Being an atheist does not prevent someone from having beliefs. Having beliefs does not fulfill the requirements for a religion. Why not call the coke/pepsi decision a religion of coke, or a religion of pepsi? Because it's idiotic, that's why.

Is it crystal clear for ya now?

(January 8, 2012 at 12:55 pm)amkerman Wrote: Religion is a set of beliefs. Sets can be singular. A religion therefor can be comprised of a single belief.

Incorrect. Religion is a set of beliefs in deities, supernatural and spirituality.

Even that, Blam, would only be "spirituality", there are more requirements for any set of beliefs to be called a "religion".

religion [ri-lij-uhn]  

noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

Blam: your assertion presupposes that words have inherent meaning; is that a statement you are willing to make?

---

It's strikingly more clear to me than that Ace. No one "knows" anything beyond that they are perceiving something at any given instant. EVERYTHING beyond perception is belief.

(January 8, 2012 at 1:52 pm)amkerman Wrote: EVERYTHING beyond perception is belief.

Things that are beyond my perception are unknowns. Nothing to do with belief. Till you learn that, a fool you'll remain.

(January 8, 2012 at 1:36 pm)LastPoet Wrote: Mabe if idiotic religionists kept their beliefs to themselves and inside the churches (where it belongs), and didn't try to insert their particular idea of a sky daddy in schools and science, we wouldn't have the need to keep shoving your bullshit back into religionists holes where the sun doesn't shine.

Do you have anything new? The claims you made have already been addressed multiple times in this thread.

What "b*****t" have I said? Is this the way you conduct your "intellectual" discussions? If this is the way atheists engage in intellectual discussion then its no wonder the Dawkins.net forum imploded. In my experience I've often noted that when a particular poster feels the need to resort to such profanity, they've done so out of sheer desperation for their argument is already lost. If all ammunition is spent, then by all means throw the pistol out of the pram.

For your info, I don't go to church. I've been a handful of times in my life. I found God on my own, and I do have quite a story to share. I understand and have respect for most atheist arguments, I am well schooled in science and I have more than a decade experience in that field under my belt. I can quite gladly discuss university level chemistry, physics, engineering, mathematics (among others) until the cows come home. However, I can tell you right now that science *in truth* actually leaves us with more questions than answers. Science does not and will not (in our life time) provide atheists with the scientific validity nor sanctity so many of them seem to crave. In a nutshell, science says that when it comes to God and spirituality - you're on your own.

As for atheism being a religion, I can see why atheists find it annoying. They've spent so much time distancing themselves from mainstream religion, only to find themselves tarred with the religion brush, with outspoken atheists compared to Jehovahs witnesses trying to ram their belief system down everyone else's throat. I can understand that aggravation.
If atheism is a religion, then it certainly is a very different kind of religion.
Where atheists draw criticism, is where on one hand they claim to be proponents of facts and science, but often twist facts to serve their cause. For instance, they will state that religion is the source of the worlds evil, and even extend this to claim that Adolf Hilter was a practicing Catholic, but yet igore the fact that the main perpetrators of mass genocide in the 21st century were mostly in fact, atheist.

Another example is with religion in prison, yes a high number of prison inmates call themselves Christian, and athests often use this as proof that religion causes criminal behaviour. However lets not ignore the fact that many of them have converted once already incarcerated and have hardly lived a Christian life. Its the twisting of facts that I take issue with, and should be, in theory, very unatheist like.

(January 8, 2012 at 1:51 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Even that, Blam, would only be "spirituality", there are more requirements for any set of beliefs to be called a "religion".

religion [ri-lij-uhn]  

noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

According to that definition of religion, it has 5 meanings of religion - Atheism don't meet the requirements of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of that definition.

The definition of 1, is very board but it make compound with:

Quote:especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies

Creationism is one of many examples of #1 definition.

I think amkerman is trying to assert Atheism as a religion out of his own biased, out-of-context definitions.

(January 8, 2012 at 2:02 pm)Ace Otana Wrote:

(January 8, 2012 at 1:52 pm)amkerman Wrote: EVERYTHING beyond perception is belief.

Things that are beyond my perception are unknowns. Nothing to do with belief. Till you learn that, a fool you'll remain.

1. Everything that is beyond your perception is unknown.

2. You know you are perceiving a computer screen.

Therefore the computer screem is known within your perception of it.

1. The computer is known within your perception of it.

2. Things that are real exist beyond our perceptions of them

Therefore, if computer screen is real it exists beyond your perceptions of it.

1. If the computer screen is real it exists beyond your perceptions of it

2. Things that are beyond your perception are unknown

Therefore, whether the computer screen is real is unknown.

1. Whether the computer screen is real is unknown

2. Belief is defined as confidence in something not susceptible to rigourouse proof; confidence in the unknown.

Therefore, if you are confident the computer screen is real, you believe it is real. (You do not "know" it is real, we have already established that we can't know if things are are, because by definition if they are real they exist beyond perception, and things that are beyond perception are unknown)

(January 8, 2012 at 2:29 pm)amkerman Wrote:

---

1. Everything that is beyond your perception is unknown.

2. You know you are perceiving a computer screen.

Therefore the computer screem is known within your perception of it.

1. The computer is known within your perception of it.

2. Things that are real exist beyond our perceptions of them

Therefore, if computer screen is real it exists beyond your perceptions of it.

1. If the computer screen is real it exists beyond your perceptions of it

2. Things that are beyond your perception are unknown

Therefore, whether the computer screen is real is unknown.

---

That made no sense at all. Not even a little.