Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[Carla_Danger]

That makes no sense. If I say I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, I "define" myself within the framework of the concept of the Easter Bunny --- that doesn't make me a mythologist. How is it possible to negate a concept without any reference to it?
This logic would require an atheist to declare, "I don't believe in something. I can't tell you what it is I don't believe in, but trust me but it ain't there". No one would know what you're talking about.

Obviously, religion means something more specific than "belief". I can "believe" it's going to rain this afternoon; that doesn't make my weather observation a "religion".

And on the other side of that coin and perhaps more to your point, a religion does not need a "god" to be a religion; theism does. So at best you can say when you define yourself as an atheist, you define yourself within the framework of theism -- but not that of religion, of which theism is a subset. But clearly it doesn't make you a theist by taking its opposite view. It still means nothing deeper than, among "that group of people that believe in theism", the atheist is not among them. That's all there is to it. Zero is still not "one" and will never be.

Theism is a modality in some religions; not a mandatory one in all. If I do not believe in the Volvo specifically as a mode of transport, it doesn't mean I'm against cars.

I agree religion doesn't need a "god" in definition, but if you look at the definition up above in the OP:

"the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."

Am I reading this wrong?

So when you are defining yourself in the framework of "theism" as an a(nti)-theist, and the religion is defined as theism(as in the OP), than atheism becomes a religion itself. Innit?

No. I don't see how that follows.

How can you reject a theory without referencing the theory you're rejecting?

You can not, therefore, you are bound to it, like atheism being bound to theism, religion...

Religions are real, gods are real, they are the production of our brain (just like other real thoughts we have) and a specific setup in our brain too. But this same specific setup also produce the atheistic view.

As a result, you either produce your christianity, islam, buddhism,... or atheism. Atheism is your own production just like the other views in religion. Your religious view is an atheistic one. You don't believe in gods, nor supernatural being, but some other things that make the universe as we know it, if you are an atheist.

Atheism is not a "production"; it's a rejection --- a void. What you DO believe (a positive) is irrelevant to the definition, as "atheist" tells us nothing about that belief. It only tells us one theory that is not present.

If I tell you "I am not wearing a kimono", I have not told you what I am wearing. I haven't even told you if I'm wearing clothes at all.

And no, you're certainly in no way "bound" to a concept you've dismissed. That's the whole point in dismissing it.

This is from one of Carla's first posts:

"
Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

I'm a number 6."

There is no objective evidence to support this position. A conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief. It can't be anything but a belief. So the claim that Carla is just rejecting, that it is a "void", is just not true. Which means that either, according to your definition, Carla is not an Atheist or your definition of Atheism is wrong.

To use your analogy, what if when you are telling us you are not wearing a kimono you are standing in front of us wearing one?

But Carla is rejecting, due to lack of evidence. Carla gave up her belief, due to lack of evidence, and by doing that, Carla gave up her religion. Carla is no longer religious, nor is she affiliated with any religion/religious group.

 

[Pogo]

Atheism is not a "production"; it's a rejection --- a void. What you DO believe (a positive) is irrelevant to the definition, as "atheist" tells us nothing about that belief. It only tells us what is not there.

If I tell you "I am not wearing a kimono", I have not told you what I am wearing. I haven't even told you if I'm wearing clothes at all.

And no, you're certainly in no way "bound" to a concept you've dismissed. That's the whole point in dismissing it.

So atheists come to the conclusion of atheism by how?

Just waiting in the "void" and it comes to them?

Of course not. They use the same neurons, and in fact, they fire it the same way the religious people do, when they come up with their religious views.

Every idea, even the idea of rejecting an idea is a production. Otherwise you would not be rejecting it, you would simply, ignore it or dismiss it, but you don't. You reject it. You go through some process to get to that point. You produce your atheism, your religious views, in the same factory as all the other human being does produce their own views of religion.

Your argument here is that atheism is a thought process. Of course it is -- every thought is. It's a consideration of a specific theory and a conclusion that that theory is not worthy of belief. Nobody argues with that.

But a thought process obviously does not constitute a "religion". And dismissing the idea of the Easter Bunny does not in any way "bind" you to the Easter Bunny. That's absurd.

Otherwise you would not be rejecting it, you would simply, ignore it or dismiss it, but you don't. You reject it

What distinction exactly are you trying to make between "reject" and "dismiss"?

