mrdecepticonleader

@umbrafeline said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@ZombieBigfoot said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@ZombieBigfoot said:

Seems cool enough. Doubt I'll pick it up, though.

@Meat_Spinner said:

First!

What is this, facebook?

I was gonna say you tube

More often than not, you see those on facebook. Youtube's comment section is just a bunch of monkeys jumping up and down, throwing feces at one another.

I could say that for facebook

Well when I look at comments on you tube vids saying first is pretty common,I dont understand why people post it lol

theyre aliens

Never thought of that I think your right! :)

@ZombieBigfoot said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@ZombieBigfoot said:

Seems cool enough. Doubt I'll pick it up, though.

@Meat_Spinner said:

First!

What is this, facebook?

I was gonna say you tube

More often than not, you see those on facebook. Youtube's comment section is just a bunch of monkeys jumping up and down, throwing feces at one another.

I could say that for facebook

Well when I look at comments on you tube vids saying first is pretty common,I dont understand why people post it lol

@Hawkeye446 said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@Hawkeye446 said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@Hawkeye446: Like I said I dont believe in God because there is no evidence for him its disbelieving has nothing to do with faith just like believing in god does involve faith.

Its OK to admit your wrong even over something as obvious as this :)

@SC said:

Atheism is not a religion. That's its defining characteristic. Absence of belief =/= belief in the opposite. Atheism is not defined by atheists belief in evolution or the big bang theory. Atheism is not defined by a belief in something. It could be said that the definition of atheism has the synonym of believing there is no god, but it would be inaccurate and a misunderstanding to think that defined or defines the word, knowing its history and application. As subtle a difference as one can make it there is also actually a difference between belief and acceptance, and belief and faith and alternative words that explain away the nuisances of distinguishing the semantics present. Words are interesting, so could be a long conversation, point is, a person doesn't need faith in order to believe in evolution or the big bang. They don't need to be proven. A person can agree to understand that the big bang and evolution are the best current and available systems in order to explain something. Which is something extremely different from asserting that both are factual and absolute, and or, have a lack of evidence relative to having some. So there can be as much belief in the scientific theory and or that those things can be proven inaccurate and hopefully be substituted if shown to be. To paraphrase Richard Feynman "I think it's better to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong".

Why would I admit that I am wrong? I never expected you to concede either, because that's what you believed. The different was you made bogus arguments and examples instead of things that may actually make me understand the point you were making, and continually misunderstood me.

SC listed many things I agree with myself, his interpretation is different than mine, but he was able to convey his opinion properly.

That is not to say that I agree with his overall opinion.

For instance much of what we were disputing, like SC said, comes down to how English is used and perceived. Based on definitions I saw and found, all Religions, including Atheism, have beliefs and faith in certain things, just not in God.

Theres nothing to believe regarding this,atheism isn't a religion. I wasn't coming up with any bogus arguments I was pointing out the flaws in your argument. I wouldn't say you where very good at conveying your points either. I made my points clear if you dont understand them then that's your problem

You said thing's like @Raiiyn was contradicting herself, trying to undermine her, when she didn't. You focused on only part of the definitions I provided and used them to say I was going against myself. When I explained myself there was no recognition of the points I was making, just that they was wrong. My posts became annoying and repeated because I kept saying the same thing.

She was.My main point was that atheism is not a religion.I had to constantly repeat the definition for it which you didn't acknowledge.Even when its pretty obvious its not

@ZombieBigfoot said:

Seems cool enough. Doubt I'll pick it up, though.

@Meat_Spinner said:

First!

What is this, facebook?

I was gonna say you tube

@Hawkeye446 said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@Hawkeye446: Like I said I dont believe in God because there is no evidence for him its disbelieving has nothing to do with faith just like believing in god does involve faith.

Its OK to admit your wrong even over something as obvious as this :)

@SC said:

Atheism is not a religion. That's its defining characteristic. Absence of belief =/= belief in the opposite. Atheism is not defined by atheists belief in evolution or the big bang theory. Atheism is not defined by a belief in something. It could be said that the definition of atheism has the synonym of believing there is no god, but it would be inaccurate and a misunderstanding to think that defined or defines the word, knowing its history and application. As subtle a difference as one can make it there is also actually a difference between belief and acceptance, and belief and faith and alternative words that explain away the nuisances of distinguishing the semantics present. Words are interesting, so could be a long conversation, point is, a person doesn't need faith in order to believe in evolution or the big bang. They don't need to be proven. A person can agree to understand that the big bang and evolution are the best current and available systems in order to explain something. Which is something extremely different from asserting that both are factual and absolute, and or, have a lack of evidence relative to having some. So there can be as much belief in the scientific theory and or that those things can be proven inaccurate and hopefully be substituted if shown to be. To paraphrase Richard Feynman "I think it's better to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong".

Why would I admit that I am wrong? I never expected you to concede either, because that's what you believed. The different was you made bogus arguments and examples instead of things that may actually make me understand the point you were making, and continually misunderstood me.

