Atheism is a religion

[Blam!]

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.

You are ignorant moron tend to slap the reality in face with "goddidit" fallacies without even intellectually analyze your own lack of knowledge in the logical argument, basic of definition and science.

Refusal to attempt at understand is ignorance.

You fucking don't know what you are talking about. "Goddidit" is easy, ignorant way to comprehend something you don't understand.

[@heist]

If belief systems all fall under one category called religion, then yes, atheism being a belief system can be labelled religion (as is kopimism, the newly inagurated religion in sweden!). But where atheism fails to be a religion is in its lack of closed and closeted ( pun intended) notions about life and its origin. If the linguistic contraptions that theists indulge in to counter religion is to be accepted per se, then an alternative discourse to religion can never be arrived at. The aim is to allow these self indulging theists to twist themselves into shapes that cannot be unravelled even by their own self serving balderdash.

[amkerman]

[quote='Shell B' pid='225417' dateline='1326032961']

[quote]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.[/quote]

Few hasve said that they don't understand me. Most have simply stated that I was wrong, withiout providing any logical explanation for such assertions. Those who have provided logical explanations for why they believed I was incorrect I have responded to politely. If you just say "no" from the get go you are already being ignorant.

I am not a wordsmith. If you feel that the definition I have for a word is incorrect, we can have an argument about it. I have done so repeatedly with some already. If you say you "lack belief" in something you are conscious of I have argument which logically concludes thats one cannot "lack belief" in something they are consciously aware of. Until you provide logical argument for how one can "lack belief" in something they are consciously aware of I will persist in my belief that you can't, which is based on logical argument. If you persist in your belief that you can after hearing my logical argument why you can not and not refuting it with a logical argument for why you can, I will site you for ignorance. It will invariably come off as condescending. It's not meant to be. Sorry.

One person has attempted a logical argument that you can "lack belief" in something you are consciously aware of. There argument was over the definition of the word "in". I didn't respond because I thought it wasn't worthy of response. If you think something I say has no merit, feel free to abstain from giving it credence by not responding.

[quote]Okay, you are arguing for what you think is the truth. [/quote]
Yep.
[quote]If your goal is to argue for this position, you really need to work on your evidence and delivery.[/quote]
Probably.
[quote]The way you go from one assertion to the next is often flawed and under-thought. [/quote]
Ok. You need to show me how through logical argument. You just saying that it is does not make it so. If you think that there are gaps between my assertions and conclusions you need to point out how. You can just say "there are" but I am not going to believe you until you logically show me.
[quote]Note: Saying the same mistaken thing over and over again does not help.[/quote]
Fine, just logically show me how the thing is mistaken and I will stop saying it.
[quote]Universal constants are not what you think they are, try a new phrase. [/quote]
Here. I won't use a phrase, the only reason I used a phrase in the first place was for brevities sake. I will just say "is real". When I say, "is real", I mean "it exists independently of our ideas of what it is" What I DO NOT mean when I say, "is real" is that it "exists in reality". When I say "real", I am talking about reality itself, not something found within it.

[quote]Religion is not a single belief, even if atheism were a belief.[/quote]
Religion is a set of beliefs. Sets can be singular. A religion therefor can be comprised of a single belief.

[quote]Religion does not mean club nor are all atheists in a club.[/quote]
I never said it does. I said it is a group of people who think the same way about God. I have stated that not all atheists are part of atheism. that atheism is simply a word, a vehicle used to convey meaning, not a real thing. Neither is religion.
[quote]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. [/quote]
You are totally misunderstanding anything I have said in the past. I have never said that atheists talk to one another. If you implied that from what I actually have stated, know that I didn't intend such implication. The very fact that you say you can assure me what you have said is truth presupposes that you know what truth is. If you "know" truth then you "know" reality. You should logically then be able to prove God isn't real. You can state "I assure you, the above is truth", but that just means you believe it's the truth me. If it actually is the truth, prove it.

