Atheism is a religion

[amkerman]

Love the sidenote.

[Shell B]

What the hell are you talking about?

[Blam!]

amkerman...

So far, you failed to distinguish the difference of atheism, belief, faith and religion. Your previous statements demonstrated your lack of understanding over the basic of definition.

Scenario:
"I believe I have the pencil in my hands" said Mike with the pencil in his hands.
"Ah-ha! So you have belief. Therefore, you are religious!" said the moron.
"Wut?" said the Mike perplexed at stupidity of moron.

The single word of "belief" is not enough context to make the one religious. According to the definition of religion, you need the belief in the existence of deities, purpose of the universe, supernatural and spirituality to be religious. The definition of Atheism implied lack of belief in the existence of deities nor any beliefs accord to the definition of "religion". So, atheism is not religion.

Lack of belief in the existence of deities counts as a faith; Therefore, atheism is a religion? No, no. Let's look at this basic definitions of faith:

noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

1)Perhaps, I have faith. Besides, I have confidence in my own blacksmith sword skills - does that make me religious? No..
2)No.. Science doesn't work in that way. I love to use science to refute silly superstitious beliefs.
3)No, No, No... Atheism lack these.
4)Perhaps... Religious? No.
5)No.. Atheism doesn't have deity of any sort that we can use our faith of.


You see, there is many basic meanings in a single word which is why we need context.

Now, can you distinguish the difference between:
A - I have faith in Jesus Christ as a God
B - I have faith in my sister's skills

What is A and B have in common? Faith, yep. But what makes A and B statement mutually exclusive? A statement is religious. B statement is not religious.

So what makes you think Atheism is a religion?

[dloubet]

Dloubet:

"God exists."

"I don't believe you."

Now what? Are you going to claim skepticism is a logical fallacy?

You can rationally say you dont "know" if you believe God exists or if you believe God does not exist: agnostic

That's not agnosticism. Agnosticism deals with knowledge, not belief, and not knowledge about whether one believes or not.

And belief is a binary proposition, you either believe something or you don't. If you believe it, you have belief in it. If you don't believe it, you lack belief in it. You have it or you lack it.

You can rationally say that you believe God does not exist (more commonly incorrectly phrased that you "don't believe in God") : atheist

No. If a theist is trying to sell me a god by telling me it exists, I'm simply not buying it. I'm not trying to sell him another opposite thing.

You can rationally say you believe that God exists: theist

Well, I'll contest the use of the word "rational".

You can hold all three beliefs simultaneously and it's ok.: human

And condescending. Thank you.

You no longer can "lack belief" that "God exists".: unconscious.

Nope. You haven't established that at all. You keep claiming it, but never manage to connect any dots in a way anyone else can see.

[KichigaiNeko]

He has no realisation of whom he is attempting to communicate with does he Shell? He assumes your ignorance is greater than his because "god" is not part of you??

As I sit back and watch the degradation of the USA inteligentia to mirror that of the 'islamic world'

[amkerman]

Kichiga:
I believe shelly is a part of God. I believe you are too. I can't help that many posters seem to be either too stubborn or too obtuse to get what I am saying.

Stick with your definitions and cling to your irrational beliefs. It's fine. Believe that "definition"can be objectively "true" or "false". Believe further that objectivity actually exists in reality at all. Great. It is a belief in God, regardless of how you "define" that belief.

Dloubet: your argument is weak. You use definitions of words to argue that my definition of the word "religion" is false. You must first prove that definitions are objectively true. My definition of "religion" is not the only definition and I don't claim it to be the only acceptable one. It is wholly accurate in it's broadest sense. What you are arguing is nonsense. It's like saying only a bluejay is a bird because only IT has IT'S exact characteristics. All other birds aren't really birds because they lack all the characteristics of the bluejay.

You are arguing for one, true, religion. I suspect you are arguing that way to make it easy to refute. However if there is a "true" "religion", then by definition "religion" is objective. If you beleve religion is objective, you necessarily believe in something that can be defined as "God", regardless of whether you call that belief a "belief in God". You can call it, "lack of belief in God" if you want, it is still the same belief.

[KichigaiNeko]

Kichiga:
I believe shelly is a part of God. I believe you are too. I can't help that many posters seem to be either too stubborn or too obtuse to get what I am saying.

