyone saw it.

Atheism is not a religion but a trait that a religion/religions may have/share.

Saying atheism is a religion is like saying a rectangle is a square. Thats not true, but a square might/can be a rectangle.

State != state employees.

You helping me or trying to hurt me? I haven't a clue :shock: .

If state employees personally are religious, that does not mean that the state is religious, even if it is influenced by the (religious) principles of the employees.

I completely agree. I may be a Christian, I may have a Christian influence upon you, but I don't necessarily force my Christian views down your throat.

But you're still a Christian. That means that you haven't separated yourself from your religion. You don't have to make other people believe it...And since the state is made of "you" then the state hasn't been separated from its religion.

The state is not made by my religious beliefs. It is run by ME, not my religious beliefs. While my religious beliefs WILL influence the decisions I make within a "state", it does not make my state of that religion. Again, may I point out that my state does not participate in my religion, nor do I force them too.
Of course this is all assuming that I am running a real state within the United States of America.

That is true, the state isn't made by your religion. But, your decisions will be influenced by it. So no, the state isn't consumed by your religion, but it isn't separated from it either...

If you want to keep arguing this, make another thread, k? I don't want this thread hijacked...

While I do agree that atheism is a religion, what relevance has it to anything? yes "Rhyno", while you may be trying to prove this to people, what will you have accomplished once it is proven? As far as I can see, all you have done is ticked a whole bunch of people off. Everyone here seems pretty much set in their views. Everyone believes that they are right, and no one will say that they're wrong.

It's a religious issue whether you think atheism is a relgion or not. Yes, I do believe it is so. But if atheists do not wish to perceive themselves as such, how does that affect you? This is a controversial issue that need not be controversial at all.
the relevance is that if atheism is a religion, then you can't teach atheist teachings in school, among other "separation of church and state" issues. Personally, I don't think atheism is a religion, and I am agnositc...though I'm thinking of switching to the religion of music...then I'll get tax exemptions for all those cds I buy...

I have seen and used my front gate. Therefore I know it exists and 'believe' in it. I have never seen a white German Shepherd outside it but I believe that one day I could go out and see one. Therefore I am 'agnostic' about a dog outside my gate. I believe that I will never go out of my gate and find a WW2 German paratrooper and so I am an 'atheist' regarding a German soldier.
Because I use my gate frequently, I have 'faith' in it, I belive it exists.
Because there is a remote possibilty of one day finding a German Shepherd waiting for me, I am 'agnostic' but don't think much about it.
Because I believe that there will never be a German paratrooper there, I am 'atheist' and therefore the only time I ever thought about it was when I typed this. In no way is my atheism a religion because it takes no part of my life.
This is a simple and rather silly analogy but it applies equally to a 'faith' in a God or an 'atheistic' stance. In no way can atheism be a religion.

I have seen and used my front gate. Therefore I know it exists and 'believe' in it. I have never seen a white German Shepherd outside it but I believe that one day I could go out and see one. Therefore I am 'agnostic' about a dog outside my gate. I believe that I will never go out of my gate and find a WW2 German paratrooper and so I am an 'atheist' regarding a German soldier.
Because I use my gate frequently, I have 'faith' in it, I belive it exists.
Because there is a remote possibilty of one day finding a German Shepherd waiting for me, I am 'agnostic' but don't think much about it.
Because I believe that there will never be a German paratrooper there, I am 'atheist' and therefore the only time I ever thought about it was when I typed this. In no way is my atheism a religion because it takes no part of my life.
This is a simple and rather silly analogy but it applies equally to a 'faith' in a God or an 'atheistic' stance. In no way can atheism be a religion.

[/quote]though I'm thinking of switching to the religion of music...then I'll get tax exemptions for all those cds I buy...[/quote]

YEAH!!! The religion of music is the way to be...But on those tax exepmtions...music isn't acknowledged as a major religion...seeing as how it currently is composed of me and Jimi Hendrix, and let's face it, Jimi's dead. Let me know if anyone else is a member of this trully liberating religion...

While I do agree that atheism is a religion, what relevance has it to anything? yes "Rhyno", while you may be trying to prove this to people, what will you have accomplished once it is proven? As far as I can see, all you have done is ticked a whole bunch of people off. Everyone here seems pretty much set in their views. Everyone believes that they are right, and no one will say that they're wrong.

It's a religious issue whether you think atheism is a relgion or not. Yes, I do believe it is so. But if atheists do not wish to perceive themselves as such, how does that affect you? This is a controversial issue that need not be controversial at all.
the relevance is that if atheism is a religion, then you can't teach atheist teachings in school, among other "separation of church and state" issues. Personally, I don't think atheism is a religion, and I am agnositc...though I'm thinking of switching to the religion of music...then I'll get tax exemptions for all those cds I buy...

That too...

I have seen and used my front gate. Therefore I know it exists and 'believe' in it. I have never seen a white German Shepherd outside it but I believe that one day I could go out and see one. Therefore I am 'agnostic' about a dog outside my gate. I believe that I will never go out of my gate and find a WW2 German paratrooper and so I am an 'atheist' regarding a German soldier.
Because I use my gate frequently, I have 'faith' in it, I belive it exists.
Because there is a remote possibilty of one day finding a German Shepherd waiting for me, I am 'agnostic' but don't think much about it.
Because I believe that there will never be a German paratrooper there, I am 'atheist' and therefore the only time I ever thought about it was when I typed this. In no way is my atheism a religion because it takes no part of my life.
This is a simple and rather silly analogy but it applies equally to a 'faith' in a God or an 'atheistic' stance. In no way can atheism be a religion.

That is exactly what I've been saying. Tell me, how is that different from what i've been saying???

As was already established, it isn't faith alone that makes atheism a religion. It is also that there are deffinite doctrines associated with atheism. It is a well defined set of beliefs. What you said about your gate is not. There are no set rules.

Besides all that, a German not showing up is considered a fact.

Webster:
Fact, 5 a piece of information presented as having objective reality.

Facts require only one small piece of faith, and that is that the world we live in is real. Big whoop. Almost everyone believes that, and yes, you could say that it is a religion. In fact, it can be considered a part of almost every religion. But, no one thinks about that because almost everyone believes it.
Another "requirement" of a religion is that it is different from other religions. Ex: if everyone in the world were a christian, then no one would think that Christianity was a religion: they would all think that Christianity was fact. Your gate may not be real. You could be so mentally ill that you percieve the gate when there is none. So, you have faith in the real world. Everyone has faith in the real world, so it's not a religion, because it's not different. You cannot prove to me that the world is real, so i could start a religion stating that it isn't. Then, yours would be considered a religion, because it is opposite of mine.

To help illustrate, think back to the particle/wave thing. The line in the middle of the wave isn't a religion, because it doesn't argue against something. It is the norm, the idea that everyone takes as fact. But then someone comes along and shows that it's not the middle after all, it's actually on the crest of the wave. It's a religion.

Confusing, yes? I'm confused too. But it makes sense, in a strange way. When you think about it, it means that it always was a religion, and you just didn't know it.

Point is, your statement of the gate is in the middle. No one has shown that it isn't, so we assume it is. We treat it as the particle, not the wave.
Atheism is acting as a wave. People have shown that it isn't the middle: the middle is agnosticism. (<-that right???). That makes atheism a religion.

Someone please tell me that they get all that...I'm confused too, and i want to know that i'm not insane. It makes sense to me...even if you disagree, someone tell me they get what i'm trying to say...

I don't believe Atheism is a religion - because religion in itself has universally revolved around one diety, or a set of dieties. A religion where there's no god but...perhaps Darwin seems contradictory in itself to the word religion. It is a belief perhaps - but not a religion. There is a difference in belief and religion - like it or not.

I do not have a problem with anyone that believes in 'Athiesm' however, I would rather trust in something, even though in the end it may be a hoax made up by man for hope, than to not believe in something that may be true, and be damned to the respective hell of the said religion that may be true. That's just my philosophy.

I don't fit in to any said religion. I started out as a Southern Baptist, but the more I found out about the church's stances on many issues, for example swimsuits (I'll explain in a second) I began to have problems, and now have my own brand of Baptism, if you will, that so far has worked well for me.

My church thinks that Bikini's are inherently 'evil' because they show too much skin. Too me, they cover the 'important' parts enough for there still to be enough mystery around what's beneath (because every girl is diffrent, lol) to be enough clothing, if that makes any sense. There's enough clothing that is doesn't show off the fun-parts. So I disagreed with that.