If we go back to your "Volvo" suggestion; all the cars are produced in a car factory, but not only cars are produced in a car factory. No matter how opposite your atheism is to theism, it is the production of the same assembly line, and that alone is enough to categorize them all as one.

Therefore categorizing atheism as a religious view is not something you can "dismiss", but something you could reject, of course after the process of thinking and considering and argumenting about it.

dismiss: treat as unworthy of serious consideration

And once again you're still making the case that atheism is a thoght process. Nobody disagrees with that. Nor is it the question here.

Once again -- given the definition as a starting point:
___________________________________________________________
religion [ri-lij-uh n]
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. (Dictionary.com)
____________________________________________________________

Where is this "set of beliefs" in atheism addressing any of these questions at all? Where is a set of beliefs about anything?

 

[Pogo]

That makes no sense. If I say I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, I "define" myself within the framework of the concept of the Easter Bunny --- that doesn't make me a mythologist. How is it possible to negate a concept without any reference to it?
This logic would require an atheist to declare, "I don't believe in something. I can't tell you what it is I don't believe in, but trust me but it ain't there". No one would know what you're talking about.

Obviously, religion means something more specific than "belief". I can "believe" it's going to rain this afternoon; that doesn't make my weather observation a "religion".

And on the other side of that coin and perhaps more to your point, a religion does not need a "god" to be a religion; theism does. So at best you can say when you define yourself as an atheist, you define yourself within the framework of theism -- but not that of religion, of which theism is a subset. But clearly it doesn't make you a theist by taking its opposite view. It still means nothing deeper than, among "that group of people that believe in theism", the atheist is not among them. That's all there is to it. Zero is still not "one" and will never be.

Theism is a modality in some religions; not a mandatory one in all. If I do not believe in the Volvo specifically as a mode of transport, it doesn't mean I'm against cars.

I agree religion doesn't need a "god" in definition, but if you look at the definition up above in the OP:

"the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."

Am I reading this wrong?

So when you are defining yourself in the framework of "theism" as an a(nti)-theist, and the religion is defined as theism(as in the OP), than atheism becomes a religion itself. Innit?

No. I don't see how that follows.

How can you reject a theory without referencing the theory you're rejecting?

You can not, therefore, you are bound to it, like atheism being bound to theism, religion...

Religions are real, gods are real, they are the production of our brain (just like other real thoughts we have) and a specific setup in our brain too. But this same specific setup also produce the atheistic view.

As a result, you either produce your christianity, islam, buddhism,... or atheism. Atheism is your own production just like the other views in religion. Your religious view is an atheistic one. You don't believe in gods, nor supernatural being, but some other things that make the universe as we know it, if you are an atheist.

Atheism is not a "production"; it's a rejection --- a void. What you DO believe (a positive) is irrelevant to the definition, as "atheist" tells us nothing about that belief. It only tells us one theory that is not present.

If I tell you "I am not wearing a kimono", I have not told you what I am wearing. I haven't even told you if I'm wearing clothes at all.

And no, you're certainly in no way "bound" to a concept you've dismissed. That's the whole point in dismissing it.

This is from one of Carla's first posts:

"
Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

I'm a number 6."

There is no objective evidence to support this position. A conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief. It can't be anything but a belief. So the claim that Carla is just rejecting, that it is a "void", is just not true. Which means that either, according to your definition, Carla is not an Atheist or your definition of Atheism is wrong.

To use your analogy, what if when you are telling us you are not wearing a kimono you are standing in front of us wearing one?

Sorry, that analogy is inoperative. In order to see what I'm wearing, the cognate would require that we see into the atheist's mind to determine if his words match his thoughts. Not only can't we do that, it's irrelevant.

And more to the point of the thread, none of this is an argument that "atheism is a religion".

 

[Uncensored2008]

Is "something" a religion?

Do Atheists proselytize to win converts? Do Atheists use the power of the state to silence competing faiths?

Since both of these are overwhelmingly "yes," then Atheism is a religion.

Agnostics don't care what others believe. It makes no difference to me if my neighbor worships no god, or twenty gods.

But Atheists are driven to convert others, to crush faith systems other than there own, mostly using the implied violence of the state to crush competing faiths.

Complete nonsense!

Atheistic Outreach Disseminating Information and Dispelling Myths About Atheism

Perhaps the ONLY group more aggressive in trying to win converts than the Jehovah's Witnesses are the Atheists.

