Atheism is a religion

[Mister Agenda]

Don't believe in God...

acceptable responses include "fuck you, God is a mythical figure fools worship, and God is not real."

non acceptable responses: "I don't", "I lack belief in God"; they mean the same thing, and they both are invincibbly ignorant.

I'm not a paragon of humility, but I'm too humble to dictate what responses are acceptable.

Ridiculous. You start by saying you lack belief in some "Achilles" you are aware of. You then go on to state your belief "Maybe there was an Achilles who was a great Greek warroir".. Then you go even further and state more of your beliefs about Achilles, "[his] life and abilities were considerally embellished.

Next, you make the statement, "I don't believe there was a 'real' Achilles"
- this is an inverse of the statement , "I believe that achilles wasn't real". The statement, "I don't believe" is technically a misnomer because we can't not believe in things we are aware of. Everyone uses it all the time to aviod cognitive dissonance, including me. Just realize that you can't not believe (lack belief) in things you are aware of. it's impossible.

To believe in something is to accept that it is true. Perhaps you should consider why it is so important to you that two phrases with different grammatical meanings: 'I don't believe in X' and 'I believe there is no X' must mean exactly the same thing.

You then go on to state that you believe there could have been a real Achilles...
- Incredible. somehow you believe Achilles wasn't real and believe that he could have been real at the same time... yet the world continues to spin.

I don't believe Achilles was real, but I believe he could have been real. You can't just change 'I don't believe Achilles was real' and 'I believe Achilles wasn't real' and have the same meaning. Say I estimate the odds of an historical Achilles on whom the myth is based at 30%. Clearly, if that's my estimate, I don't believe he was real. However I put the odds of him having existed at above zero percent, so I don't actively believe he wasn't real. I'm accounting for a certain likelihood that I could be wrong if I believed he wasn't real.

Next you state that you "don't believe there was never a real Achillles".
- My heads starting to hurt. So you also believe that at some point in time there was a real Achilles, or "wasn't not one..."

Your head is hurting because of your invincible ignorance regarding the fact that 'I don't believe X' and 'I believe not X' don't mean exactly the same thing.

Finally you end by again stating that you lack a belief about whether Achilles was real, after stating you believed he wasnt, that he might have been, and that he was.
-
B.R.A.V.O.

I didn't state I lack a belief about whether Achilles was real. I lack a belief that he was real (for purposes of the example). For instance, I might believe that it is less likely that Achilles was real than that he was. That's a belief about whether Achilles was real. That's not the same thing as believing that he actually was or wasn't real.

-Why don't you just admit you don't know, pick one belief and stand by it, or just continue to hold all these contradictory beliefs and just understand that they are contradictory and that it's ok (which, by happenstance, would be agreeing with me)?

Honesty. I don't think I know enough to believe one side or another, but I do think I know enough that active belief in either side is unjustified. I think position A is less likely so I say I don't believe position A; but I have reservations about categorically adopting position B as true, so I don't say I believe position B. I just say I lack belief in position A, because it's a true statement and saying I believe position B is an untrue statement.

I forgot what we were even talking about after that Achilles thing... oh yeah, invincible ignorance. You're committing it if you state that you lack a belief in something you are aware of... Still. Whether it is about God or a toaster. You have beliefs about everything you are aware of.

Again you conflate belief about with belief in. There's a reason you do that. And I don't believe it's honesty.

"God exists."

You are now on notice.

You can rationally say you dont know what you believe: agnostic

Most agnostics know what they believe and know what they know and know the difference.

You can rationally say that you don't believe God exists (that you believe he does not). : atheist

You can't rationally say that 'don't believe' and 'believe not' mean the same thing.

You can rationally say you believe that God exists: theist

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

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

The list of things I've heard of that I don't believe exist is very long, yet I'm conscious. I forgive you your misconceptions however, at this point it is clear that you are just not capable of understanding the difference between 'not believe' and 'believe not'. I doubt it's your fault. One person can see a speck on a windowpane that is quite invisible to someone else, it's not the fault of the person that can't see it that their visual resolution isn't up to the task of perceiving the difference. But that doesn' mean the window is clean.

[amkerman]

Looks like there was an error in your post mister. I'm intrigued as to your responses to the questions I posed about reality.

[Ace Otana]

That keeps happening. You may need to sort out the quotes, I've found that it may be the cause of the problem.

[Mister Agenda]

I'm sure that's it, with all the back-and-forth it's a mess. Working on it. Update: cut the first half or my reply off, the rest posted. I'm willing to just go with that in interest of shortening the wall of text.

[genkaus]

But genkaus. I don't believe the dictionary definition of "God" does justice to the concept. I believe the definition of "reality" better does. Am I not entitled to that? As I previously told Shell, I am the one making the argument. Proper etiquette requires I get to define the terms. Many of you have continuously refused my argument that one cannot "lack belief". It's as if simply because q dictionary has defined atheism ath way it MUST be true. Hogwash. I believe reality exists. I believe that reality is God. I believe the two words are synonyms. You must accept that definition if we are to have a proper argument.

If, on the otherhand, you want to make an argument against God, I am willing to hear it. In that case, you get to set the terms, and I will follow them.

The dictionary definition of god describes the concept as commonly understood by most people. As does the dictionary definition of of reality.

Here's the key difference between the two. "God" is always described as having a consciousness, reality is independent of and independent from any consciousness. If you conflate the two you either don't understand the meaning of god or of reality. Or both.