That's one small thing on a long list of things that I don't quite see eye-to-eye with either my church or god. I've made it clear to both. I don't follow some of the ten commandments - such as 'Thou shall not commit adultery'. Why? Well, it even covers adultery in thought. I think it would be better to imagine encounters with someone you are not married to than to actually do it. Thus - it would seem that lusting in the mind would be okay, but no. The bible says I should gouge out my eyes so I can not see anyone else.

How about 'No'.

Cursing - In execption of The "GD" one, I think curses are mainly determined by society, so a commandment about them is sort of moot.

There's others, but I won't bore you any longer. Any questions or you want to tell me off, PM Me.

--edited cuz the server screwed me up--

Atheism itself is not a religion, But religions can sprout of from certain atheist beliefs. For example, Buddhism, Taoism, Kung Fu Tzeism, And Satanism are all atheist religions. Meaning they don't believe in God. But they are still religions.

Just like beinging agnostic could mean your also Shintoist.

Religion doesn't always mean having a "God"

It's an organized set of beliefs and principles.

Theism isn't a religion either, It's simply the belief of a god. But it has no organization or set principles or beliefs. There's religions that sprouted off that belief of god. But calling theism its own "religion" is like calling Hindu, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and bahia all the same religion because they are all "theism"

Atheism itself is not a religion, But religions can sprout of from certain atheist beliefs. For example, Buddhism, Taoism, Kung Fu Tzeism, And Satanism are all atheist religions. Meaning they don't believe in God. But they are still religions.

Just like beinging agnostic could mean your also Shintoist.

Religion doesn't always mean having a "God"

It's an organized set of beliefs and principles.

Theism isn't a religion either, It's simply the belief of a god. But it has no organization or set principles or beliefs. There's religions that sprouted off that belief of god. But calling theism its own "religion" is like calling Hindu, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and bahia all the same religion because they are all "theism"


But see, atheism is an organized set of beliefs and principles. It's just not organized the same way as other religions.

And here's a point...My school is organized, and has a set of beliefs and principles; does that make it a religious instutition?
I've been to church meetings that weren't organized at all, and had nothing to do with learning about Christianity. Does that make it not religious?

Atheism itself is not a religion, But religions can sprout of from certain atheist beliefs. For example, Buddhism, Taoism, Kung Fu Tzeism, And Satanism are all atheist religions. Meaning they don't believe in God. But they are still religions.

Just like beinging agnostic could mean your also Shintoist.

Religion doesn't always mean having a "God"

It's an organized set of beliefs and principles.

Theism isn't a religion either, It's simply the belief of a god. But it has no organization or set principles or beliefs. There's religions that sprouted off that belief of god. But calling theism its own "religion" is like calling Hindu, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and bahia all the same religion because they are all "theism"

Catholicism, Southern Baptistism, and Calvinism are all forms of Christianity. So Christianity isn't a religion, but forms of it are?

Lastly, though I don't know much about Shintoism:
Webster (again):

Shinto: the indigenous religion of Japan consisting chiefly in the cultic devotion do deities of natural forces and veneration of the Emperor as a descendent of the sun-goddess

which would mean that shintoism isn't a form of atheism, according to webster.

I don't believe Atheism is a religion - because religion in itself has universally revolved around one diety, or a set of dieties. A religion where there's no god but...perhaps Darwin seems contradictory in itself to the word religion. It is a belief perhaps - but not a religion. There is a difference in belief and religion - like it or not.

I do not have a problem with anyone that believes in 'Athiesm' however, I would rather trust in something, even though in the end it may be a hoax made up by man for hope, than to not believe in something that may be true, and be damned to the respective hell of the said religion that may be true. That's just my philosophy.

I don't fit in to any said religion. I started out as a Southern Baptist, but the more I found out about the church's stances on many issues, for example swimsuits (I'll explain in a second) I began to have problems, and now have my own brand of Baptism, if you will, that so far has worked well for me.

My church thinks that Bikini's are inherently 'evil' because they show too much skin. Too me, they cover the 'important' parts enough for there still to be enough mystery around what's beneath (because every girl is diffrent, lol) to be enough clothing, if that makes any sense. There's enough clothing that is doesn't show off the fun-parts. So I disagreed with that.

That's one small thing on a long list of things that I don't quite see eye-to-eye with either my church or god. I've made it clear to both. I don't follow some of the ten commandments - such as 'Thou shall not commit adultery'. Why? Well, it even covers adultery in thought. I think it would be better to imagine encounters with someone you are not married to than to actually do it. Thus - it would seem that lusting in the mind would be okay, but no. The bible says I should gouge out my eyes so I can not see anyone else.

How about 'No'.

Cursing - In execption of The "GD" one, I think curses are mainly determined by society, so a commandment about them is sort of moot.

There's others, but I won't bore you any longer. Any questions or you want to tell me off, PM Me.

I'd love to talk about this. Make a new thread if you want.

But see, atheism is an organized set of beliefs and principles. It's just not organized the same way as other religions.



but atheism is NOT an organized set of beliefs and principles
its simply not believing in god.
thats IT
thats all that you need to be an atheist
no books, no meetings, no dues, no guilt over sleeping in on sunday.

Atheists have religion the way nudists have clothes.

Organization...

Services...

Bible would be almost any science textbook.

And another tid-bit i'd like to throw out there:
And that's as sure as we ever are of anything. We believe it enough to act as though it's true. When we're that sure, we call it knowledge. Facts. We bet our lives on it.
Speaker for the Dead
Which means that atheism is not, in fact, rational. It may be more rational than other religions, but it's not rational. When it gets down to it, you really can't know anything 100%, so everything has to be based at least a little on faith. No, fuzzy pink elephants don't exist, but it's impossible for you to show that they don't. For all we know, there could be a planet of fuzzy pink elephants on the other side of the Milky Way. You can, however, show that it is very very unlikely, and so no one really thinks that there can be, except for Neo-Tommunism. That is what fact is. Atheism has very very little proof, and so you cannot count it as fact. You need even more faith to believe it, since it isn't something we would call a fact.

Oh, and for all the people that say atheists don't all believe the same thing (despite Contopon's excellent quote above), you should hear the differences in Christianity alone. If that were true, then there would be no religion: take buhdism...Completely, utterly, and grossly different from christianity. So, that would mean that Christians and Buhdists are part of a religion, since we don't believe the same things.Sorry, Rhyno, you can't go quoting Card to prove anything - he is a mormon and therefore has his own agenda that has little relevence here (although I admit the quote you use IS pertinent.)

Atheism doesn't need proof because atheism is not not out to prove anything. Why? Because it is a personal POV, not an organisation. The individuals who class themselves such are not saying "I can prove that gods don't exist" they are saying "I don't believe that gods exist" which puts the onus firmly on those who are religious to prove that gods do exist (assuming they they feel either the need to do so, or that anything would be gained by doing so).
The bottom line is that every man, woman or small blue furry creature from Alpha Centauri's belief or (lack of it) is their own choice. Atheism isn't a belief;it is a lack of one, and as such cannot be classed as a religion (organised or otherwise), since by your own argument religion presuppposes faith or a belief system, not the lack of such.

Atheism isn't a belief;it is a lack of one, and as such cannot be classed as a religion.

Precisely.

End of discussion.

[
Someone please tell me that they get all that...I'm confused too, and i want to know that i'm not insane. It makes sense to me...even if you disagree, someone tell me they get what i'm trying to say...
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Of course you're not mad.........as far as I can tell. You are stating what you believe to be true. The fact that others dissagree means just that, we have a different belief.
Look, atheism is the total, utter, 100% non belief in something. Okay so far?
So, when did you last think of a cup flying around your head whilst you're typing? I'm willing to bet that until I just asked that, the answer would be never. So, you're an atheist regarding flying cups. It can't possibly be any form of religion to you because 1) The thought never occurred to you and 2) You dismiss the idea, rightly, out of hand. You give it no more thought, it means nothing to you.
Now, in a world where belief in supernatural beings exists, the majority of people's starting point in a conversation about religion is from that 'knowledge'. The atheists starting point is 'knowing' no such entities exist (and not caring). What is happening is that a believer is questioning the non believer and forcing him or her to talk about something which they do not care about. The atheist goes through life with no thought of God or any religion or thinking about his atheism. He has the usual worries of money, relationships etc but never thinks of his atheism because it's not a part of his life. He speaks about it only in conversation with a believer. Atheism simply cannot be a religion to an atheist because he or she never....never thinks about it.

In no way is my atheism a religion because it takes no part of my life.
This is a simple and rather silly analogy but it applies equally to a 'faith' in a God or an 'atheistic' stance. In no way can atheism be a religion.

That is exactly what I've been saying. Tell me, how is that different from what i've been saying???That's the complete opposite of what you've been saying: your contention was that atheism is a religion.