Stick with your definitions and cling to your irrational beliefs. It's fine. Believe that "definition"can be objectively "true" or "false". Believe further that objectivity actually exists in reality at all. Great. It is a belief in God, regardless of how you "define" that belief.

Dloubet: your argument is weak. You use definitions of words to argue that my definition of the word "religion" is false. You must first prove that definitions are objectively true. My definition of "religion" is not the only definition and I don't claim it to be the only acceptable one. It is wholly accurate in it's broadest sense. What you are arguing is nonsense. It's like saying only a bluejay is a bird because only IT has IT'S exact characteristics. All other birds aren't really birds because they lack all the characteristics of the bluejay.

You are arguing for one, true, religion. I suspect you are arguing that way to make it easy to refute. However if there is a "true" "religion", then by definition "religion" is objective. If you beleve religion is objective, you necessarily believe in something that can be defined as "God", regardless of whether you call that belief a "belief in God". You can call it, "lack of belief in God" if you want, it is still the same belief.

Right back at you, you fool of a Took!! You have no fucking idea what you are saying or what you are proposing...go back to school.

[Shell B]

Kichiga:
I believe shelly is a part of God. I believe you are too. I can't help that many posters seem to be either too stubborn or too obtuse to get what I am saying.

Have you ever wondered if your powers of explanation are what is lacking? I realize that it goes against our innate senses of ego to see that perhaps we are not perfect. Nonetheless, the majority of people here have no fucking clue what you are trying to say. What you have managed to get across sounds like utter hokum. There are two possibilities here, to my mind. You either cannot express yourself regardless of the number of threads you hop into or you believe something that sounds like nonsense to nearly everyone else.

Stick with your definitions

Again, acke, definitions are what make communication possible. You should not expect people to understand what you are saying when you are operating under your own personal definitions. I mean, you are using a very clear scientific/mathematic phrase incorrectly and then freaking out that people do not agree with you. I can't believe you wonder why people are calling you out.

and cling to your irrational beliefs.

That's exactly why most posters here appear to hope you lose your ability to type. You expect us all to adhere to your inner dictionary and then call us irrational. Why don't you try using established definitions to convey your message? I know why. You want to somehow insult atheists by calling atheism a religion -- which I find funny. In order to do that, you have to make up a definition for religion that is not established. You are not the first theist to come in here and do that. In fact, you are one of dozens. They all say the same thing. They all admit to using different definitions. At least a handful of them have done exactly what you are doing -- acting as if using definitions is some form of intellectual hindrance. It was ridiculous before and it is ridiculous now. If you can establish a link between the known definitions for both atheism and religion, you have something. However, making up your own definitions for things is unacceptable in a debate.

It's fine. Believe that "definition"can be objectively "true" or "false". Believe further that objectivity actually exists in reality at all. Great. It is a belief in God, regardless of how you "define" that belief.

Acke, you can think whatever you want. That is fine. However, asserting that everyone believes in god whether they define it that way is not. In other words, trying to paint your belief onto other people and push them into thinking it by manipulation is preaching. You can be warned for that here. Create links between your assertions and use actual definitions to convey what you are saying and someone might listen to you. Keep banging you head against a wall saying, "You believe in god whether you know it or not, atheism is a religion!" will get you nowhere.

You obviously came here with two goals in mind -- establish atheism as a religion and establish that everyone believes in god. Every question you ask is loaded. That is intellectually dishonest and rude. You are not making any friends that way.

[amkerman]

I am fully aware that my ability to convey understanding is lacking. I am not perfect and can not do ANYTHING perfectly. Furthermore, I get that I may sound preachy. I am arguing for truth. I will continue to argue for truth at my own peril. If you deny truth at the outset I will invariably sound preachy, like I am trying to force something on you. If I say the sky is blue and you say it is red and I persist, I will sound preachy. Unfortunately, I am not willing to desist in my assertion that the sky is blue until someone logically shows me how the sky is not blue and will continue offering argument to how the sky is blue and not red until i have convincing reason no longer to assert such. I am not arguing "why", I am arguing "how". I am not trying to get anyone to change their beliefs, I couldn't if I wanted to. I am simply trying to get people to understand the implications of having beliefs by challenging them through logical argument.



Refusal to attempt at understand is ignorance.