When I see the smug little fuckers drive up in their Prius with Dawkins literature under their arm, I turn the hose on them....

 

[Carla_Danger]

Is "something" a religion?

Do Atheists proselytize to win converts? Do Atheists use the power of the state to silence competing faiths?

Since both of these are overwhelmingly "yes," then Atheism is a religion.

Agnostics don't care what others believe. It makes no difference to me if my neighbor worships no god, or twenty gods.

But Atheists are driven to convert others, to crush faith systems other than there own, mostly using the implied violence of the state to crush competing faiths.

Complete nonsense!

Atheistic Outreach Disseminating Information and Dispelling Myths About Atheism

Perhaps the ONLY group more aggressive in trying to win converts than the Jehovah's Witnesses are the Atheists.

When I see the smug little fuckers drive up in their Prius with Dawkins literature under their arm, I turn the hose on them....

More nonsense. When you click on the link, the tab says "defending atheism," not converting.

 

[alpine]

Where is this "set of beliefs" in atheism addressing any of these questions at all? Where is a set of beliefs about anything?

It is in your reasoning. Your "facts" are your beliefs, no matter how solid they are.

Even math, the mother of solid thinking, sterile from all human presumptions, is a belief after all, is a perception. Claiming "atheism" is apart from all this, standing as a fact, as a void, that just doesn't make sense.

Atheism is your religious point of view. When someone asks you: "What is your religious view?", you could answer "I am a christian" or you could say "I am an atheist".

You know why? Because you can not reject "religion". It is as hard fact as any fact you rely on during your reasoning. That is the reason why you can not ignore or simply dismiss religion as a whole, but forced to create your own point of view in it, based on your beliefs.

concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

 

[Uncensored2008]

More nonsense. When you click on the link, the tab says "defending atheism," not converting.

Oh bullshit;

{The more interesting question is whether some people in modern society, people who are aware of the usual grounds for belief and disbelief and are acquainted to some degree with modern science, are yet rationally justified in accepting theism. Friendly atheism is a significant position only if it answers this question in the affirmative.[5]}

It's about how to win converts.

When Atheists see a little girl praying in front of a flag pole at school, then send men with guns to forcibly stop her, what is their purpose?

What is the purpose of Atheists burning books and outlawing information that is contrary to the goals of the ruling Atheist church?

{
Fox News – There is growing outrage among sailors and religious liberty advocates over a directive that calls for the removal of Bibles from lodges and hotels run on U.S. Navy bases. The directive comes after an atheist group filed a formal complaint earlier this year over the placement of Bibles in the rooms.

“The current direction is to remove all religious material from Navy Lodge guest rooms,” read an email to a Navy chaplain from The Navy Exchange Service Command (NEXCOM). “For those Navy Lodges with religious materials currently in guest rooms, the Navy Lodge General Manager will contact the Installation Chaplain’s office who will provide guidance on the removal procedure disposition of these materials.”}

Freedom From Religion Foundation 8211 How Far Will They Go In Their Attack On Christianity

 

[Carla_Danger]

Where is this "set of beliefs" in atheism addressing any of these questions at all? Where is a set of beliefs about anything?

It is in your reasoning. Your "facts" are your beliefs, no matter how solid they are.

Even math, the mother of solid thinking, sterile from all human presumptions, is a belief after all, is a perception. Claiming "atheism" is apart from all this, standing as a fact, as a void, that just doesn't make sense.

Atheism is your religious point of view. When someone asks you: "What is your religious view?", you could answer "I am a christian" or you could say "I am an atheist".

You know why? Because you can not reject "religion". It is as hard fact as any fact you rely on during your reasoning. That is the reason why you can not ignore or simply dismiss religion as a whole, but forced to create your own point of view in it, based on your beliefs.

concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

Oh my, you most certainly can reject religion.

 

[alpine]

Where is this "set of beliefs" in atheism addressing any of these questions at all? Where is a set of beliefs about anything?

It is in your reasoning. Your "facts" are your beliefs, no matter how solid they are.

Even math, the mother of solid thinking, sterile from all human presumptions, is a belief after all, is a perception. Claiming "atheism" is apart from all this, standing as a fact, as a void, that just doesn't make sense.

Atheism is your religious point of view. When someone asks you: "What is your religious view?", you could answer "I am a christian" or you could say "I am an atheist".

