THOTH

Keep spinning that prayer wheel Domino - not that you have a prayer of winning this one... I have posted "nothing of substance"? OK - I'll put it in language that you'll understand - There is no place in all the multiverses where Atheism can be considered a religion - as strictly non-belief in some supposed human concieved diety or dieties does not meet any possible definition for religion (just as you [incorrectly] claim that a union between 2 people of the same sex cannot (by definition....ie yours) constitute a marriage... case closed.

Ok - since you refuse to go there - I'll bring a bit here (note - not continuing the debate - just illustrating what Domino couldn't answer) http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/...el_religion.htm Perhaps it would also help to examine what a religion is. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, in its article on Religion, lists some characteristics of religions. The more markers that are present in a belief system, the more "religious like" it is. Because it allows for broader grey areas in the concept of religion, I prefer this over more simplistic definitions we can find in basic dictionaries. Read the list and see how atheism fares : Belief in supernatural beings (gods). A distinction between sacred and profane objects. Ritual acts focused on sacred objects. A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods. Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual, and which are connected in idea with the gods. Prayer and other forms of communication with gods. A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it. A more or less total organization of one's life based on the world view. A social group bound together by the above. To try and claim that atheism is a religion requires, it should be pretty obvious from the above, a radical ad hoc redefinition in what it is that "being a religion" is supposed to mean, resulting in a radically equivocal use of the new term-- if atheism is a religion, then just what isn't a religion? In addition, it should be noted that theism itself does not qualify as a religion based upon the above - and for most of the same reasons that atheism does not qualify. When you stop to think about it, theism - the mere belief in god(s) - does not automatically entail almost any of the beliefs or practices listed in either the above letter or the above definition. In order to have a religion, you need quite a bit more than either simple belief or disbelief. This fact is clearly reflected in the real world, because we find theism which exists outside of religion and religion which exists without theism

Face it Domino - you lose. You refuse to actually address the issues (I have posted arguments that clearly define religion - and your entirely wrong that arguemtns that reject atheism would reject other religions - etc etc) - and I have addressed about everything of substance on this issue and I rest my case. So Ok - music is a religion now?...well sure if one applies all the reverence and devotion and considers that music created the universe and therough music one achieves eternal life - etc etc - then i guess it would be... And I find it funny that you accuse me of selectively choosing materials and of being contradictory et c- as I can easily say the same about you in this and the Gay marriage debate. And again - you choose (clearly and demonstratably) an overly wide definition of what constitues "religion" that I have refuted...and an overly narrow definition of what constitues marriage (that I can accept we just disagree concerning semantics)....(though the rights and benefits for gay couples are clearly and unfairly and discrimitorily denied - this is clear)...

If you have not the ability to refute the arguments (that atheism is not a religion) then OK. I will happily refute any arguments posted on a theistic web site or what have you that attempt to verifiably claim that god exists. (or if they somehow convince me that what they say is true I will aknowledge such) - but I won't just say the site is biased and shy away form the issues raised. Anyway - I have one this argument - so I rest my case.

Well I had already made the point about religion not requirring "god" - do you read? Religion is more then just belief or disbelief as you are claiming. If you agree now then you admit that you have lost this debate. You began this debate many months ago when you defined religion as anything having to do with belief (or disbelief) in god - clear and simple. Well this contention is clearly wrong.

So terribly weak. Exposes the fact that you have totally lost this debate.

I have no idea who these people are - what they believe or what not. I cannot vouch for the ideas/behaviors etc of other atheists for as far as I know we only share one thing in common and it really little affects us on a day to day basis. Furthermore I have no idea why these people have made such calls etc - but perhaps they have made the right choice - I don't know - but certainly if ones superstisions and such are influencing scientific observations and deduction then they have violated the rules of science. etc

Domino - you miss the point...you are trying to make things overly complex...lol...putting into the argument more then is necessarily, said or even implied...

Well we agree on something then. Belief (or lack of belief) alone is not enough to constitute a religion - it takes quite a bit more... OK - i think we are getting somewhere...

Domino - eat this! http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/...el_religion.htm

Your examples here are entirely beside the point - and have no point (directly relating to our discussion/debate)

Again I disagree. First on the Ocams razor point - it is only to show that to invent a god(s) to explain the universe is only introducing more complexities. Second - atheism itself is insuficient to hold together a society etc - this would require a belief set to be derived (and named something etc) that would be more then just that everyone agreees to not believe in God.