As was already established, it isn't faith alone that makes atheism a religion. It is also that there are deffinite doctrines associated with atheism. It is a well defined set of beliefs. No there aren't. There is only refutation (or attempted refutation) of those doctrines associated with religious sciptures

Webster:
Fact, 5 a piece of information presented as having objective reality.

Facts require only one small piece of faith, and that is that the world we live in is real. Big whoop. Almost everyone believes that, and yes, you could say that it is a religion. In fact, it can be considered a part of almost every religion. But, no one thinks about that because almost everyone believes it.
Another "requirement" of a religion is that it is different from other religions. Ex: if everyone in the world were a christian, then no one would think that Christianity was a religion: they would all think that Christianity was fact. Your gate may not be real. You could be so mentally ill that you percieve the gate when there is none. So, you have faith in the real world. Everyone has faith in the real world, so it's not a religion, because it's not different. You cannot prove to me that the world is real, so i could start a religion stating that it isn't. Then, yours would be considered a religion, because it is opposite of mine.OK, I'll accept that lot - up to a point (for now! See below)

To help illustrate, think back to the particle/wave thing. The line in the middle of the wave isn't a religion, because it doesn't argue against something. It is the norm, the idea that everyone takes as fact. But then someone comes along and shows that it's not the middle after all, it's actually on the crest of the wave. It's a religion.No, no and no that is not a religion, that is theory, hypothesis, or at best a belief. Not to be confused with "religion" which encompases only sets of beliefs associated with spirituality, based on someones scriptures or teachings; or in earlier times with how early man percieved and explained the world he lived in (apologies for the unashamed use of the male pronoun there)

Point is, your statement of the gate is in the middle. No one has shown that it isn't, so we assume it is. We treat it as the particle, not the wave.
Atheism is acting as a wave. People have shown that it isn't the middle: the middle is agnosticism. (<-that right???). That makes atheism a religion.

Someone please tell me that they get all that...I'm confused too, and i want to know that i'm not insane. It makes sense to me...even if you disagree, someone tell me they get what i'm trying to say...lol - I think that particular analogy is getting a bit laboured :?

Of course you're not mad.........as far as I can tell. You are stating what you believe to be true. The fact that others dissagree means just that, we have a different belief.
Look, atheism is the total, utter, 100% non belief in something. Okay so far?
So, when did you last think of a cup flying around your head whilst you're typing? I'm willing to bet that until I just asked that, the answer would be never. So, you're an atheist regarding flying cups. It can't possibly be any form of religion to you because 1) The thought never occurred to you and 2) You dismiss the idea, rightly, out of hand. You give it no more thought, it means nothing to you.
Now, in a world where belief in supernatural beings exists, the majority of people's starting point in a conversation about religion is from that 'knowledge'. The atheists starting point is 'knowing' no such entities exist (and not caring). What is happening is that a believer is questioning the non believer and forcing him or her to talk about something which they do not care about. The atheist goes through life with no thought of God or any religion or thinking about his atheism. He has the usual worries of money, relationships etc but never thinks of his atheism because it's not a part of his life. He speaks about it only in conversation with a believer. Atheism simply cannot be a religion to an atheist because he or she never....never thinks about it.well put.

"no further questions yr honor"

DP

But atheism is organized. Most pro-abortion, gay rights, stuff like that, is all coming from atheistic views. And science class might as well be a sermon.

no one is pro-abortion, well, very few people are. pro-abortion would imply that you want everyone to have an abortion.
and gay rights is also pagan in nature, those pagans don't tend to see anything wrong with love.

and science and religion are not related at all. just because science doesn't fall back on a deity for explaining natural phenomena does not mean that science is sitting about disproving god. there are many scientists who are religious, as there are many people who don't know much at all about science who are atheists. i hate when people make ignorant assertions like science is athiestic. just because something doesn't promote a literal genesis does not mean that it disproves a god, nor does it mean that it proves one.

But atheism is organized. Most pro-abortion, gay rights, stuff like that, is all coming from atheistic views. And science class might as well be a sermon.

no one is pro-abortion, well, very few people are. pro-abortion would imply that you want everyone to have an abortion.
and gay rights is also pagan in nature, those pagans don't tend to see anything wrong with love.

and science and religion are not related at all. just because science doesn't fall back on a deity for explaining natural phenomena does not mean that science is sitting about disproving god. there are many scientists who are religious, as there are many people who don't know much at all about science who are atheists. i hate when people make ignorant assertions like science is athiestic. just because something doesn't promote a literal genesis does not mean that it disproves a god, nor does it mean that it proves one.

But atheism is organized. Most pro-abortion, gay rights, stuff like that, is all coming from atheistic views. And science class might as well be a sermon.

no one is pro-abortion, well, very few people are. pro-abortion would imply that you want everyone to have an abortion.
and gay rights is also pagan in nature, those pagans don't tend to see anything wrong with love.

and science and religion are not related at all. just because science doesn't fall back on a deity for explaining natural phenomena does not mean that science is sitting about disproving god. there are many scientists who are religious, as there are many people who don't know much at all about science who are atheists. i hate when people make ignorant assertions like science is athiestic. just because something doesn't promote a literal genesis does not mean that it disproves a god, nor does it mean that it proves one.

It's fine that they teach Big Bang, they should just at least mention the other stuff...like i said, there's no more proof for BB than for Creation, and according to scientific theory crap, that makes Creation just as viable a theory. More so, since scientific theory also dictates that the simpler answer is usually correct.

there is 0 proof for creation as described in the bible.
there is plenty of evidence that suggests the big bang happened...

and what's simpler? saying everything came about by itself? or saying that it came about by way of some supernatural creature who must be more complicated than the universe to have created it.
creation is not a theory. you don't seem to know much about science if you think it is.

thank you spherical
well said

when one sees the world through a religious lens i guess its hard to believe that some people dont.

But see, atheism is an organized set of beliefs and principles. It's just not organized the same way as other religions.



but atheism is NOT an organized set of beliefs and principles
its simply not believing in god.
thats IT
thats all that you need to be an atheist
no books, no meetings, no dues, no guilt over sleeping in on sunday.

And all you need to be a Christian is belief in Christ's resurection.
thats IT
no books, no meetings, no dues, but yeah might feel guilty.

See, everyone thinks that you have to do all of these things to be a Christian. It's really the other way around. You do all of these things because you're a Christian.

Christianity in itself requires absolutely no organization, no books, no dues, no nothin', 'cept belief in Christ.

very true rhyno

although to be a non heretic you have to follow the nicean creed which of course the southern baptists do.
to be a GOOD christian you have to actually follow the teachings of jesus.

Organization...

Services...

Bible would be almost any science textbook.

And another tid-bit i'd like to throw out there:
And that's as sure as we ever are of anything. We believe it enough to act as though it's true. When we're that sure, we call it knowledge. Facts. We bet our lives on it.
Speaker for the Dead
Which means that atheism is not, in fact, rational. It may be more rational than other religions, but it's not rational. When it gets down to it, you really can't know anything 100%, so everything has to be based at least a little on faith. No, fuzzy pink elephants don't exist, but it's impossible for you to show that they don't. For all we know, there could be a planet of fuzzy pink elephants on the other side of the Milky Way. You can, however, show that it is very very unlikely, and so no one really thinks that there can be, except for Neo-Tommunism. That is what fact is. Atheism has very very little proof, and so you cannot count it as fact. You need even more faith to believe it, since it isn't something we would call a fact.

Oh, and for all the people that say atheists don't all believe the same thing (despite Contopon's excellent quote above), you should hear the differences in Christianity alone. If that were true, then there would be no religion: take buhdism...Completely, utterly, and grossly different from christianity. So, that would mean that Christians and Buhdists are part of a religion, since we don't believe the same things.Sorry, Rhyno, you can't go quoting Card to prove anything - he is a mormon and therefore has his own agenda that has little relevence here (although I admit the quote you use IS pertinent.)

Atheism doesn't need proof because atheism is not not out to prove anything. Why? Because it is a personal POV, not an organisation. The individuals who class themselves such are not saying "I can prove that gods don't exist" they are saying "I don't believe that gods exist" which puts the onus firmly on those who are religious to prove that gods do exist (assuming they they feel either the need to do so, or that anything would be gained by doing so).
The bottom line is that every man, woman or small blue furry creature from Alpha Centauri's belief or (lack of it) is their own choice. Atheism isn't a belief;it is a lack of one, and as such cannot be classed as a religion (organised or otherwise), since by your own argument religion presuppposes faith or a belief system, not the lack of such.

Card's a mormon? Didn't know :shock: .