You know why? Because you can not reject "religion". It is as hard fact as any fact you rely on during your reasoning. That is the reason why you can not ignore or simply dismiss religion as a whole, but forced to create your own point of view in it, based on your beliefs.

concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

Oh my, you most certainly can reject religion.

You can not reject the reality of something, that has billions of examples all around the world.

That would be silly, innit?

 

[Carla_Danger]

Where is this "set of beliefs" in atheism addressing any of these questions at all? Where is a set of beliefs about anything?

It is in your reasoning. Your "facts" are your beliefs, no matter how solid they are.

Even math, the mother of solid thinking, sterile from all human presumptions, is a belief after all, is a perception. Claiming "atheism" is apart from all this, standing as a fact, as a void, that just doesn't make sense.

Atheism is your religious point of view. When someone asks you: "What is your religious view?", you could answer "I am a christian" or you could say "I am an atheist".

You know why? Because you can not reject "religion". It is as hard fact as any fact you rely on during your reasoning. That is the reason why you can not ignore or simply dismiss religion as a whole, but forced to create your own point of view in it, based on your beliefs.

concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

Oh my, you most certainly can reject religion.

You can not reject the reality of something, that has billions of examples all around the world.

That would be silly, innit?

Since 1812 there have been examples that Bigfoot lives. There are even books on that subject, providing evidence. I reject that evidence. I do not believe in Bigfoot. Is that a religion?

 

[Pogo]

Where is this "set of beliefs" in atheism addressing any of these questions at all? Where is a set of beliefs about anything?

It is in your reasoning. Your "facts" are your beliefs, no matter how solid they are.

It is not a "set of beliefs", it is a single non-belief. The answer is the set of beliefs requested to qualify a religion -- simply does not exist. It is a zero. Zero can never be "one". It is the absence (i.e. non-presence) of the designated belief.

I don't believe in satyrs. That doesn't make asatyrism a "religion". Don't know what's so elusive about that.

Even math, the mother of solid thinking, sterile from all human presumptions, is a belief after all, is a perception. Claiming "atheism" is apart from all this, standing as a fact, as a void, that just doesn't make sense.

Good way to look at it. As posted before you were here, let's reduce to a simple math:

The numerical value of theism in one theist: one
The numerical value of theism in one atheist: zero.
All that remains is to understand what "Zero" means.

Atheism is your religious point of view. When someone asks you: "What is your religious view?", you could answer "I am a christian" or you could say "I am an atheist".

No, it is not a religious view beyond a simple rejection of one religious modality out of many. Buddhists and Taoists are atheists; that doesn't mean they're not religious. You're trying to compare apples and oranges, apparently still conflating "theism" with "religion". Once again -- atheism does not mean the absence of religion; it means the absence of theism.

You know why? Because you can not reject "religion". It is as hard fact as any fact you rely on during your reasoning. That is the reason why you can not ignore or simply dismiss religion as a whole, but forced to create your own point of view in it, based on your beliefs.

concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

Every culture in every time and place has/has had religion of some kind. Not every one has/has had theism. If your logic depends on conflating the two, you haven't made an honest logical progression.

 

[alpine]

Where is this "set of beliefs" in atheism addressing any of these questions at all? Where is a set of beliefs about anything?

It is in your reasoning. Your "facts" are your beliefs, no matter how solid they are.

Even math, the mother of solid thinking, sterile from all human presumptions, is a belief after all, is a perception. Claiming "atheism" is apart from all this, standing as a fact, as a void, that just doesn't make sense.

Atheism is your religious point of view. When someone asks you: "What is your religious view?", you could answer "I am a christian" or you could say "I am an atheist".

You know why? Because you can not reject "religion". It is as hard fact as any fact you rely on during your reasoning. That is the reason why you can not ignore or simply dismiss religion as a whole, but forced to create your own point of view in it, based on your beliefs.

concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

Oh my, you most certainly can reject religion.

You can not reject the reality of something, that has billions of examples all around the world.

That would be silly, innit?

Since 1812 there have been examples that Bigfoot lives. I reject that evidence. I do not believe in Bigfoot. Is that a religion?

Have you ever seen a Bigfoot?

If you did, would you believe the reality of a Bigfoot?

Have you ever seen a "religious" person?..................



The evidence to religion, is the religious people you see all around you, every day, multiple times.

And you still have a problem accepting the reality of it.