[Shell B]

I am fully aware that my ability to convey understanding is lacking. I am not perfect and can not do ANYTHING perfectly.

Then why get so condescending when people do not agree/understand you? I have to reiterate that your powers of communication would be improved exponentially if you used established definitions to communicate. It is simply one of the fundamentals of language that make it possible for people to communicate.

Furthermore, I get that I may sound preachy. I am arguing for truth. I will continue to argue for truth at my own peril.

Okay, you are arguing for what you think is the truth. If your goal is to argue for this position, you really need to work on your evidence and delivery. The way you go from one assertion to the next is often flawed and under-thought. Note: Saying the same mistaken thing over and over again does not help. Universal constants are not what you think they are, try a new phrase. Religion is not a single belief, even if atheism were a belief. Religion does not mean club nor are all atheists in a club. Some don't even talk to other atheists. All of these things are fact, acke. I am not in the business of spouting what I believe as fact to "win" an argument. I assure you, the above is truth. You have to find a way to move on from the misunderstandings you possess.

If you deny truth at the outset I will invariably sound preachy, like I am trying to force something on you. If I say the sky is blue and you say it is red and I persist, I will sound preachy.

No, no, no. This is where your impressions are askew. No one has a problem with you saying the sky is red or blue. In fact, if you said, "I believe the sky is red," people would simply tell you it is not, but you are entitled to your beliefs. If you leave out the believe part of it, that is when we run into problems. You are asserting an opinion based on beliefs as fact. Now, you can prove the sky is blue by telling anyone of us to look up. You have yet to prove your beliefs are facts. Therefore, you can hardly assert them as facts and call people ignorant for not agreeing with you. It is beyond childish and it is, again, unacceptable in debate.

Unfortunately, I am not willing to desist in my assertion that the sky is blue until someone logically shows me how the sky is not blue and will continue offering argument to how the sky is blue and not red until i have convincing reason no longer to assert such. I am not arguing "why", I am arguing "how".

How can someone logically tell you something if your idea of logic consists of using whatever definitions suit your goal? Here is the thing, acke. You are drawing conclusions based on nothing but the fact that you believe there is a god. You assert those conclusions and then attempt to form an argument behind it. You should take the steps through evidence and observation before asserting your conclusions. Furthermore, you should never, ever regurgitate stuff you hear from other theists unless you understand what they are saying. I believe, and I may be mistaken, that you heard another theist use the term "universal constant" in an argument that you found impressive. You are now using it to describe anything a person believes exists. You can't do that an expect people to go along with you. If you are going to spout nonsense, you have to be persuasive. All persuasive speakers have good vocabularies. Work on yours. I don't mean that to be rude. I'm being utterly sincere.

I am not trying to get anyone to change their beliefs, I couldn't if I wanted to. I am simply trying to get people to understand the implications of having beliefs by challenging them through logical argument.

I'm sorry, but you dropped the ball on the logical part. Logic suggests a sort of order, an expectation of evidence and clarity, if you will. You cannot have that when you use whatever term you think sounds good and adjust it to suit your argument. It takes the order out of things. You cannot have logic from chaos. This is why none of us feel challenged. Having a fly buzz you is not challenging; it is annoying.

Refusal to attempt at understand is ignorance.

Again, you misuse words so much it is impossible to converse with you. I am making a very big attempt at patience right now. You are challenging that, at least. Ignorance is not a refusal to attempt to understand something. Ignorance is not knowing or understanding something for just about any reason. Now, the above statement is also operating under the assumption that people are refusing to attempt to understand you. That is not the case. As you admitted above, you are not conveying your message very well. Therefore, it is logical to assume that people either A. understand your perfectly and simply disagree with you or B. do not understand what you are saying due to a communication failure probably brought on by misused words.

Note: Calling people ignorant is just as rude as calling someone an asshole or a cunt. They are just words. Let it be known that you have been calling people ignorant for days. I won't be surprised if you go on a rampage calling everyone here ignorant meanies that use foul language, as just about everyone with your modus operandi has done the same. That is why I want to make it clear now that you are being a cunt by calling people ignorant. You are no longer in any place to deserve respect as far as personal insults mixed with arguments. If you tone it the fuck down and actually try to converse politely, I am sure the people here will follow suit.