Anyway, the lack of belief is agnosticism. Then you would believe nothing. yes, that means you don't believe that God exists, but you also don't believe he doesn't. By saying he doesn't, you have stated what you think is fact, which requires faith, which is part of it being a religion.

So atheism may be the lack in belief of God, but it is also the belief that there isn't God.

As to what Sphere said, no, i have not though of a cup flying around my head. But again, that makes me agnostic, not atheistic about it.

"pg. 969
religion: #4 A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

Very well, I will concede that under THAT definition, SOME forms of atheism (strong form) qualify as religion.

I will also concede that under that definition, democracy is a religion. Political parties are a religion. Many social behaviors of any kind are a religion. Militarism a religion. Pacifism a religion. Triangular sliced sandwiches. Washing hands. Styles of driving a car.

Hey, EVERYTHING is a religion!

In case you haven't noticed, in common usage, the #4 definition is not the one generally used when describing "a religion." Generally, there we mean "a system of spiritual/theological beliefs, containing dogma, holy manuals, holy men, etc."

And on that, more meaningful definition; so sorry, atheism is not.

Also, now that someone has turned on my "rant" function...

I intensely dislike it when people try to turn atheism into a religion. Or when they try to make it out as an organized, positive belief system on par with theism. Here's why.

The core point behind anyone making such arguments is this. "You're just as stupid for NOT believing my invisible sky fairy as I am for believing in it!"

For example, let's say I have a belief that the world is a giant pumpkin. Let's call it Pumpkinism. I get followers, a club, a card and the t-shirt. Now it's a religion.

Now, someone comes along who blatantly, ignorantly, stupidly and annoyingly flat-out refuses to accept Pumpkinism!

I shall call this person an Apumpkinist. They are without the belief that the world is a giant pumpkin. Depending on the strength and nature of their arguments, they may be an Anti-pumpkinist (and will, of course, go to Hell for that, but moving along now.)

Now then, tell me one thing: is belief that the world is NOT a giant pumpkin, a religion? Is it just as religious to say the world is a giant pumpkin, as it is to reply, "Uh, no, it's a lump of minerals orbiting the sun?"

[
Card's a mormon? Didn't know :shock: .

Anyway, the lack of belief is agnosticism. Then you would believe nothing. yes, that means you don't believe that God exists, but you also don't believe he doesn't. By saying he doesn't, you have stated what you think is fact, which requires faith, which is part of it being a religion.

So atheism may be the lack in belief of God, but it is also the belief that there isn't God.

As to what Sphere said, no, i have not though of a cup flying around my head. But again, that makes me agnostic, not atheistic about it.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

To be honest Rhyno, your insistance, in the face of eveyone elses assertations, based on their own beliefs and experiences is starting to piss me off. The lack of belief is not agnosticism, it is atheism. Acknowledging a possibility is agnosticism. You are the one who has ranted that atheism is a religion of sorts. Believing there is no God and not bloody caring is not a religion. And now, although you know with 100% certainty that no cups are about to whizz round your head, you say you're agnostic about it. I'm all for a good argument but you are just arguing for the sake of it, or you really don't understand the meaning of the words. Or perhaps I was wrong to say you're not mad. Only a fool or a madman would dismiss the excellent arguments here and persist in insisting that the moon is made of cheese despite the chunks of rock brought back on Appolo
.........maybe you're one of those that think that was a fake too.

Spherical.... in this case, you are wrong. You state that the lack of belief is not agnosticism but atheism. However, it is agnosticism that does not profess to 'know' anything. Knowledge about religion, either for or against it, is a belief. It doesn't amtter if an atheist never even thinks about their views on religion, since if you ask them whether there is or is not a god, they will answer no. An agnostic would answer "I don't know". That is not a belief, that is an honest fact. The agnostic really doesn't know. The atheist, however, doesn't really know but professes to, in the same way as a believer states that God exists. The believer says they know, but they do not.

That is the difference between agnosticism and atheism. The atheist professes to believe something that the agnostic knows to be unverifiable, namely that there is no God.

People, PLEASE stop trying to confuse rationality with belief! It is possible to have a rational belief, but that does not elevate this belief to a fact! It is equally possible to have a belief that is irrational, but this does not make it any less relevant than a rational belief, except that it cannot (or at least should not) be used to make judgments in a rational society.

Since we have built our society out of rationality, it is easy to fall into the fallacy of thinking that all rational beliefs are facts, because those are the types of ideas that are most familiar to us. All of these arguments that try to portray the belief in pink fuzzy elephants or pumpkin worlds as weaker than the belief in the Big Bang (it is a belief, albeit a very rational one; can YOU verify that the Big Bang actually occurred? And, though I hesitate to seem like a comspiracy theorist, can you prove that the moon isn't made of cheese and that the rocks are not fakes?) are flawed.

I could be an astrophysicist who works in an observatory seeking evidence for the Big Bang, and then when I go home I could be a Bible-thumping Christian who advocates Creation. This is unlikely, but it demonstrates that the only important thing is not to try combine the two belief systems. I could not be an astrophysicist who tries to verify Creationism, as astrophysics is a discipline that was created by rational laws. I am not saying that some people do not try to do so (my physics professor was a brilliant man who tried to reconcile his religious beliefs with science), but I am saying that it is an impossible task. The two belief systems are not meant to interface together. Science is based upon what your senses can experience; religion is based upon what you believe could and should be true about the world.

Before anyone starts confusing science and atheism again, I would like to reiterate a point I made earlier: atheism is not the belief in science. You could be an atheist who believes that both religion and science are wrong, and that would not make you any less of an atheist. So stop using science to attack religious beliefs!

Everything is a belief but the statement of ignorance. An agnostic is the only person who does not believe in anything.

Having seen you post several times, you have yet to address this, Rhyno.

I haven"t made any logical argument to explain here, just pointed out where the construction of yours failed.

No, actually, you didn't "point out" where i was wrong, you just said i was wrong. No pointing, just talking.

Here is where I pointed out your error in logic:
You have made a logical leap here by defining atheism as being based on faith and not rationality, thus your argument falls apart in construction.


You say religion is irrational, and atheism isn't, so it's not a religion.

Where did I say that? Please don't put word in my mouth.

That's arguing against what i'm saying, so yes, you are arguing, but badly.

Pointing out a flaw in your logic does not equal constructing a counter-argument. Others are doing that.

And anyway, I'm arguing against you, and asking you to explain. Again, if I'm so stupid, then why don't you enlighten me so I can be not stupid?

Lets work through your OP.

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary,

pg. 969
religion: #4 A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

pg. 408
(1) faith: 2 b (1) firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) complete confidence 3 something that is believed esp with strong conviction; esp: a system of religious beliefs
(2) faith: BELIEVE, TRUST

pg. 70
atheism: 1 b the doctrine that there is no diety

pg. 333
doctrine: 2 b principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief


Thus:
Atheism is doctrine, or set of principles, and since there is no concrete proof, you must have faith in it.
Thus:
Atheism is principles that are held with faith.


Step 1: You define religion as a belief held with faith.

Step 2: You define faith as being "...belief in something for which there is no proof". Irrational is defined here (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irrational) as being "not consistent with or using reason".

Step 3: You define atheism as a doctrine and doctrine as a belief.

Step 4: You claim that there is no proof for atheism and that it must be held on faith.

Your proof:
A is B.
B is C.
D is E.
Thus D is A.

You have skipped equating A with D.

Thus I said:
You have made a logical leap here by defining atheism as being based on faith and not rationality, thus your argument falls apart in construction.

This was a critique of the logical foundations of your argument, not a counter-argument.

(edited to clean up open tags)

Atheism doesn't need proof because atheism is not not out to prove anything. Why? Because it is a personal POV, not an organisation. The individuals who class themselves such are not saying "I can prove that gods don't exist" they are saying "I don't believe that gods exist" which puts the onus firmly on those who are religious to prove that gods do exist (assuming they they feel either the need to do so, or that anything would be gained by doing so).
The bottom line is that every man, woman or small blue furry creature from Alpha Centauri's belief or (lack of it) is their own choice. Atheism isn't a belief;it is a lack of one, and as such cannot be classed as a religion (organised or otherwise), since by your own argument religion presuppposes faith or a belief system, not the lack of such.

Card's a mormon? Didn't know :shock: .