Religion is real, and whatever it is, it is happening to all of us most likely. Because it is happening to 80% of us in a very clear way. The idea, the concept, the pattern of religion is in all of us, one way or another. "Religion" is what the old people called this phenomenon that happened to them; concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. But they come up with different explanations to it. In the cave man times, they would search through the inside of the crust, abrahamic religion vice versa, to the sky, now you to the stars and galaxies.

This is what religion is.

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

I mean look at this description here. You can not tell me this doesn't apply to atheism, when you have "usually" that has the only part that you would make the argument "atheism doesnt fit into this" part. SO the only part Atheism will need to have is this section;

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies"

Ohhhh, yes it does. There is no contradiction to atheism in this right here.

Athiesm is in FACT a religion, as far as the definition is concerned, an unusual one, but still one.

Because ATHEISM;

1. Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
2. And especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies



So the conclusion; you may not be as much religious as other people are on this planet, but after all, you are religious by definition...

 

[alpine]

Where is this "set of beliefs" in atheism addressing any of these questions at all? Where is a set of beliefs about anything?

It is in your reasoning. Your "facts" are your beliefs, no matter how solid they are.

It is not a "set of beliefs", it is a single non-belief. The answer is the set of beliefs requested to qualify a religion -- simply does not exist. It is a zero. Zero can never be "one". It is the absence (i.e. non-presence) of the designated belief.

I don't believe in satyrs. That doesn't make asatyrism a "religion". Don't know what's so elusive about that.

Even math, the mother of solid thinking, sterile from all human presumptions, is a belief after all, is a perception. Claiming "atheism" is apart from all this, standing as a fact, as a void, that just doesn't make sense.

Good way to look at it. As posted before you were here, let's reduce to a simple math:

The numerical value of theism in one theist: one
The numerical value of theism in one atheist: zero.
All that remains is to understand what "Zero" means.

Atheism is your religious point of view. When someone asks you: "What is your religious view?", you could answer "I am a christian" or you could say "I am an atheist".

No, it is not a religious view beyond a simple rejection of one religious modality out of many. Buddhists and Taoists are atheists; that doesn't mean they're not religious. You're trying to compare apples and oranges, apparently still conflating "theism" with "religion". Once again -- atheism does not mean the absence of religion; it means the absence of theism.

You know why? Because you can not reject "religion". It is as hard fact as any fact you rely on during your reasoning. That is the reason why you can not ignore or simply dismiss religion as a whole, but forced to create your own point of view in it, based on your beliefs.

concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

Every culture in every time and place has/has had religion of some kind. Not every one has/has had theism. If your logic depends on conflating the two, you haven't made an honest logical progression.

You are claiming atheism something to be that atheism is not.

I mean we could bring the definition of atheism on the table too, just to make sure.

"The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings."

This is official definition right?

But this is also wrong, just like how the definition of religion was when it was first put out here, according to you. Isn't it? You claimed the definition of religion was wrong, and did come up with a different definition, am I correct?

But the first definition was as official as your second one was, for some people at least, and a substancial amount, because that was the wiki definition.

So you see; human being can not come up with one solid definition to one single object.

And you are not alone, same thing happens to every one. And this is what religion is trying to define in its sense. And atheism is right at the heart of it, it is coming to the conclusion taking the same questions into consideration, and yet you claim it is outside of it.

Well, you can of course try... But even mathematically that would be a silly bet...

 

[Pogo]

Where is this "set of beliefs" in atheism addressing any of these questions at all? Where is a set of beliefs about anything?

It is in your reasoning. Your "facts" are your beliefs, no matter how solid they are.

It is not a "set of beliefs", it is a single non-belief. The answer is the set of beliefs requested to qualify a religion -- simply does not exist. It is a zero. Zero can never be "one". It is the absence (i.e. non-presence) of the designated belief.

I don't believe in satyrs. That doesn't make asatyrism a "religion". Don't know what's so elusive about that.

Even math, the mother of solid thinking, sterile from all human presumptions, is a belief after all, is a perception. Claiming "atheism" is apart from all this, standing as a fact, as a void, that just doesn't make sense.

Good way to look at it. As posted before you were here, let's reduce to a simple math:

The numerical value of theism in one theist: one
The numerical value of theism in one atheist: zero.
All that remains is to understand what "Zero" means.

Atheism is your religious point of view. When someone asks you: "What is your religious view?", you could answer "I am a christian" or you could say "I am an atheist".