SC listed many things I agree with myself, his interpretation is different than mine, but he was able to convey his opinion properly.

That is not to say that I agree with his overall opinion.

For instance much of what we were disputing, like SC said, comes down to how English is used and perceived. Based on definitions I saw and found, all Religions, including Atheism, have beliefs and faith in certain things, just not in God.

Theres nothing to believe regarding this,atheism isn't a religion. I wasn't coming up with any bogus arguments I was pointing out the flaws in your argument. I wouldn't say you where very good at conveying your points either. I made my points clear if you dont understand them then that's your problem

@Hawkeye446 said:

@SC said:

Atheism is not a religion. That's its defining characteristic. Absence of belief =/= belief in the opposite. Atheism is not defined by atheists belief in evolution or the big bang theory. Atheism is not defined by a belief in something. It could be said that the definition of atheism has the synonym of believing there is no god, but it would be inaccurate and a misunderstanding to think that defined or defines the word, knowing its history and application. As subtle a difference as one can make it there is also actually a difference between belief and acceptance, and belief and faith and alternative words that explain away the nuisances of distinguishing the semantics present. Words are interesting, so could be a long conversation, point is, a person doesn't need faith in order to believe in evolution or the big bang. They don't need to be proven. A person can agree to understand that the big bang and evolution are the best current and available systems in order to explain something. Which is something extremely different from asserting that both are factual and absolute, and or, have a lack of evidence relative to having some. So there can be as much belief in the scientific theory and or that those things can be proven inaccurate and hopefully be substituted if shown to be. To paraphrase Richard Feynman "I think it's better to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong".

Thank you. You have addressed key points that I have been trying to make.

However, I still believe it is one, because there are beliefs involved, as you wisely said.

Atheism holds the belief of Evolution, and/or the Big Bang. Scientology holds the belief that Alien souls arose from a giant Volcano. Religion's have separate beliefs. That's what defines them. Whether that be including a God or not.

Atheism, YES, doesn't believe there is a God. Much alike Judaism doesn't believe Jesus was the Son of God.

@mrdecepticonleader:

FINALLY SOMEONE WHO MAKES SENSE

I made some of those points previously, just didn't start with "Atheism is not a religion",

But those beliefs are backed up with fact and dont involve faith which SC also stated.

out of curiosity are you religious ?

@Hawkeye446: Like I said I dont believe in God because there is no evidence for him its disbelieving has nothing to do with faith just like believing in god does involve faith.

Its OK to admit your wrong even over something as obvious as this :)

@SC said:

Atheism is not a religion. That's its defining characteristic. Absence of belief =/= belief in the opposite. Atheism is not defined by atheists belief in evolution or the big bang theory. Atheism is not defined by a belief in something. It could be said that the definition of atheism has the synonym of believing there is no god, but it would be inaccurate and a misunderstanding to think that defined or defines the word, knowing its history and application. As subtle a difference as one can make it there is also actually a difference between belief and acceptance, and belief and faith and alternative words that explain away the nuisances of distinguishing the semantics present. Words are interesting, so could be a long conversation, point is, a person doesn't need faith in order to believe in evolution or the big bang. They don't need to be proven. A person can agree to understand that the big bang and evolution are the best current and available systems in order to explain something. Which is something extremely different from asserting that both are factual and absolute, and or, have a lack of evidence relative to having some. So there can be as much belief in the scientific theory and or that those things can be proven inaccurate and hopefully be substituted if shown to be. To paraphrase Richard Feynman "I think it's better to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong".

@SC said:

Atheism is not a religion. That's its defining characteristic. Absence of belief =/= belief in the opposite. Atheism is not defined by atheists belief in evolution or the big bang theory. Atheism is not defined by a belief in something. It could be said that the definition of atheism has the synonym of believing there is no god, but it would be inaccurate and a misunderstanding to think that defined or defines the word, knowing its history and application. As subtle a difference as one can make it there is also actually a difference between belief and acceptance, and belief and faith and alternative words that explain away the nuisances of distinguishing the semantics present. Words are interesting, so could be a long conversation, point is, a person doesn't need faith in order to believe in evolution or the big bang. They don't need to be proven. A person can agree to understand that the big bang and evolution are the best current and available systems in order to explain something. Which is something extremely different from asserting that both are factual and absolute, and or, have a lack of evidence relative to having some. So there can be as much belief in the scientific theory and or that those things can be proven inaccurate and hopefully be substituted if shown to be. To paraphrase Richard Feynman "I think it's better to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong".

Thank you

FINALLY SOMEONE WHO MAKES SENSE

@Hawkeye446 said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@Raiiyn said:

@mrdecepticonleader: Umm @Hawkeye446 pretty much summed it up. In a very neat and compact nutshell for you to understand. Again, I will reiterate that you are using actual religions in defense of your argument while I am going by the actual term. Look up ANY dictionary. They pretty much all have the exact same definitions in them. For your reference and easy copying for myself, I used dictionary.com. If you doubt their authenticity as well, here is a little blurb from their website "Dictionary.com's trusted content comes from 15 authoritative licensed and proprietary reference sources, that have helped define the English dictionary as we know it today."