Take your pick... Entry: religion Function: noun Definition: belief Synonyms: adoration, bent, ceremonial, church, communion, connection, conscientiousness, consecration, creed, cult, denomination, devotion, devoutness, doctrine, faithfulness, fidelity, godliness, morality, myth, mythology, observance, orthodoxy, persuasion, pietism, piety, prayer, preference, religiosity, rites, ritual, sacrifice, sanctification, sect, spiritual-mindedness, spirituality, standards, superstition, theology, veneration Concept: religious entity Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.5) Copyright © 2004 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved. None of the above can apply to atheism - whcih is independent of any such. atheism: The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being. atheism [Gr. atheos, without a god < a, priv. + theos, god] The doctrine that there is no God; disbelief in the existence of a God (or of gods); also, godlessness of life. atheism [Gr. atheos, a, priv. and theos, God] The disbelief of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being. The Winston Dictionary, 1943. (hey had to put this one in...) atheism disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God atheism: The denial of or disbelief in God, as a First Cause, or Ground, of the universe. As dogmatic atheism it denies, as negative atheism it does not believe in, and as critical or skeptical atheism (or agnosticism) it doubts, the existence of god. (The above definition is among the most comprehensive because it very specifically acknowledges the three general positions an atheist might have towards gods: outright denial, active refusal to believe and passive nonbelief. It still conflates agnosticism with a position independent of theism, but it observes more nuances than most dictionaries.) Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1957. atheism: Disbelief in the existence of God; the state of godlessness. Atheism: unbelief in or denial of God or any supernaturalism; to ancient Greek it meant denial and lack of recognition of stat gods. In 18th cent. it was a protest against religious hypocrisy; in 19th cent. it was any system not recognizing the idea of a personal Creator or any one supreme being. It sees marter, not spirit, as sole universal principle; its history one of opposition. Term often loosely used in referring to agnostics who neither deny nor admit the existence of God, or in regard to others who disagree with current theological doctrine. Oxford English Dictionary. atheism: (from Greek atheos, "without God, denying God") Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).

Total bullshit argument. Just what relevance is belief/non-belief in a divinity or such have anything to do with science? Science stands on its own. By your argument having an (unfounded and certainly unscientific) belief in a divinity should be much more of a threat to science - and scientific thinking (and look at the history...it is true) then a rejection of a superstisious belief. In the end none of these should have any effect on sceince if the pursuit of science through proper method and observance in adhered to. Null factor.

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ATHEISM.html in this bit you can see an explanation for why beliefs such as Daoism and Pantheism can be considered religion - there is even mention of religious atheism (which Pantheism qualifies to be in some ways). But atheism proper cannot be considered a religion. From the link: "In its original, Latin sense, religion means "that which holds together", implying a kind of overarching philosophy and system of ethics that guides society as a whole, without necessary reference to God." My comment: Atheism [in itself] in not an overarching philosophy and system of ethics which guides society" - it makes no claims of ethics of any sort - it only means the rejection of belief in god - leaving ethics or what have you to the individual to use whatever other criteria they might choose to select such. "The simplest argument for atheism follows from Occam's Razor: from different equivalent explanations, choose the simplest one. If we cannot explain more things by postulating the existence of God than we can without, then we should prefer the theory without. The fact that this principle is not sufficient to prove that God does not exist, is not very relevant. After all, nobody can prove that unicorns, flying toasters or 23-legged purple elephants do not exist, but that does not make their existence any more likely."

Pantheism and beliefs such as Daoism and Deism both hold to a concept of (natural) God (as everything around us) - and both include spiritual concepts and concepts concerning the nature of reality etc etc - though both do not share many of the other aspects of other religions it is true - and I could agree that they are perhaps not religions or one could legitimatly claim them to not be religions (as they do not meet all definitions) - as their "doctrine" and specific ritual etc is either non-exsistant or not strict - however atheism - as it has no God concept other then rejection of that proposed by others, has no ritual, no doctrine - no common accepted ideas concernign the nature of the universe or what have you etc etc clearly cannot qualify - in any sense of the word - to be a religion. It is perhaps a belief yes - but it does not qualify to be a religion. Pantheism and Daoism and Deism all make assumptions about divinity and those who adhere to such have a (somewhat) common set of beliefs and such where the samke cannot be said of atheists.

wrong. And I have posted a whole slew of definitions and such to the contrary.