No, it is not a religious view beyond a simple rejection of one religious modality out of many. Buddhists and Taoists are atheists; that doesn't mean they're not religious. You're trying to compare apples and oranges, apparently still conflating "theism" with "religion". Once again -- atheism does not mean the absence of religion; it means the absence of theism.

You know why? Because you can not reject "religion". It is as hard fact as any fact you rely on during your reasoning. That is the reason why you can not ignore or simply dismiss religion as a whole, but forced to create your own point of view in it, based on your beliefs.

concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

Every culture in every time and place has/has had religion of some kind. Not every one has/has had theism. If your logic depends on conflating the two, you haven't made an honest logical progression.

You are claiming atheism something to be that atheism is not.

I mean we could bring the definition of atheism on the table too, just to make sure.

"The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings."

This is official definition right?

But this is also wrong, just like how the definition of religion was when it was first put out here, according to you. Isn't it? You claimed the definition of religion was wrong, and did come up with a different definition, am I correct?

But the first definition was as official as your second one was, for some people at least, and a substancial amount, because that was the wiki definition.

So you see; human being can not come up with one solid definition to one single object.

And you are not alone, same thing happens to every one. And this is what religion is trying to define in its sense. And atheism is right at the heart of it, it is coming to the conclusion taking the same questions into consideration, and yet you claim it is outside of it.

Well, you can of course try... But even mathematically that would be a silly bet...

Wait -- did you just declare Wikipedia to be infallible?

The definition in the OP was unnecessarily limited to theistic religions. "Theism" and "religion" continue not to be synonyms. So I supplied a more inclusive definition that doesn't exclude nontheistic religions. Unless you're about to tell us that Buddhism and Taoism are not "religions". Good luck making that case, because here's Wiki again, apparently contradicting itself:

Jainism /ˈdʒeɪnɪz(ə)m/, traditionally known as Jaina Shasana or Jaina dharma (Sanskrit: जैन धर्म), is a nontheistic Indian religion that prescribes a path of ahimsa - nonviolence - towards all living beings, and emphasizes spiritual independence and equality between all forms of life.​

 

[alpine]

Where is this "set of beliefs" in atheism addressing any of these questions at all? Where is a set of beliefs about anything?

It is in your reasoning. Your "facts" are your beliefs, no matter how solid they are.

It is not a "set of beliefs", it is a single non-belief. The answer is the set of beliefs requested to qualify a religion -- simply does not exist. It is a zero. Zero can never be "one". It is the absence (i.e. non-presence) of the designated belief.

I don't believe in satyrs. That doesn't make asatyrism a "religion". Don't know what's so elusive about that.

Even math, the mother of solid thinking, sterile from all human presumptions, is a belief after all, is a perception. Claiming "atheism" is apart from all this, standing as a fact, as a void, that just doesn't make sense.

Good way to look at it. As posted before you were here, let's reduce to a simple math:

The numerical value of theism in one theist: one
The numerical value of theism in one atheist: zero.
All that remains is to understand what "Zero" means.

Atheism is your religious point of view. When someone asks you: "What is your religious view?", you could answer "I am a christian" or you could say "I am an atheist".

No, it is not a religious view beyond a simple rejection of one religious modality out of many. Buddhists and Taoists are atheists; that doesn't mean they're not religious. You're trying to compare apples and oranges, apparently still conflating "theism" with "religion". Once again -- atheism does not mean the absence of religion; it means the absence of theism.

You know why? Because you can not reject "religion". It is as hard fact as any fact you rely on during your reasoning. That is the reason why you can not ignore or simply dismiss religion as a whole, but forced to create your own point of view in it, based on your beliefs.

concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

Every culture in every time and place has/has had religion of some kind. Not every one has/has had theism. If your logic depends on conflating the two, you haven't made an honest logical progression.

You are claiming atheism something to be that atheism is not.

I mean we could bring the definition of atheism on the table too, just to make sure.

"The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings."

This is official definition right?

But this is also wrong, just like how the definition of religion was when it was first put out here, according to you. Isn't it? You claimed the definition of religion was wrong, and did come up with a different definition, am I correct?

But the first definition was as official as your second one was, for some people at least, and a substancial amount, because that was the wiki definition.

So you see; human being can not come up with one solid definition to one single object.