Anyway, the lack of belief is agnosticism. No, you've got it backwards now: lack of belief is Atheism; Agnosticism is the viewpoint that it (the existence/non-existence of gods) cannot be proven either way Then you would believe nothing. yes, that means you don't believe that God exists, but you also don't believe he doesn't.correct.
By saying he doesn't, you have stated what you think is fact, which requires faith, which is part of it being a religion.Faith maybe part of being a religion, but the reverse is not necessarily true: faith is implicit in religion, but faith does not imply religion. For example - I have (usually) faith in my car to get me to London and back. This is merely a belief and does not imply that I have a religion based around the reliability of my car. In other words: faith is part of religion, but religion is not part of faith

So atheism may be the lack in belief of God, but it is also the belief that there isn't God. Yes it may be either or both of those things to each different individual, but it is not a requisite of being defined as an atheist that one hold both of those views

I will debate god, but I do not service the practice of not worshiping one. :?

Atheism itself is not a religion, But religions can sprout of from certain atheist beliefs. For example, Buddhism, Taoism, Kung Fu Tzeism, And Satanism are all atheist religions. Meaning they don't believe in God. But they are still religions.

Just like beinging agnostic could mean your also Shintoist.

Religion doesn't always mean having a "God"

It's an organized set of beliefs and principles.

Theism isn't a religion either, It's simply the belief of a god. But it has no organization or set principles or beliefs. There's religions that sprouted off that belief of god. But calling theism its own "religion" is like calling Hindu, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and bahia all the same religion because they are all "theism"


But see, atheism is an organized set of beliefs and principles. It's just not organized the same way as other religions.

And here's a point...My school is organized, and has a set of beliefs and principles; does that make it a religious instutition?
I've been to church meetings that weren't organized at all, and had nothing to do with learning about Christianity. Does that make it not religious?

But atheism doesn't have any set beliefs or principles, it has only one belief in common, The lack of a God. That doesn't qualify as a set of beliefs or principles.

Also in order for it to be a religion it has to deal with the unknown, I doubt your school rules have anything to do with the unknown or the unProveable.

Also that chuch meeting wouldn't be religious because it had nothing to do with religion. Just because there's a meeting of people of the same faith doesn't always make the meeting religious.

Yea, so rhyno... You are the only one here who is not making any kind of sense, so I am going to leave this topic as it is saying that atheism is not a religion. I can say that because I know it isnt and many of us have given ample evidence of this. If you believe the contrary than one of a few things is true.

1. You are simply over looking the basic definitions of words and are getting things confused. Honest mistake, no harm done.
2. You enjoy being an ass and are just arguing for the sake of it.
3. You are a complete idiot.

Atheists ignore the fact of God, therefore, they acknowledge His presence by ignorning him.

If God was a fact it wouldn't be a religion.

Gotta love Contopon. Thanks once again for another excellent quote.
No, the existance of God is not fact, thus it is a religion. The non-existance of God isn't fact either, so atheism is a religion, by the same rules you're using to define Christianity as a religion...

Oh, and let's bring some physics into this...(do know that i'm not a physicist...do correct me if I'm wrong here...)
Light exists as particles and waves at the same time.
Ex: the whole cat in a box thing. At any time, the cat may be alive, or it may be dead. You don't know which, thus, it is both. But at the same time, it is one or the other, you just don't know.

The existance of God is the same way. None of us know that he is or is not real. But, it is either one or the other. To not be a religion, you'd have to be in the middle of the wave, thus agnostics. Atheism, though, is at one end, Christianity, Islam, etc. at the other. Being in the middle requires no faith, since you aren't saying it is or it isn't. By being at the crest of the wave though, you are making a statement, one not based on fact, as I've shown over and over again...So atheism is based on faith.

In other words, religion is acting as a wave. If it were a particle, it wouldn't be a religion. But both "religion" and atheism are part of the wave, and we can't know where the particle is until you die or God comes back.

first of all: it is very dangerous and in a lot of cases plain wrong to use results, theories and/or scientific methods from one area of science in another area.

secondly: in the cat in the box analogy: in quantummechanics, the cat would be death and alive at the same time, not death or alive but we don't know it. a particle in quantummechanics can be both 0 and 1, in classic mechanics it is either 0 or 1.

because of these 2 remarks, you are not allowed to say "The existance of God is the same way. None of us know that he is or is not real. But, it is either one or the other.".

now to the maker of the topic
:
according to your logic, anything that we believe to be true but that has not been proven is a religion. The problem with this is that nothing can be proven true. when we view the world, we interpret the photo-chemical reactions in our eyes using the theories we have developed about the world. We then use what we see to develop new theories. this leads to a circle in which nothing can be proven true.

an example:
When we see objects we see the light that is emited or reflected by that object.
3 people look at the stars: a medival man, a modern child and a scientist.
-the medival man: i see a star at the firmament of heaven.
-the child: i a the star that is far away in space.
-the scientist: i see the light that star has emitted x years ago.

when the child and the scientist look at fish swimming at the bottom of a lake:
-child: points at were he sees the fish and says "the fish is over there."
-scientist: points at blank spot and says "the light that is reflected by the fish is broken at the surface of the lake and therefor the fish is over there and not were i see him"

the matrix: we think we see things but in fact it is a machine giving input to our brain.

All cases illustrate how what one knows influences what one sees and what one knows follows out of what one sees. therefor None of the people in the examples are correct. We don't know anything for sure, nothing can be proven, so using your logic everything is a religion. This is of course a lousy definition of religion don't you think?

to those that have replied on my view on agnosticism (mr. Zarozina in special):

first of all, an atheist can still tolerate religious people, agnostics and other athiests. I can be pretty extreme in the debate, but i'm not a preacher as i only talk about it when someone else brought it up, i never go out and try to 'convert' people. This was just to be clear.
i still think agnosticism is to be prefered over religion, but i also think atheism is to be prefered over agnosticism (else i would not be an atheist).

1. Because of the problem that nothing can be proven and that we can't know anything for sure, we don't give boolean values to theories, but we try to judge them on arbitrary criteria ranging from simplicity (a very complex theory might be able to discribe a proces very exact, whilst a simple theory might discribe the proces exact enough for what we want to do), usability, necessity, supporting empirical data, the theory makes predictions that can be tested which often lead to new 'knowledge'...

Let's try to judge the theory "god(s) exist(s)":
- it has no proof (nor disproof)
- i does not explain things without raising new questions (the only thing it might explains is perhaps who created the universe, but i ask you who created god?)
-it has no 'usability': we use still newtons theories for building bridges, allthough they are accepted to be wrong. so a theory that is accepted to be 'wrong' can still be very very usefull to us.
-it does not make predictions.
-no new knowledge can be acquired by it.
note that this theory receives the same judgement as the theory "a big purple whale has once created to universe and put it on a bookshelf in his giant bananacastle"

now to get to the point: some agnostics say that agnosticism is the only scientific option as both atheism and religion can be proven nor disproven in the strict sense of the word. I have allready spoken about the problem that nothing can be proven in the strict sense of the word and that is why science and philophy (as science is a part of philosphy and philosophy is still a science) try to judge a theory like i tried to do above. because the theory "god exists" is not judged to be a good theory, it is rejected, allthough not disproven as this is impossible. therefor the philosophical/scientific stance is atheism, not agnosticism.

This leads to the remark that a lot of scientists are religious, and are often inspired and driven by there religious feelings. but most scientists are not philosophers, meaning that they have not studied philosophy. scientists specialise in a very small area and can't speak about other area's, like philosophy. A lot of scientist still have views about science itself, that are, philosophicly speaking, outdated. so scientists can still be religious while science itself is atheist. the view that science does not answer the question "god exists" and is therefor agnostic is in my eyes wrong. someone who is specialised in quantummechanics or in psychology can't answer it using his theories and methods. but the question belongs to the domain of philosphy and the modern theories about theories will lead to the rejection of "a big purple whale has once created to universe and put it on a bookshelf in his giant bananacastle"
and analogically to the rejection of "god exists". therefor philosophy and science are atheist.

2. Try to formulate possible answers to the question "what is the meaning of life?" from an atheist, agnostic and religious side:

-religious: God has created everything around us and we are all part of his plan, therefor the very meaning of life and every little event lies in the fact that we are all part of gods plan and therefor the meaning of life is god itself. God is both the reason why we exist and the meaning of our existance.

-atheist: "we don't know it", "we can't know it", "the question itself is meaningless", "Life is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" (Hamlet)...

