Atheism is a religion

[downbeatplumb]

1. Everything that is beyond your perception is unknown.

Untrue I know that australia is there because my parents have been and bought back evidence. I have seen pictures of australia and talked to people on here who are curently in australia, but I have never directly percieved australia.

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

wih you so far

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

This part is just gibberish.

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)

And your point is?

[Faith No More]

If you're going to offer a betuttal, at least make an effort. GIYF.
I'm quite surprised you've made it this far in life and never heard an atheist claim that religion is the root of all evil. Call me a cynic, but I'm left wondering what else you've missed.

It wasn't a rebuttal. It was merely an observation and a question. You can either answer politely, or being a fucking cock about it. I see you've chosen the latter.

---

I don't get what you are saying. If your belief was in chocolate chips that could be considered a religion held by 1 person, you.

According to your defintion of a 'group of individuals,' a belief held by one person cannot be a religion.

Relgions aren't real.

Religions are very real. They are not tangeable.

As I stated to you (i think, i may have stated it elsewhere) the fact that the beliefs are about God is not important. I simply defined it as beliefs about God because usually people are referring to God when they use the term religion. The concepts of conservatism and liberalism are also religions in my opinion. Yes, agnosticism and deism could be called religions as well. They don't have to be. Neither does atheism or Catholocism, Words are not real. You can call it whatever you want. It is a set of beliefs a group of people share about something.

This is just more evidence that you are defining relgion how you see fit. By this defintion any set of beliefs is a religion.

I guess you could look at it that way, but again, religions aren't even real things. It's a label people use, it has no inherent meaning, it is just a vehicle used for communication of ideas.

Why is it that you think labels have no inherent meaning? The very purpose of labels is to have meaning, which yes, is the vehicle for quickly communicating ideas.

[amkerman]

[quote='Ace Otana' pid='225583' dateline='1326052031']
[quote]Therefore, if you are confident the computer screen is real, you believe it is real.[/quote]
[quote]My senses detect a computer screen. Based on the data I'm receiving from my senses, it's there. No belief.[/quote]

Your senses are your perceptions. They are electrical impulses sent to your brain which inturn organizes the electrical information which your consciousness interprets enabling perception.

Take the sense of sight. You aren't actually "seeing" anytihng. Light is being reflected through your cornea, iris and lens in your eye onto your retina. the light causes the cones and rods on your retina to depolarize creating an electrical charge. Once a threshold is reached that electrical signal is fired and sent down your optic nerve to your occipital lobe in your brain. your occipital lobe organizes the electrical signals. Consciousness interprets the electrical signals into coherent visual information and you "see" the computer screen. To say that you are actually "seeing" is both ridiculous and obvious at the same time. Ridiculous because sight is not based on anything but electrical impulses, and obvious because we perceive that we see.

But we don't see/taste/smell/touch/ or hear electrical charges being organized in our brain and interpreted by our conscious mind. We form images, tastes, sounds, smells, and textures, which we perceive through consciousness. So what makes those perceptions real?

The answer is not your knowledge of them, you dont have any knowledge that what our senses detect and we perceive through consciousness actualy exists apart from our perception of them. We only have our conscious perception that they exist. If they exist beyond our perception of them, they are unknown.

[quote] (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)[/quote]
[quote]How are they beyond our perception (senses) if they are real. That is my question.
[/quote]

Let's see. Can you see the planet neptune right now? Can you hear/smell/taste/or touch it? Of course not. Those are your senses. Yet Neptune exists. And it exists regardless of whether you are perceiving it using your senses or not. it exists beyone your perception of it. Even if the planet had never been discovered, it would still exist, because it exists within reality, and reality exists independently of our perception of it.

Now you are able to believe it exists because you perceive it. If you had never perceived it and held it in your consciousness you could never believe it exists because you would have absolutely no awareness of it.

However, someone who was aware of it, someone who had perceived it, could tell you about it. You would then be aware of Neptune as an idea. Because you would be aware of it, you would have beliefs about it. You would either believe it was real and that the person was telling the truth, or believe that it was a load of crap and the person was feeding you a line of bull. You could also be unsure. You would probably be a mixture of all three of those beliefs in different purportions. You could no longer not believe about Neptune though, because you were made aware of it by whoever had told you about it.

Either way though even with perception, we can only ever get 99% of the way there. We can't absolutely know things as you have stated. That extra 1% requires us to be confident that our perceptions are real. It takes "faith," or "belief"

[Ace Otana]

Let's see. Can you see the planet neptune right now?

Yes. Actually you can spot it at night, also with the aid of telescopes and the space telescope along with space probes, we can indeed see it. Also we can hear it - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToXaNUjNfS4

Those are your senses.

No, the senses of technology which in turn enables us to see more.

Now you are able to believe it exists because you perceive it.

No, there is evidence that it exists. Belief not required.

However, someone who was aware of it, someone who had perceived it, could tell you about it. You would then be aware of Neptune as an idea. Because you would be aware of it, you would have beliefs about it. You would either believe it was real and that the person was telling the truth, or believe that it was a load of crap and the person was feeding you a line of bull. You could also be unsure. You would probably be a mixture of all three of those beliefs in different purportions. You could no longer not believe about Neptune though, because you were made aware of it by whoever had told you about it.

Thing is, we can verify it for ourselves. There is evidence for it.

Either way though even with perception, we can only ever get 99% of the way there. We can't absolutely know things as you have stated. That extra 1% requires us to be confident that our perceptions are real. It takes "faith," or "belief"

Faith/belief not required. We have evidence.

[downbeatplumb]

I see your argument and raise you common sense.

The thing about the exstance of netune is:

1: I know that planets exist because I am currently on one.
2: I can check for myself the existance of neptune given a point in the right direction and a suitable elescope.
3: Neptunes gravity will influence other heavanly bodies and this effect can be quantified.

In short, the existance of neptune is not a claim that is extradinary AND can be fairly easily checked.

Now onto god:

1: I have not encountered 'god' in anyway
2: the god hypothosis main document (the bible) has been shown to be not reliable on the facts it purports to disclose.
3: The god hypothosis has all the hallmarks of an ancient society trying to explain the universe without the facts, it is, most likely a myth.
4: The god hypothosis is an extradinary claim and so requires extradinary proof before it can be taken seriously.

I know you were just argueing about teh nature of truth. But i think your goal was clear.

[amkerman]

Do you exist within realty?

Your answer indicates whether you believe in God.

Simple.

[Ace Otana]

Do you exist within realty?

Your answer indicates whether you believe in God.

Simple.

I'm part of reality, the natural world. I'm part of the cosmos. I'm connected to life biologically, to the earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically.
And I don't believe in god.

[amkerman]

Then you don't believe in a god you have made up in your own mind. Congrats. Your reply was nonresponsive to the question.

Do you believe in reality?

[Ace Otana]

Then you don't believe in a god you have made up in your own mind. Congrats.

---

Do you believe in reality?

Do you believe in fantasy? The question is pointless.

[Shell B]

That's enough! Stop telling people what they believe or I am going to peg you for preaching, acke. This is utter fucking nonsense. You can have this conversation without pigeonholing people into your belief system.