And you are not alone, same thing happens to every one. And this is what religion is trying to define in its sense. And atheism is right at the heart of it, it is coming to the conclusion taking the same questions into consideration, and yet you claim it is outside of it.

Well, you can of course try... But even mathematically that would be a silly bet...

Wait -- did you just declare Wikipedia to be infallible?

The definition in the OP was unnecessarily limited to theistic religions. "Theism" and "religion" continue not to be synonyms. So I supplied a more inclusive definition that doesn't exclude nontheistic religions. Unless you're about to tell us that Buddhism and Taoism are not "religions". Good luck making that case, because here's Wiki again, apparently contradicting itself:

Jainism /ˈdʒeɪnɪz(ə)m/, traditionally known as Jaina Shasana or Jaina dharma (Sanskrit: जैन धर्म), is a nontheistic Indian religion that prescribes a path of ahimsa - nonviolence - towards all living beings, and emphasizes spiritual independence and equality between all forms of life.​

Hold on; I didn't say "infallible". To me, everything is fallible. The one who believes in "infallible"s, turns out to be you. You think your definition is infallible, innit?

I bet you do...

 

[Carla_Danger]

More nonsense. When you click on the link, the tab says "defending atheism," not converting.

Oh bullshit;

{The more interesting question is whether some people in modern society, people who are aware of the usual grounds for belief and disbelief and are acquainted to some degree with modern science, are yet rationally justified in accepting theism. Friendly atheism is a significant position only if it answers this question in the affirmative.[5]}

It's about how to win converts.

When Atheists see a little girl praying in front of a flag pole at school, then send men with guns to forcibly stop her, what is their purpose?

What is the purpose of Atheists burning books and outlawing information that is contrary to the goals of the ruling Atheist church?

{
Fox News – There is growing outrage among sailors and religious liberty advocates over a directive that calls for the removal of Bibles from lodges and hotels run on U.S. Navy bases. The directive comes after an atheist group filed a formal complaint earlier this year over the placement of Bibles in the rooms.

“The current direction is to remove all religious material from Navy Lodge guest rooms,” read an email to a Navy chaplain from The Navy Exchange Service Command (NEXCOM). “For those Navy Lodges with religious materials currently in guest rooms, the Navy Lodge General Manager will contact the Installation Chaplain’s office who will provide guidance on the removal procedure disposition of these materials.”}

Freedom From Religion Foundation 8211 How Far Will They Go In Their Attack On Christianity

Why do you hate our Constitution? What part of "Separation of Church and State" do you not understand?

Here's the best thing Ronald Reagan ever did.....he had a son.

 

[Moonglow]

Is "something" a religion?

Do Atheists proselytize to win converts? Do Atheists use the power of the state to silence competing faiths?

Since both of these are overwhelmingly "yes," then Atheism is a religion.

Agnostics don't care what others believe. It makes no difference to me if my neighbor worships no god, or twenty gods.

But Atheists are driven to convert others, to crush faith systems other than there own, mostly using the implied violence of the state to crush competing faiths.

Complete nonsense!

Atheistic Outreach Disseminating Information and Dispelling Myths About Atheism

Perhaps the ONLY group more aggressive in trying to win converts than the Jehovah's Witnesses are the Atheists.

When I see the smug little fuckers drive up in their Prius with Dawkins literature under their arm, I turn the hose on them....

Why is this what I imagine with this post..??

 

[Pogo]

Because ATHEISM;

1. Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
2. And especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies

So the conclusion; you may not be as much religious as other people are on this planet, but after all, you are religious by definition...

You continue to conflate "religion" and "theism". If you're asking about me personally, yes I am religious and no I am not a theist. You have to understand the distinction first and stop ramming them into the same thing like a Certs breath mint.

This:
1. Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

Is still not a set of beliefs, which is essential to the definition. You can't make a religion out of an adjectival phrase. Can't do it. Again, if you don't articulate a reference, no one knows what the hell you're talking about. One cannot describe oneself as an "a-ican'tsaywhatitis-ist".

 

[asaratis]

So a bird's nest would not be natural. Nor would a wasp's nest or bee hive.

Wrong. That is their natural way of protecting and raising their young.

Then help me out here. If a bird uses natural material to make something, that is natural. But if a human uses natural material to make something, that is not natural. What is the difference?

This is my opinion:

A bird's instinct to build a nest (peculiar to its own species) is natural. A bird house with a pitched roof, a round doorway and a SEE ROCK CITY sign painted on top is not.