Note that the atheist answers and the religious answers are fundamentally different. this gives some problems when you try to answer it from an agnostic stance:
an agnostic will, folowing the tradition that he can't know the answer, probably say: "we can't know it" and this because he first needs to answer the question "does god exist". "we can't know it" is also an atheist answer, but this answer comes from someone who has actually spent time thinking about the question and who then decided that the answer is that no human can know the meaning of life. the agnostic "we can't know it" is an inability to formulate a definite answer to the question. he can't answer the question now, because the answer depends on wether god exists (in which case the answer is the religious one) or not (in which case i can start thinking about an atheist answer), but if i can ever answer this question, i'll be able to formulate an answer. where the atheist "we can't know it" is a real answer saying that it is impossible for every human to know the meaning of life, the agnostic answer isn't an answer, but he is just saying that he cannot answer the question itself.

because this question and similar important questions are important and most people will ask these questions when they are given the time, it is important that one is able to answer these questons for himself. religious people and atheist are capable of formulating possible answers, but agnostics are not. If an agnostic would say "we can't know it" and he means this as a real answer (see above), then he is saying that no human can ever know the meaning of life and therefor he excludes the religious answer, and he excludes religion itself. In that case the agnostic just turned into an atheist.

combined this gives that agnosticism leads to an inability to formulate answers to fundamental questions of life and at the same time the agnostic stance on "god exists" is not the scientific/philosophical stance.

This is my opinion, most may/probably wil differ.

Faith: Belief in something without due cause. Due cause can be a hazy area, but I'd tend to think that scientific theories tend to have due cause behind them. All science, even psychology, is based on past experience and repeated examination. You can get metaphysical with the brain in a jar hypothesis, but that doesn't affect the question of science, since it describes the world we live in. Whether we are living in the Universe as we understand the term or we're in some sort of computer program, that is what science describes.

Religion: Organised set of beliefs (and doctrines/ceremonies). I.e. Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Christianity.

Atheism: The belief that there is no God/Gods. I've yet to see convincing scientific evidence for this or it's opposite, so atheism is a faith, but not a religion, unless you count religions like Buddhism, but no such religion represents the whole of the atheist faith.

Agnosticism: The belief that there is nothing beyond this world, i.e. no God, etc., no ghosts, 'lesser deities' in the Greco-Roman and Oriental style and so on and so forth.


I identify myself as an infidel- I have no faith, that is, I reject all non-neccessary beliefs, though I will make assumptions when called for. Whether God or Gods exists or not shouldn't really matter if He or She or It or S/he is a worthy and pragmatic ruler-
If I live a good life and don't harm others, what reason is there to punish me?
And would I want to spend eternity with someone who refused people entry into the afterlife for picking the wrong religion, or none at all, and living an otherwise blameless life?

The question of an all-mighty God, Goddess or Gods' existence is beyond human mind by various definitions of the terms. Just act good like they do, ignore dogma like they don't. Then again, if Stephen Hawking comes along tomorrow and gives us God's phone number, the whole things academic. Basically, human intelligence and sentience can't handle the idea as it's shown, so why bother? Just get on with making this world a better place.

As for the Meaning of Life, I remember a quote that goes something like 'If this generation seems more nihilistic than those that came before it, perhaps it is because we are coming closer to realising life's fundamental truth: That life's only purpose is life itself.'. I'd tend to think that this holds true to some extent, and that it means we should concentrate on improving the lot of life on Earth- Which fits well with my idea of ignoring the question of God's existence for the reasons I stated: If S/he does exist, surely efforts to improve the lot of our fellow man and other lifeforms are bonus points, if not, the lot of our fellow man and other lifeforms has been improved, so it works both ways.

This is my opinion, most may/probably wil differ.

Faith: Belief in something without due cause. Due cause can be a hazy area, but I'd tend to think that scientific theories tend to have due cause behind them. All science, even psychology, is based on past experience and repeated examination. You can get metaphysical with the brain in a jar hypothesis, but that doesn't affect the question of science, since it describes the world we live in. Whether we are living in the Universe as we understand the term or we're in some sort of computer program, that is what science describes.

Religion: Organised set of beliefs (and doctrines/ceremonies). I.e. Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Christianity.

Atheism: The belief that there is no God/Gods. I've yet to see convincing scientific evidence for this or it's opposite, so atheism is a faith, but not a religion, unless you count religions like Buddhism, but no such religion represents the whole of the atheist faith.

Agnosticism: The belief that there is nothing beyond this world, i.e. no God, etc., no ghosts, 'lesser deities' in the Greco-Roman and Oriental style and so on and so forth.



okay, you get to have your own "opinion," but if you just decide to give words different meanings then your opinions are a problem. i am an agnostic, and your definition is completely and totally wrong. agnosticism is the belief that we do not (and, in most cases cannot) know about the existence of God or other spiritual beings. most agnostics conclude that since we cannot know whether God exists it would be as silly to base our lives on Him as it would be to base our lives on the equally-unprovable Holy Pink Unicorn In The Sky. agnosticism is NOT about disbelief in God or gods, as you have claimed, it is about recognizing the limitations of human ability and shaping our lives and theories accordingly.

what you described as agnosticism is simply a rephrasing of atheism, the belief that there is not God or gods. agnosticism is very crucially different, and for you to try to define it the way you did is like if i said my opinion was that "Christian" means people who don't believe in Jesus. that can be my opinion if i really want, but i'm flat out wrong because i have chosen to use a definition other than the one the word carries.

One problem that we run into in this kind of discussion is that there is no universally accepted defenition of religion. Different people use the term differently depending on what they are trying to prove. In most cases no defenition is necessary because we can agree on what is religion and what is not but there are borderline cases where there is still debate (although most students of philosophy I have talked to agree that atheism is not a religion). As such, to label atheism as religion or not has little meaning outside a personal point of veiw, thus one side cannot convince the other.

On the issue of science and religion, however, it is possilble to be more definitive (I will be saying a lot of what Illich Jackal has already said here). Science is merely a method of collecting, organizing, and interpreting data from the emperical world, nothing more or less. As such, however, it has a limited realm of application (the emperical world) and also must make the assumption that the emperical world remains unaffected by outside influences. It is possible to say that the entire universe was created two seconds ago by omnipotent intervention and everything, including our memories, were put into place at that time and nobody can ever prove differently. This view, however, is unscientific because it assumes an external intervention that is not described by the laws that we observe nor can it be extrapolated from them. This means that it cannot be used to formulate theories or perdictions and so provides no useful information in the scientific sense. This is why "creation science" is not science at all and scientists generally take such exeption to it not beacuse it is wrong but because it claims to be scientific when it is not.
This leads to another point. I belive it was Rhyno D who objected to creationism not being taught along with evolution in science classes. The reason why it is not is because, as I said, it is not a scientific theory wherase evolution is. Now one can argue that science is not the only legitimate way of knowing the universe, and this is ture, but science classes are not the correct forum for the teaching of creationism wherease the equally legitimate subjects of comparative religion or even a philosophy class might be. The reason why it is important for all children to learn science is that it is the dominant paradigm for the interpretation of the universe and knowledge of its workings is necessary to survive in the modern world. The fact that evolution and big bang theory are the currently accepted theories in science should be known by everyone, even if they are not believed.
The reasons that science has the dominant paradigm are twofold: first, it is the most sucessful approach ever formulated for describing the emperical world and produces the most useful results and perdictions. Almost every device and comfort we enjoy is evidence of this. Secondly, science is the approach that makes the fewest assumptions about the nature of the universe. It assumes only that the universe exists and we can explain how it works by observing it. The existence of a creator or purpose to the universe is totally unessecary (or at least I find it to be so) and is not suggested by any evidence that we have. Thus a creator or purpose is an unessecary and highly complication assumption. Note that this does not make the assumption wrong and science has nothing to say about the actual start of the universe (we astrophysicists take t=0 as an initial boudary condition) so no creator is precluded, however for science to be useful we make the reasonable assumption (reasonable because to assume the otherwise is both more complicated and lacks any evidence) that "god" does not interfere with the universe at any point other that at its inception. It is for these reasons of utility, simplicity, and corresponding elegance that science is so popular. It is also for these reasons that science is usually seen as atheistic (although its practitioners need not be).

First of all. I do (now) think atheism is a religion. But is it that important? Sorry I don't really have much to say on this subject. But you cannot apply science to religion. It just doesn't work that way. Science sais God doesn't exist. So you can't apply science to figure this out.

Yea, so rhyno... You are the only one here who is not making any kind of sense, so I am going to leave this topic as it is saying that atheism is not a religion. I can say that because I know it isnt and many of us have given ample evidence of this. If you believe the contrary than one of a few things is true.

1. You are simply over looking the basic definitions of words and are getting things confused. Honest mistake, no harm done.
2. You enjoy being an ass and are just arguing for the sake of it.
3. You are a complete idiot.

1. You are simply over looking the basic definitions of words and are getting things confused. The very first post in this thread is the basic definitions! How can I be over looking them???
2. Your post isn't relavent, and you're only saying it for the heck of it. To quote myself: *coughhypocricycough*. Also, why the heck are you arguing? If I'm so stupid, you would have quit a long time ago.
3. Quoting myself again: "Petty name calling gets you nowhere." You're the ass, apparently, since you can't have a decent conversation, simply because we feel differently.