[quote]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.[/quote]
I have never left the belief part out of it, in any of my arguments. They have always been If you believe X, then you must believe Y. I have never argued that X or Y are facts. The entire statement is my belief. I am asking for a logical argument disputing my belief, and I have failed to get one.
[quote]You are asserting an opinion based on beliefs as fact. [/quote]I am arguing a belief based on logical evidence is true.
[quote]Now, you can prove the sky is blue by telling anyone of us to look up.[/quote]
This is why I think you are ignorant. You believe the sky is blue, therefore you state you "know" the sky is blue. If you had no knowledge of the sky or "blue" you would not "know the sky is blue" looking up at it would not prove the sky is blue. You would simply see something and have no idea what you were looking at because you wouldn't have the words "sky" or "blue" held with in your consciousness to believe them. You can not "know" things. You can learn things, and then believe them, and then believe you "know" them to be true, but you can't "know" anything with 100% certainty.
When the sun sets the sky is not blue. at night it isn't blue either. If "the sky is blue" is a fact then the sky would ALWAYS be blue.
[quote] You have yet to prove your beliefs are facts. [/quote]
I don't need to prove my beliefs are facts. Furthermore, I can't. Neither can you, or anyone. We can only prove our beliefs are logical.
[quote]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.[/quote]
I have never asserted anything as fact, you are just saying I have. I actually agree with the sentiment of your statement, although it doesn't logically follow from your premise "you have yet to prove your beliefs are facts", or if it does you have left out many steps. It's like me saying, "you have yet to prove the sky is blue. Therefore, you can hardly assert that the sky is blue. Adittionally, you can hardly call people ignorant for not agreeing with you." I agree with you but it doesn't logically follow.

[quote]How can someone logically tell you something if your idea of logic consists of using whatever definitions suit your goal? [/quote]
I believe you misunderstand logic. It is not dependent on the deifnitions of words.
1. All mice are made of glass
2. "X" is a mouse
3. Therefore "X" is made of glass.

The argument is fully consistent with rules of logic. It is logical. It is not true, however, because of our understanding of the meaning of the words mice and glass. We understand "mice" to mean rodents with ears and tails which is a carbon based life form. We understand glass to be inorganic material. Therefore the major premise, "All mice are made of glass" is false. The argument remains logical nevertheless.

When making arguments we must define terms in order to determine the truth of an argument. Those definitions can be whatever we want them to be. The definitions of the words do not determine whether an argument is logical, it determines the truth of an argument. If you don't agree with a definition I use for a word, just forget about the word and use the definition itself in it's place. Hopefully that will make more sense to you.

[quote]Here is the thing, acke. You are drawing conclusions based on nothing but the fact that you believe there is a god.[/quote]
We'll look at my original argument
1. If you believe your perceptions are real, then you must believe consciousness is real.
- this is a mojor premise, so let's define the terms
"belief"- confidence in the existence of something not susceptible to rigourous proof.
"real"- that which exists indepently of our ideas about of observation of it
"perceptions"- everything we observe using our senses
"consciousness"- the framework from which we perceive.

If you don't like how I have defined the words, simply use the definitions themselves.

1. If you have confidence in the existence of everything we observe using our senses independently of our ideas about or observation of them, then you must have confidence have confidence in the framework from which we make observations using our senses existing independently of our ideas about or observation of it.

- That is my major premise, it has nothing to do with God.

[quote] You assert those conclusions and then attempt to form an argument behind it. [/quote]
My major premise is not my conclusion. You have seen the argument. Hopefully you can do the rest on your own.
[quote]You should take the steps through evidence and observation before asserting your conclusions. [/quote]
But I have. In my argument I state every premise from one to the next. If you want to refute one of my premises or conclusions as untrue that is fine; I welcome it. Just do it logically so I can have confidence that what you are saying is true.
[quote]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.[/quote]
The argument is wholly my own

[quote] You are now using it to describe anything a person believes exists. [/quote]
Not anything that exists Shell, anything that is real (exists independently of our ideas about or observation of it). As I have stated before if you don't like the term "universal constant" you can simply use my definition of real.
[quote]You can't do that an expect people to go along with you. [/quote]Actually since I am the one making the argument, common ettiquette requires that others adhere to the definitions of the terms I use. Since you refuse, just use the definitions themselves.
[quote]If you are going to spout nonsense, you have to be persuasive. [/quote]
All it takes to be persuasive is a logical argument and an open mind. A little tact can't hurt either. I am sincere in my attempt at humility.
[quote]All persuasive speakers have good vocabularies. Work on yours. I don't mean that to be rude. I'm being utterly sincere. [/quote]
Good advice for all.

[Lord Summerisle]

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.

[amkerman]

Exactly Lord.

[Ace Otana]

Atheism is not a religion. It is a response to theist claims.

Theist -Belief in god

Atheist - Lack of belief in god. If you fail to understand that then you are a retard.
Explain how lack of belief = a belief?

Lost count on the number of times the mentally ill assert bullshit. Trying to define words.

[amkerman]

My position is that it is impossible to actually believe or not believe in God because God is incomprehensible. We are left to struggle with whether or not certain aspects of God are true. God must be true, i.e. reality exists.

[LastPoet]

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.

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 where the sun doesn't shine.

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

[amkerman]

Even if atheism isn't really a religion, the hate many atheists spew sure is.

[LastPoet]

All the hate we can feel still lacks in comparision to the hatreds religions muster.