Atheism is a religion

[amkerman]

If thy dictionary offend thee, pluck it out and go some place where they don't care if you make up your own meanings for words.

many words have multiple definitions. Definitions are often different depending on which dictionary you use. Until I understand a concept, I try to stick with the dictionary. Once I get it, I define it myself.

A definition can't commit a fallacy. If I define bleck as the very definition of the fallacy of invincible ignorance, that does not mean the definition commits that fallacy. What's committed is those of us who are agnostic or weak atheists saying 'we don't believe in any God or gods' and you finding passive-aggressive ways to say we're all liars without actually coming out and saying so.

I get what you are getting at, but I stick with my original statement. You cant "lack belief" in something you have formed thoughts about. That atheists "lack belief in God or gods" commits the fallacy of invincible ignorance. I'll give you this: the definition by itself does not commit the fallacy, anytime an someone uses that definition in response to a question about what atheism is, the person is committing the fallacy.

I have knowledge of that word: which letters compose it, what order they're in, and so forth. I have no beliefs (or idea) of what the word is supposed to mean or if it correlates to anything real. I don't know if you made it up or if you got it somewhere else. I don't know if a meaning has already been assigned, if you plan to make one up, or if it hasn't been defined, if you plan on letting it remain so. I completely lack a belief regarding whether or not anything it may refer to is real.

Words have no meaning beyond that which we personally ascribe them, they are simply constructs of language. If you go up to someone who speaks a different language and start talking they will not understand you. Nevertheless, they will be forced to form beliefs. probably that you are trying to communicate with them. Complete knowledge of anything is beyond our comprehension. We ONLY have beliefs about things, no actual knowledge. If I ask you to prove something exists, anything, you would not be able to do it. You could have all the evidence in the world and yet you could not prove something to 100% certainty. We start with axioms which we assume to be true but can not prove, say "reality exists" we build off that. When you say "knowledge" I hear "belief" the fact that many of us share the same believes does not automatically make them true.

And let's be clear: the Abrahamic God is clearly the result of generations of a game of 'my god is better than yours'. It's a ridiculous pile of omnis that contradict each other and can't possibly exist. But it's possible some other version of God may exist or some 'small g' god exists; although I think it's unlikely I don't set the probability at zero. I'm an agnostic atheist because I don't rule out the possibilty of some sort of god (although I lack belief in any); but I'm a 'gnostic' atheist toward versions of God that are self-contradictory or contradict observable reality. And speaking of forming beliefs about strings of letters, I question whether a word like God that seems to have hundreds of definitions which many proponents shift freely to suit their arguments can meaningfully be said to actually have a definition.

"the Abrahamic God" , or "Allah", or "Yahweh", or "Odin" or "Zeus" have no inherent meaning to them beyond that which we ascribe them. If God exists, God exists independently of our beliefs about what that God is. That people have made up many definitions for God is simply human nature and our need to understand and label things. God is incomprehensible. That someone would assume to know God's will is travesty. Although the attempt to know God is nobel, many people are not.

Sure. What I believe about any God or god I've heard of is that belief in it's existence is unjustified by logic or evidence, even if it's possible that it really does exist. My belief about the Abrahamic God based on his most commonly-ascribed attributes is that he doesn't exist. Your version of God isn't the only one, even many of your co-religionists don't mind throwing that version under the bus if another is more defensible. I'm reminded of a debate I attended on whether the God of the Bible exists. The proponent never even attempted to prove more than an ill-defined creator God. I believe the Abrahamic God doesn't exist. I don't believe the Deist God does exist. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe any God or god exists. We can have all kinds of other beliefs. We can even believe God doesn't exist, but it's not required, anymore than theists are required to never have doubts that God exists

I might stop here because I think the crux of our are disagreement begins with the axiom which we base our knowledge on. It seems that you start from a point of "things are real because they are" whereas I start from "I percieve". From your starting point a conclusion that God exists is near impossible to prove whereas that conclusion is an inevitability from my starting point. You need proof that the things we observe through your conscious perception are true, yet for some reason the statement that your perceptions are inherently true is assumed without proof. There is no evidence that our conscious perceptions of reality are real. The axiom is circular reasoning. Starting from, "I percieve", however, no assumptions are initially made beyond the assumption that I am perceiving things. From there my belief in reality is based on a belief, not knowledge, that my perceptions and observations are real. If perceptions are real consciousness must be real. If consciousness is real it must exist independently of my ideas about it. The only things we believe exist independently of our ideas about them are those forces which created and bind all things in the universe and the universe itself. If consciousness is a force that is responsible for the creation of the universe it can be called "God".

I honestly believe that "I percieve" is the only logical assumption one can make. It is the only thing one is capable of "knowing". Everything else requires belief.

---

Your right Master, it is aggravating to me hear someone say that they lack any beliefs about something they are aware of. It doesnt compute with me. It honestly seems like such a obvious reality that how someone can hold the belief that they "lack belief" in thins they are aware of is somehow offensive. You, however, are not. I really do enjoy discussing with you, you are one of a select few on here who actually consider anything I say. So I thank you for that.