Daistallia:
I didn't respond because i didn't feel like it was worth responding to. I've prettymuch covered most of that in other posts anyway. I'll respond to it in a bit.


Lenbonia:
Thank you. That's what I've been trying to say this whole time.


Everyone else:
to quote Cog, "Think about it for a moment."
Read what i've said so far before you start repeating yourself and everyone else. I like the feedback, but let's get some variety.

Atheism is NOT a religion. In fact it is the opposite of religion. It may be a belief, or lack of one.. but you can also believe your dishwasher will clean the dishes, that doesn't make it a religion. Sorry.. wayyyy off base on that one. Atheism is as close to religion as black is to white.

First of all. I do (now) think atheism is a religion. But is it that important? Sorry I don't really have much to say on this subject. But you cannot apply science to religion. It just doesn't work that way. Science sais God doesn't exist. So you can't apply science to figure this out.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Science most certainly does not 'say' God does not exist. There are many 'believing' scientists. At the risk of being told again that I don't understand the word, science itself is 'agnostic'. Indeed, as I have said before, the cutting edge of science right now is quantum mechanics. If you have an extremely rudimentary idea of quantum (apparently, it's not possible for any one man to comprehend all of the quantum theory), you'll notice that whereas a millenia ago, science and religion diverged on their tracks, quantum brings the tracks a little closer.

But atheism is organized. Most pro-abortion, gay rights, stuff like that, is all coming from atheistic views. And science class might as well be a sermon.

no one is pro-abortion, well, very few people are. pro-abortion would imply that you want everyone to have an abortion.
and gay rights is also pagan in nature, those pagans don't tend to see anything wrong with love.

and science and religion are not related at all. just because science doesn't fall back on a deity for explaining natural phenomena does not mean that science is sitting about disproving god. there are many scientists who are religious, as there are many people who don't know much at all about science who are atheists. i hate when people make ignorant assertions like science is athiestic. just because something doesn't promote a literal genesis does not mean that it disproves a god, nor does it mean that it proves one.

Nice try at hijacking the thread. :wink:

And if you will kindly actually read what i said, you can see how it wasn't ignorant at all. Misguided, maybe, but not ignorant. Petty name-calling gets you no where.

there is 0 proof for creation as described in the bible.
there is plenty of evidence that suggests the big bang happened...

and what's simpler? saying everything came about by itself? or saying that it came about by way of some supernatural creature who must be more complicated than the universe to have created it.
creation is not a theory. you don't seem to know much about science if you think it is.

Proof? Here it is.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. It's a logical fallacy that means argument from ingnorance. It basically states that just because something hasn't been proven true, you can't claim it to be false. Or the other way around, if it hasnt been proven false, you can't claim it to be true. So logically, you are all wrong :) I guess the only ones that are safe are agnostics and their "maybe". But then again, how many religions are based on logic?


Oh, and which is simpler?
God said so, and it was...

OR

A giant ball of swirling matter (from nowhere apparently) came together because of gravitational forces, and was super-heated from the pressure until it exploded outward, then slowly condensed because of gravity to form the stars, which ignited under the pressure. Then the heavier elements condensed into planets, etc. etc.

Hmm...six words (and that's stretching it...I could have left it at "God said so"), to a whole paragraph, and that's leaving out the technical mumbo-jumbo.


very true rhyno

although to be a non heretic you have to follow the nicean creed which of course the southern baptists do.
to be a GOOD christian you have to actually follow the teachings of jesus.

That's true too, but that's not what's being argued. The fact is, you can be a Christian without the Bible, and without Church, and without organization. People were arguing that atheism isn't organized; well, neither is Christianity when it gets right down to it. So, according to their rules, Christianity isn't a religion either. :roll:

And all you need to be a Christian is belief in Christ's resurection.
thats IT
no books, no meetings, no dues, but yeah might feel guilty.

See, everyone thinks that you have to do all of these things to be a Christian. It's really the other way around. You do all of these things because you're a Christian.

Christianity in itself requires absolutely no organization, no books, no dues, no nothin', 'cept belief in Christ.

Exactly. That's a wonderful explanation. However, people seem to be getting off of the original topic. Which slightly amuses me. Let's try and stick to the topic here peoples. Whether we believe atheism is a religion or not. Someone mentioned that it's relevant because if it's a religion, then the schools can't be teaching it. Schools aren't teaching it, as far as I can tell. However, they are teaching something else that was declared a religion by the Supreme Court. I shall find it and the info ( I seem to have misplaced it) and post it in a completely different and new topic. Because this one is crowded, and I'm too lazy to go through it. :P

Atheism is NOT a religion. In fact it is the opposite of religion. It may be a belief, or lack of one.. but you can also believe your dishwasher will clean the dishes, that doesn't make it a religion. Sorry.. wayyyy off base on that one. Atheism is as close to religion as black is to white.

OMG a mod said smthg sensible! 8)

Atheism is NOT a religion. In fact it is the opposite of religion. It may be a belief, or lack of one.. but you can also believe your dishwasher will clean the dishes, that doesn't make it a religion. Sorry.. wayyyy off base on that one. Atheism is as close to religion as black is to white.

It's not the opposite of religion, because Atheism is the lack of belief in God. But yet Buddhism, Taoism, Confuncism, and Satanism also don't believe in God. But are still considered religions.

Atheism is NOT a religion. In fact it is the opposite of religion. It may be a belief, or lack of one.. but you can also believe your dishwasher will clean the dishes, that doesn't make it a religion. Sorry.. wayyyy off base on that one. Atheism is as close to religion as black is to white.

It's not the opposite of religion, because Atheism is the lack of belief in God. But yet Buddhism, Taoism, Confuncism, and Satanism also don't believe in God. But are still considered religions.

And the difference between atheism and buddhism is..?

Atheism is NOT a religion. In fact it is the opposite of religion. It may be a belief, or lack of one.. but you can also believe your dishwasher will clean the dishes, that doesn't make it a religion. Sorry.. wayyyy off base on that one. Atheism is as close to religion as black is to white.

It's not the opposite of religion, because Atheism is the lack of belief in God. But yet Buddhism, Taoism, Confuncism, and Satanism also don't believe in God. But are still considered religions.

And the difference between atheism and buddhism is..?

:::raises hand:::

Buddhism is atheistic, but not all atheists are buddhist.

And the difference between atheism and buddhism is..?

:::raises hand:::

Buddhism is atheistic, but not all atheists are buddhist.

Hmmmmaybe, but try something else.

First of all. I do (now) think atheism is a religion. But is it that important? Sorry I don't really have much to say on this subject. But you cannot apply science to religion. It just doesn't work that way. Science sais God doesn't exist. So you can't apply science to figure this out.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Science most certainly does not 'say' God does not exist. There are many 'believing' scientists. At the risk of being told again that I don't understand the word, science itself is 'agnostic'. Indeed, as I have said before, the cutting edge of science right now is quantum mechanics. If you have an extremely rudimentary idea of quantum (apparently, it's not possible for any one man to comprehend all of the quantum theory), you'll notice that whereas a millenia ago, science and religion diverged on their tracks, quantum brings the tracks a little closer.

science might not say god does not exist, but I have allready pointed out that the theory "god exists" holds null value when judged and is therefor rejected as a theory that might be used to understand the world. Naughtland pointed out that science makes the assumption that god, if existing, does and has not interefered with the universe since t=0. out of this assumption follows that no revelation has ever taken place and that if there happened to be a god out there, he would be irrelevant to us as we cannot communicate with such a god and we don't know anything about him (the bible and all aren't god's scriptures by this premisse), in the same way as we don't know anything about the giant pink whale (except that he is gigantic, pink and a whale). This:
a) hollows out the definition of the word god to "something out of our universe that can't interact with the universe" which is fundamentally different from any god in any religion.
b) makes the question of the existance of such a god irrelevant.

this makes science atheistic in the sense that any god that has 'revealed' himself to people cannot exist and therefor any god from any religion on this planet cannot exist according to the premisse. and as the question to the existance of the god that is "something out of our universe that can't interact with the universe" is irrelevant for mankind and for science, we simplify the answer by saying 'no', just because answering 'yes' just brings questions about how this god was created, how he looks like, why he created the world, how he created the world, ... and of course, does there also exist a giant pink whale?
This makes science atheist.

And yes, there are many scientists that believe. Both Naughtland and I have allready told that this is consistent with sciense itself being atheist. So you will have to prove us that if a scientist is religious, that makes science itself not atheist.