I guess in your case ignorance is just bliss...

Super stuff...the whole post...but - of course - I wish to draw attention to these particular passages in the hope that certain forumites might take a look....thanks Ara - very well said....

Gevo - you realy have no clue do you... FYI I have a degree in Anthropology with a minor in religous studies. My advisor - who was head of the religious studies department - and a Yale divinity school graduate - who has since moved on to become dean of a catholic university - pushed me incredibly hard to go to divinity school (even knowing that I was an atheist!)...I have both studied most major religions (as well as many tribal types etc) and read widely concerning comaprative religion, myths and what not...I have ben doing this since well before you were born. Additionally when I paste exerpts form web sites i do so with a clear purpose - not to replace any thoughts i might have but to supplement and make my points - its certainly not done without understanding. And BTW - some of my best friends are very devout Christians - who lead Bible studies and such...and I also rarely pass up an oportunity to discuss religion and like ideas with priests, rabbis and otherwise interested folks whenever I can. The subject facsinates me...even if at the same time I also feel that i am completely wasting my time (that I consider the discussions mostly irrelevant concerning actual reality...though worthwhile to get cultural insites and understand ideas, thinking of folks and the like)....but mostly just irrelevant and worthless when it comes to discussing anything with you... (and I would not at all say that concerning discussions with Domino or even Sasun...)

It is not up to the atheist to disprove every possible god complex that other human can dream up - I mean come now...and Christianity is no more special or of special status then any other made up (man derived etc) religion in this regard. So it is not up to the atheist to disprove. The "proof' of belief rest with the believer. And if (non belief in god/gods) it is/are considered a belief - it is in the same way one says he does not believe in the tooth fairy, santa clause, the loch ness monster and such - because insufficient proof has been provided to make such a belief legitimate (and all the contradictions, illogic and errancy and such as has been shown). Thus non-belief is not based on faith but on reason.

Atheism is not a religion - as you cannot bin atheists together and say this is what atheists live by...other then they reject all the various god concepts poposed by others. This says nothign about what they do believe in and I would surmise that the variation is enourmous. Additionally my rejection of religion is based on "logic, science, or experience" and not "faith, hocus pocus, magic, supernatural, dieties, superstition, myths" ...and I have further augmented my contention of atheism not being a religion by varous definitions of what religion is. I find it funny that Domino rejects the idea of gay marraige by hangiong on to a very specific and narrowly defined definition of marraige (that I certainly do not at all share) but then makes this broad brush definition of religiopn to basically include about everything - can't have it both ways dude - talk about inconsistencey. And Gevo - face it - you know very little - certainly not enough to impune anything I might say about these matters - and I certainly wouldn't rely on someone who professes the exsistence of multiple universes where all things are true and who claims his own perfect religion etc etc for a sense of what is factual & knowable. And your claims that I have lied - well they are just laughable - its obvious you have very little capacity to tell lie from truth and insight from bullshit. So if you have anything to say please (at least attempt to) back it up - instead of just crying "liar liar pants on fire" - or justifying thigs based on "faith based reasoning" an oxymoron if there ever was one...

nope...just the opposite...obviously....try again...(and how convienient...)

OK - lets disect some of the key points shall we? Definition of Religion and Related Terms Copyright 1996 by Paul Connelly -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What Is Religion? ".....religion always begins in an experience that some individual has or that some small group of people shares" Atheism has no shared doctrines or such - beyond rejection of all the other stuff...there is not necessarily any commonality of experience nor any cohesive grouping among Atheists... "Religion originates in an attempt to represent and order beliefs, feelings, imaginings and actions that arise in response to direct experience of the sacred and the spiritual." nada "The sacred is a mysterious manifestation of power and presence that is experienced as both primordial and transformative, inspiring awe and rapt attention. " nada "It is also important to point out the mysteriousness of what is experienced. Without mystery there is no incentive for further exploration, and hence no religion." nada "The founding experience and the initial response to it (for instance, the shaman's response to experience of an hallucinogenic mushroom, the Apostles' feeling of the inrush of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the Buddha's enlightenment, etc.), as initially articulated and ordered, give rise to an ongoing process of elaboration and meaning-creation that occurs as the foundational events are embedded in a system (for instance, the tradition of shamanic healing practices, the codified creeds and ceremonies of the Christian churches, the monastic culture of Buddhism, etc.)." way nada etc

I disagree completely.