A bee hive or hornets nest are both natural. A beekeepers box is not.

My earlier example of iron ore and knives is clear. Iron ore exists in nature. Knives do not.

Humans differ from birds and bees in that we possess very few if any natural instinctive behaviors. (The natural drives to eat, drink and procreate are all that I know of.) We learn from our parents and others. We learn from experience. We progressed over thousands of years from being cave dwellers (living in nature's free shelter) to building enclosed, air conditioned, lighted homes with running water by way of invention and innovation. All these homes we build do not occur naturally. We have taught ourselves to build them.

Semantics can be confusing. My original contention that your original statement is false is correct.

 

[Pogo]

Where is this "set of beliefs" in atheism addressing any of these questions at all? Where is a set of beliefs about anything?

It is in your reasoning. Your "facts" are your beliefs, no matter how solid they are.

It is not a "set of beliefs", it is a single non-belief. The answer is the set of beliefs requested to qualify a religion -- simply does not exist. It is a zero. Zero can never be "one". It is the absence (i.e. non-presence) of the designated belief.

I don't believe in satyrs. That doesn't make asatyrism a "religion". Don't know what's so elusive about that.

Even math, the mother of solid thinking, sterile from all human presumptions, is a belief after all, is a perception. Claiming "atheism" is apart from all this, standing as a fact, as a void, that just doesn't make sense.

Good way to look at it. As posted before you were here, let's reduce to a simple math:

The numerical value of theism in one theist: one
The numerical value of theism in one atheist: zero.
All that remains is to understand what "Zero" means.

Atheism is your religious point of view. When someone asks you: "What is your religious view?", you could answer "I am a christian" or you could say "I am an atheist".

No, it is not a religious view beyond a simple rejection of one religious modality out of many. Buddhists and Taoists are atheists; that doesn't mean they're not religious. You're trying to compare apples and oranges, apparently still conflating "theism" with "religion". Once again -- atheism does not mean the absence of religion; it means the absence of theism.

You know why? Because you can not reject "religion". It is as hard fact as any fact you rely on during your reasoning. That is the reason why you can not ignore or simply dismiss religion as a whole, but forced to create your own point of view in it, based on your beliefs.

concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

Every culture in every time and place has/has had religion of some kind. Not every one has/has had theism. If your logic depends on conflating the two, you haven't made an honest logical progression.

You are claiming atheism something to be that atheism is not.

I mean we could bring the definition of atheism on the table too, just to make sure.

"The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings."

This is official definition right?

But this is also wrong, just like how the definition of religion was when it was first put out here, according to you. Isn't it? You claimed the definition of religion was wrong, and did come up with a different definition, am I correct?

But the first definition was as official as your second one was, for some people at least, and a substancial amount, because that was the wiki definition.

So you see; human being can not come up with one solid definition to one single object.

And you are not alone, same thing happens to every one. And this is what religion is trying to define in its sense. And atheism is right at the heart of it, it is coming to the conclusion taking the same questions into consideration, and yet you claim it is outside of it.

Well, you can of course try... But even mathematically that would be a silly bet...

Wait -- did you just declare Wikipedia to be infallible?

The definition in the OP was unnecessarily limited to theistic religions. "Theism" and "religion" continue not to be synonyms. So I supplied a more inclusive definition that doesn't exclude nontheistic religions. Unless you're about to tell us that Buddhism and Taoism are not "religions". Good luck making that case, because here's Wiki again, apparently contradicting itself:

Jainism /ˈdʒeɪnɪz(ə)m/, traditionally known as Jaina Shasana or Jaina dharma (Sanskrit: जैन धर्म), is a nontheistic Indian religion that prescribes a path of ahimsa - nonviolence - towards all living beings, and emphasizes spiritual independence and equality between all forms of life.​

Hold on; I didn't say "infallible". To me, everything is fallible. The one who believes in "infallible"s, turns out to be you. You think your definition is infallible, innit?

I bet you do...

Meltdown in progress.

The OP definition was flawed, and I just proved it using Wiki itself.
Now how can there be nontheistic religions, if "religion" requires theism? Answer: the premise is flawed, the flaw proved by the exceptions.

Can't have it both ways -- which Wiki are we to believe then?
Btw my definition came from Dictionary.com -- which not everybody gets to edit on a whim.