Atheism is NOT a religion. In fact it is the opposite of religion. It may be a belief, or lack of one.. but you can also believe your dishwasher will clean the dishes, that doesn't make it a religion. Sorry.. wayyyy off base on that one. Atheism is as close to religion as black is to white.

It's not the opposite of religion, because Atheism is the lack of belief in God. But yet Buddhism, Taoism, Confuncism, and Satanism also don't believe in God. But are still considered religions.

Uh, Satanists do believe in God, they just worship satan instead. Read the Bible: Satan believes in God too!

Atheism is NOT a religion. In fact it is the opposite of religion. It may be a belief, or lack of one.. but you can also believe your dishwasher will clean the dishes, that doesn't make it a religion. Sorry.. wayyyy off base on that one. Atheism is as close to religion as black is to white.

It's not the opposite of religion, because Atheism is the lack of belief in God. But yet Buddhism, Taoism, Confuncism, and Satanism also don't believe in God. But are still considered religions.

And the difference between atheism and buddhism is..?

:::raises hand:::

Buddhism is atheistic, but not all atheists are buddhist.

Again, this doesn't matter. Southern Baptists are Christians, but not all Christians are souther baptist...your point? That doesn't make it not a religion.

Atheism is NOT a religion. In fact it is the opposite of religion. It may be a belief, or lack of one.. but you can also believe your dishwasher will clean the dishes, that doesn't make it a religion. Sorry.. wayyyy off base on that one. Atheism is as close to religion as black is to white.

It's not the opposite of religion, because Atheism is the lack of belief in God. But yet Buddhism, Taoism, Confuncism, and Satanism also don't believe in God. But are still considered religions.

Uh, Satanists do believe in God, they just worship satan instead. Read the Bible: Satan believes in God too!

satanists don't believe in god. they don't actually worship satan, you know. educate yourself about religions before making innacurate statements about them.

Yeah, Dakini's right. Maybe you should learn about other religions from, I dunno, THEIR books and such. I know I'm gonna be damned to hell YET AGAIN for saying this, but the answers to everything in life isn't in the Bible. And you're preacher does not know everything.

Atheism is NOT a religion. In fact it is the opposite of religion. It may be a belief, or lack of one.. but you can also believe your dishwasher will clean the dishes, that doesn't make it a religion. Sorry.. wayyyy off base on that one. Atheism is as close to religion as black is to white.

It's not the opposite of religion, because Atheism is the lack of belief in God. But yet Buddhism, Taoism, Confuncism, and Satanism also don't believe in God. But are still considered religions.

Uh, Satanists do believe in God, they just worship satan instead. Read the Bible: Satan believes in God too!

satanists don't believe in god. they don't actually worship satan, you know. educate yourself about religions before making innacurate statements about them.

webster
Satanism
2 obsession with or affinity for evil; specif : the worship of Satan marked by the travesty of Christian rites

Maybe you should read some books.

And, if you believe in Satan, you have to believe that there is God, since Satan is the opposite of God, and was created by him.

Atheism is NOT a religion. In fact it is the opposite of religion. It may be a belief, or lack of one.. but you can also believe your dishwasher will clean the dishes, that doesn't make it a religion. Sorry.. wayyyy off base on that one. Atheism is as close to religion as black is to white.

It's not the opposite of religion, because Atheism is the lack of belief in God. But yet Buddhism, Taoism, Confuncism, and Satanism also don't believe in God. But are still considered religions.

Oh, and what is Confuncism?
Do you mean Confucianism? Cuz if you do, i'm very sure that it's a philosophy of life, not a religion...

okay, well i'm new to this, but i really don't see why it matters. some of you are southern baptist, some atheist, and i'm catholic. so what?? whether or not atheism is a religion, some of you believe (or don't believe) in it. good for you. i hope you find happiness. oh, and btw, i heard somewhere that to be atheistic is to believe that you are God because to say that there isn't a god would mean that you are all-knowing, and if you are all-knowing, that would make you god. don't quote me on it though, cuz i don't really like the guy that told me that. oh, and can someone please explain the difference between agnosticism, and atheism?? someone tried to explain it to me, but he's retarded. (sorry ryan, you know i love you.)

atheism is not a religion. Why? Because the very word means without religion.

It's the same argument as saying an Amoral person has moral values... it doesn't work that way. The word Atheist was created to describe one who has no religion.

You say in your definition that they have principles... atheism has no principles... it is the absence of principles.

atheism is not a religion. Why? Because the very word means without religion.

It's the same argument as saying an Amoral person has moral values... it doesn't work that way. The word Atheist was created to describe one who has no religion.

You say in your definition that they have principles... atheism has no principles... it is the absence of principles.

Um...no...go back and read the VERY FIRST POST!

atheism is not a religion. Why? Because the very word means without religion.

It's the same argument as saying an Amoral person has moral values... it doesn't work that way. The word Atheist was created to describe one who has no religion.

You say in your definition that they have principles... atheism has no principles... it is the absence of principles.

Um...no...go back and read the VERY FIRST POST!The only principle they have is that there is no God. That's not enough to base a religion off of, is it?

atheism is not a religion. Why? Because the very word means without religion.

It's the same argument as saying an Amoral person has moral values... it doesn't work that way. The word Atheist was created to describe one who has no religion.

You say in your definition that they have principles... atheism has no principles... it is the absence of principles.

Um...no...go back and read the VERY FIRST POST!

But as has been said before, Webster's dictionary is not the authoritative defenition of religion. There is no authoritative defention of religion. Most of the time people can agree on what is a religion and what is not (although obviously not in this case) so in practice it seldom matters. Exactly what constitues religion, however, is still debated by scholars to this day. Indeed, since language changes, the defenition of one time may not be that of another. Don't forget, to the Romans, the early Christians were atheists because they denied the existance of the Roman pantheon.

atheism is not a religion. Why? Because the very word means without religion.

It's the same argument as saying an Amoral person has moral values... it doesn't work that way. The word Atheist was created to describe one who has no religion.

You say in your definition that they have principles... atheism has no principles... it is the absence of principles.

Um...no...go back and read the VERY FIRST POST!

But as has been said before, Webster's dictionary is not the authoritative defenition of religion. There is no authoritative defention of religion. Most of the time people can agree on what is a religion and what is not (although obviously not in this case) so in practice it seldom matters. Exactly what constitues religion, however, is still debated by scholars to this day. Indeed, since language changes, the defenition of one time may not be that of another. Don't forget, to the Romans, the early Christians were atheists because they denied the existance of the Roman pantheon.

The point is, he obviously didn't read the first post.


Don't forget, to the Romans, the early Christians were atheists because they denied the existance of the Roman pantheon.

Yup, and Christianity is a religion ain't it?

atheism is not a religion. Why? Because the very word means without religion.

It's the same argument as saying an Amoral person has moral values... it doesn't work that way. The word Atheist was created to describe one who has no religion.

You say in your definition that they have principles... atheism has no principles... it is the absence of principles.

Um...no...go back and read the VERY FIRST POST!The only principle they have is that there is no God. That's not enough to base a religion off of, is it?

Well, that's what we're debating.

And there are only three basic principles of Christianity:
1) There is a God.
2) Christ is God's son.
3) He died and was raised from the dead.

Is that enough to call it a religion?

atheism is not a religion. Why? Because the very word means without religion.

It's the same argument as saying an Amoral person has moral values... it doesn't work that way. The word Atheist was created to describe one who has no religion.

You say in your definition that they have principles... atheism has no principles... it is the absence of principles.

Um...no...go back and read the VERY FIRST POST!The only principle they have is that there is no God. That's not enough to base a religion off of, is it?

Well, that's what we're debating.

And there are only three basic principles of Christianity:
1) There is a God.
2) Christ is God's son.
3) He died and was raised from the dead.

Is that enough to call it a religion?Christianity SHOULD be about the teachings of Christ and striving to be like him in every way possible.

We're talking about the RELIGION, not the WORD.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/satanis3.htm

Have fun

atheism is not a religion. Why? Because the very word means without religion.

It's the same argument as saying an Amoral person has moral values... it doesn't work that way. The word Atheist was created to describe one who has no religion.

You say in your definition that they have principles... atheism has no principles... it is the absence of principles.

Um...no...go back and read the VERY FIRST POST!The only principle they have is that there is no God. That's not enough to base a religion off of, is it?

Well, that's what we're debating.

And there are only three basic principles of Christianity:
1) There is a God.
2) Christ is God's son.
3) He died and was raised from the dead.

Is that enough to call it a religion?


Aside from the point that you left out whyChrist died (for our sins say the teachings), yes that is enough to base a religion off of. If Christianity was just about Christ being God's son who died and came back to life, then no, it wouldn't be enough to base a religion off because there would be no point to the action.