---

Is everything that exists a derivative of reality?

No - a part of reality and derivatives of other parts of reality.

And isn't reality not derivative nor dependent on anything else?

Nonsensical. By definition there cannot be "anything else" that is not a part of reality.

---

As in, reality was not created by anything?

---

As in, reality just is?

---

Yes and yes.

As is, it is infallible, responsible for the creation of all, which nothing can oppose? By definition is it not both omnipotent and omnipresent?

No. Fallibility, responsibility and potency are not properties attributable to reality.

[Mister Agenda]

Interesting thread, personally I'm leaning towards viewing atheism as a religion of sorts. An atheist taking offense at the insinuation of being part of a religion, reminds me of the hypothetical example of a 0 displaying distain at being referred to as a number.
An atheist once said to me: atheism is a religion in the same way that the non-collecting of stamps is a hobby. I replied - well for non-collectors of stamps, you atheists sure spend an awful lot of time discussing your non-hobby.
Atheism may indeed be this belief that there isn't a higher power due to atheists perceived lack of evidence (or for whatever reasons), but it's still just that - a belief.

Discussing religion, skepticism, and such isn't atheism. It arguably IS a hobby that SOME atheists enjoy. Predictably, those atheists can be found on atheist discussion boards while the rest knit or something.

---

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.

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.

Claiming that atheism is a religion is annoying for the same reason that someone claiming (and refusing to give up on) Napoleon ate ground puppies every day. Now, I'm not particularly fond of Napoleon, I have no skin in that game...but it's just wrong.

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.

Maybe a source of the world's evil. And theists tend to ignore that the main perpetrators of mass genocide in all previous centuries were mostly in fact, theist. In my experience 'who has the lower body count' is a fool's game on either side.

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.

I've read the study. The survey was done upon intake, where it would arguably be advantageous to claim to be an atheist in order to benefit from an 'I converted' parole appeal later.

Now, I don't think atheism makes you less criminal. I think that in the USA, for the time being, most people who become atheists have a higher-than-average education and have put some thought into their position. I expect that as atheism becomes more common, the percentage of incarcerated atheists will go up.

---

I have no agenda shell, you just keep stating that I do. Religions aren't real things. They are concepts. They are labels. They are words. Go out and find religion and bring it to a lab to study it if it is real.

---

I don't care if you consider atheism a religion or not. It makes no difference to anything, except in your head. You are blinded by your hate of a concept.

God is a concept. God is not real. Q.E.D.

---

That you said I want you to hate religion couldn't be further from the truth. I want you to love. Period. That is my only agenda. Love.

---

Reality doesn't "mesh" with anything. It is what it is. Incomprehensible.

---

It's the axiom upon which all is possible.

I'm trying to think of a way that you could less effectively advance your agenda of love on an internet forum and am coming up empty.

---

Word game? I merely asked questions about reality. I think the answers are pretty obvious.

What I want to know is whether atheists believe in reality as I have defined it using the dictionary.

I believe reality is real. It's not omnipotent because omnipotence is the ability to do anything you want, and the universe doesn't do, it just is. It's an ongoing event. Also, no evidence that it is capable of wanting to do anything, or that it there are no limits to what can happen within it.

If you want to rename reality, or your cat, God, go ahead, makes no difference to me. However, your ability to draw out 'I'm going to call reality God from now on' for so many pages does impress me.

[amkerman]

So you define reality as "the universe"? Interesting.

[Mister Agenda]

So you define reality as "the universe"? Interesting.

Universe in the sense of 'everything that exists', including other cosmos if there are any.

[Whateverist]

I have no agenda shell, you just keep stating that I do. Religions aren't real things. They are concepts.

There you go. Case closed. 'Religions' aren't real and neither are 'gods'. Welcome to the other side. What finally brought you to your senses?

[Cyberman]

What I want to know is whether atheists believe in reality as I have defined it using the dictionary.

Hold on; so we've decided to accept the dictionary definitions now? Okay, I'll go along with this line, at least provisionally. From the same source you cited:

Definition of REALITY
1: the quality or state of being real

2 a (1) : a real event, entity, or state of affairs <his dream became a reality> (2) : the totality of real things and events <trying to escape from reality>

b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily

Then it goes on about reality TV about which the less said the batter. Anyway. I would be quite happy to accept that as a definition of reality: basically everything that doesn't cease to exist as a result of my falling asleep. Ah, but you earlier insisted that reality is synonymous with God (capitalised).

Definition of GOD
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as

a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe

b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

3: a person or thing of supreme value

4: a powerful ruler

Oh dear; looks like the dictionary doesn't agree with your definition. So if you are trying to assert that either atheists reject reality or believe in God (both assertions, remember, based on a conflation derived from your own personal definition which is not supported by the dictionary you yourself cited) then the answer is that this particular atheist does the precise opposite.

Incidentally and while I have your attention, I want to take issue with your mangling of the quote from Romeo & Juliet:

"What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;"

What the Bard was saying here is that the naming of something, in this case the flower, is something agreed upon by consensus of usage. If everyone had decided to call it a cowpat instead, the flower would continue to be the same flower with complete disinterest. Your garbled version ("A rose by another name would still be a rose") suggests that the name 'rose' in somehow intrinsic to the flower; everyone might indeed have decided to call it a cowpat but they stupidly didn't know it was really a rose.

In other words, basically what we've been trying to tell you all through this thread.