Later I will post some articles that may interest you where experts actually discuss this topic. I say in less then 10 years, atheism will actually have all the same constitutional rights as any other religion. After all, it is still a new religion.

Atheism = A Religion

The End.

Im not using any religion to defend my argument there is no term saying that atheism is a religion cant you see the definition YOU posted which does NOT mention atheism been a religion its just an easier way to say you dont believe in god. Alot of christians do get atheism mixed up with been a religion which is strange.

I just don't get how you don't understand. I posted a definition of Faith showing that Atheists MUST have faith because by defintion that is what it is.

@Raiiyn posted the definition of religion:

"

re·li·gion

[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA

noun

1.asetofbeliefsconcerningthecause,nature, andpurposeoftheuniverse,especiallywhenconsideredasthecreationofasuperhumanagencyoragencies,usuallyinvolvingdevotionalandritualobservances,andoftencontainingamoralcodegoverningtheconductofhumanaffairs.

2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:theChristianreligion;theBuddhistreligion.

"

ATHEISM FALLS UNDER BOTH OF THESE DEFINITIONS. Therefore, Atheism is a Religion.

It is THAT simple.

For example, Atheism is the BELIEF that there is no God. (you may remember you said Atheist's didn't have beliefs, despite using the word yourself).

And Religion is: "specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"

They match.

Atheism doesn't involve belief it is merely the disbelief in god because there is no proof for god I dont believe in god because there is no evidence for him belief doesn't really come into that so their is no faith there. People can still believe in god but not be religious.Thats all atheism is just another word for "none believer" as there are no books guides or rules that go with it just the lack of belief in a god or gods.

GOT IT YET?????

@Hawkeye446 said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@Hawkeye446 said:

@mrdecepticonleader:

Im not close minded Im very open minded as I have studied the way the world is and works and have read into religion and have come to realize I dont believe in religion or god. Im not part of ANY religion as religion requires a degree of faith whilst atheism does not that is where you are mistaken in your points.

Do you know what faith is?

faith/fāTH/

Noun:

Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

The first directly applies. Like @Raiiyn has said, you are using these words with specific meanings. Tying the words faith and belief to religion when they are commonly used for that, yes, but are in fact universal in application.

Yes I did and you have just helped prove my points even further as the 2nd point says "based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof" atheism is the opposite to this thus it doesn't require any faith only facts and proven theories.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Obviously you don't understand how dictionary's work. I'm sorry, but are you kidding?

What is listed there are TWO DIFFERENT meanings. The SECOND addresses SPECIFICALLY religion, which I never argued against. HOWEVER, the first states a belief in anything.

You said that faith ONLY relates to other Religions. As you can see from the first definition, you are already wrong. I stated Faith accompanies all religions and is universal. I am correct.

There is nothing wrong about that. I'm sorry, but that's really frustrating.

You are building arguments from nowhere and... they don't make sense... And you just assume you are right? I'm prepared for a discussion, but you are making things up are that are completely inaccurate and I don't know why.

Well the first point doesn't describe atheism either I was just using the second example. I said that faith relates to religions and not to atheism which is one of the reasons why its not a religion. Your been frustrating,there are no arguments to build up atheism is not a religion I thought that was a well known fact and it was easy to understand hopefully you've grasped that concept by now

@Hawkeye446 said:

@mrdecepticonleader: ..

Well there is plenty of evidence saying that atheism is not a religion have a look around on the internet and you will soon find that answer :)
a·the·ism
[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun1.thedoctrineorbeliefthatthereisnoGod.
2.disbeliefintheexistenceofasupremebeingorbeings.
Now here it states that atheism is the disbelief in the existence of supreme beings
"Please note that in this definition there is no description of beliefs over the cause/nature of the universe. Therefore, atheism can IN FACT be defined as a religion as most atheists share a common belief in evolution and the big bang theory, etc. in regards to the cause and nature of the universe."
here she is saying there is NO description of beliefs over the causes nature of the universe regarding atheism why? because that's all what atheism is the disbelief in god and gods.
So your arguing against your own definitions lol

Yeah.. Ok, well this doesn't actually make sense. You have quoted @Raiiyn and said she is contradicting herself.. Which she isn't.

Then you define Atheism. I made this point earlier. Just because it says ONE thing, doesn't mean everything else is wrong. Yes, its says Atheists don't believe in Gods. We know that. It doesn't say Atheism is a religion, no, but it doesn't state it isn't?

So using the OTHER definitions, where @Raiiyn says Atheism is a religion, and yours which doesn't state at all, we come to the conclusion that...

@Raiiyn:

Atheism = A Religion
The End.

Go back and see what she typed its a contradiction.