Atheism is a religion

[Faith No More]

A group of individuals who think the same way about God.

This definition fails, because according to this, the only way to avoid a belief in god is to come up with one that no one else has before. By your defintion agnosticism and deism are also religions, yet if I worshipped chocolate chips as god incarnate on a weekly basis in front of a shrine, that would not be one. I agree with the sentiment that you are creating your own defintion of religion and trying to shoehorn whatever you want into it.

A Catholic is not Catholocism; and atheist is not atheism. You can be one without being a member of that religion in my opinion, for you to be part of the "religion" you must blindly accept the beliefs of the religion.

If this were true then anyone who studies religion and comes to their own conclusion that Catholicism is true is not part of a religion. Being religious isn't dependent on how you came to a conclusion, only what conclusion you came to.

---

Its the twisting of facts that I take issue with, and should be, in theory, very unatheist like.

So can I assume that you condemn theists who also twist facts to suit their beliefs? As for atheists claiming religion is the source of evil, I have never heard that. I have heard atheists claim religion is one source of evil, but never the source of evil. Do you have evidence for this, or are you twisting facts yourself?

[amkerman]

---

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.

Cover up quick!!! Your ignorance is showing... If you see a flaw in my argument, by all means attack it.

[Ace Otana]

Cover up quick!!! Your ignorance is showing...

Cover up quick! Your stupidity is showing!

---

If you see a flaw in my argument, by all means attack it.

Where to start. The whole thing made no sense.

[Lord Summerisle]

So can I assume that you condemn theists who also twist facts to suit their beliefs? As for atheists claiming religion is the source of evil, I have never heard that. I have heard atheists claim religion is one source of evil, but never the source of evil. Do you have evidence for this, or are you twisting facts yourself?

Noone should twist facts to beat their own drum, regardless of beliefs.

Atheists claiming religion is the root of all evil

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.

[amkerman]

If you see a flaw in my argument, by all means attack it.

Where to start. The whole thing made no sense.
[/quote]

How about we start with the first premise and go from there...

[LastPoet]

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.

Oh? I thought you said:

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.

QED
And you are vying for some sort of intelectual high ground, think again about post 174. If that resembles an intelectual post, please tell me how. You made a claim regarding why we talk about religion, I answered, so stop hiding behind a pseudo-intelectual ego

In a nutshell, science says that when it comes to God and spirituality - you're on your own.

Yes, and we want it to continue that way.

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.

You are confused, the aggravation is from frustration, not offense. This has been talked to death, each of your points have been answered many times. Ad nauseum.

If atheism is a religion, then it certainly is a very different kind of religion.

Yeah, "The religion of not having a religion". There goes the law of no contradiction out the window.

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.

Get this in your head once and for all: The only thing you can inferr from an atheist is that he doesn't believe any god or gods. There is no ideology behind it. If you are trying to pull out the old Stalin chestnut, I though you were smarter than this. Communism + a personality cult.

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.

Oh, they weren't True Christians™? Anyhow, did you made all this post only to whine the mean atheists are mean to you? Grow a pair man. And I will re-iterate, the argument that they are better people comes from christians, to wich some people use the stats as a counter argument.

[amkerman]

Faith:

My definition: A group of individuals who think the same way about God.

This definition fails, because according to this, the only way to avoid a belief in god is to come up with one that no one else has before. By your defintion agnosticism and deism are also religions, yet if I worshipped chocolate chips as god incarnate on a weekly basis in front of a shrine, that would not be one. I agree with the sentiment that you are creating your own defintion of religion and trying to shoehorn whatever you want into it.

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. Relgions aren't real. 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.

A Catholic is not Catholocism; and atheist is not atheism. You can be one without being a member of that religion in my opinion, for you to be part of the "religion" you must blindly accept the beliefs of the religion.

If this were true then anyone who studies religion and comes to their own conclusion that Catholicism is true is not part of a religion. Being religious isn't dependent on how you came to a conclusion, only what conclusion you came to.

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.

[Ace Otana]

How about we start with the first premise and go from there...

Alright, I completely lost you at this bit here -

Things that are real exist beyond our perceptions of them

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

I can't make any sense of it. Not sure if you're trying to say 'things exist outside of our knowledge' or if you're trying to say something else. I can't make sense of what you're saying and I've debated many crazies.

[amkerman]

Fundamental Atheists...

hahahaha.

---

How about we start with the first premise and go from there...

Alright, I completely lost you at this bit here -

Things that are real exist beyond our perceptions of them

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

I can't make any sense of it. Not sure if you're trying to say 'things exist outside of our knowledge' or if you're trying to say something else. I can't make sense of what you're saying and I've debated many crazies.

Oh. The definition of the word real. "having objective independent existence"- Merriam Webster

So, if the computer screen is real it has an objective existence independent of your perception of it.

Therefore, if the computer screen is real it exists beyond your pereception of it. it's existence is not dependent on your perception. It exists beyond your perception.

Can we continue? or do you still not get it.

---

You stated yourself Ace that things beyond your perception were unknown. Are you trying to backtrack possibly?

[Ace Otana]

Oh. The definition of the word real. "having objective independent existence"- Merriam Webster

So, if the computer screen is real it has an objective existence independent of your perception of it.

Therefore, if the computer screen is real it exists beyond your pereception of it. it's existence is not dependent on your perception. It exists beyond your perception.

Can we continue? or do you still not get it.

Oh I got it godboy, it's just....it doesn't make sense. Explain how a computer screen is 'beyond' my perception. Beyond my senses sort of thing.

You stated yourself Ace that things beyond your perception were unknown. Are you trying to backtrack possibly?

No, just trying to make sense of the dribble your posting.