By definition Atheism is NOT a religion, it is a philosophy, two different things. Having a meeting doesn't make it a religion anymore that it makes a political committee a religion.

Agnostics may in fact believe in God, but we (I consider myself one) consider that you can not prover OR disprove the existence of God and/or the divine.

Atheist believe that there is no proof of the existence of God and therefore do not believe in him/her/it.

That's it, THEY DO NOT BELIEVE.

In a God, Gods, Pantheons, Dogma, Religion or anything that can be characterized as of a higher order/divine/divinity. No creator, no great chess-master in the heavens, nothing, nada, zilch.

It is simply the lack of ...

By definition Atheism is NOT a religion, it is a philosophy, two different things. Having a meeting doesn't make it a religion anymore that it makes a political committee a religion.

Agnostics may in fact believe in God, but we (I consider myself one) consider that you can not prover OR disprove the existence of God and/or the divine.

Atheist believe that there is no proof of the existence of God and therefore do not believe in him/her/it.

That's it, THEY DO NOT BELIEVE.

In a God, Gods, Pantheons, Dogma, Religion or anything that can be characterized as of a higher order/divine/divinity. No creator, no great chess-master in the heavens, nothing, nada, zilch.

It is simply the lack of said belief that marks atheism.

If they believe in any of these things then they are, BY DEFINITION, not atheist.

Atheism:

2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity.

Now a doctrine is not the same as a dogma. Doctrines are (generally) completely secular (although not always so).

Agnostic:

1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.

Seems to be a bit of confusion in the use of the terms darkeforce, which happens. Atheism challenges theist to prove the existence of said dei...

Atheism:

2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity.

Now a doctrine is not the same as a dogma. Doctrines are (generally) completely secular (although not always so).

Agnostic:

1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.

Seems to be a bit of confusion in the use of the terms darkeforce, which happens. Atheism challenges theist to prove the existence of said deity and agnostic (like myself) just don't give a damn either way.

Of course while Buddhism is brought up as an example of a religion that advocates a form of atheism, the fact is that it is still a religion and while it does not present a deity or pantheon (in some forms, other embrace existing religious structures) they do believe in a higher order of being which is for all instead divine and therefore not truly atheist.

Atheism tends towards skepticism regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence. Common rationales include the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, and the argument from nonbelief. Other arguments for atheism range from the philosophical t...

Of course while Buddhism is brought up as an example of a religion that advocates a form of atheism, the fact is that it is still a religion and while it does not present a deity or pantheon (in some forms, other embrace existing religious structures) they do believe in a higher order of being which is for all instead divine and therefore not truly atheist.

Atheism tends towards skepticism regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence. Common rationales include the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, and the argument from nonbelief. Other arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical.

In Western culture, atheists are frequently assumed to be irreligious or unspiritual.[7] However, religious and spiritual belief systems such as forms of Buddhism that do not advocate belief in gods, have also been described as atheistic.[8] Although some atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism,[9] rationalism, and naturalism,[10] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.[11]

Atheist have declared that despite the lack of evidence that there is no God, they are going to believe that there is no God. That makes Atheism a Belief System; unlike Agnosticism, which makes no commitment of belief whatsoever.

I see now where the problem lies. Your construction is faulty. The correct construction would be "despite the lack of evidence in their is a God".

That is the central plank in the construct called Atheism. That you can not prove that there is a God or anything divine. You start with the assumption that there is a God (or plenty evidence of him/her/it) and that is the job of the Atheist to prove otherwise.

It still doesn't explain where the "NoGod" c...

Atheist have declared that despite the lack of evidence that there is no God, they are going to believe that there is no God. That makes Atheism a Belief System; unlike Agnosticism, which makes no commitment of belief whatsoever.

I see now where the problem lies. Your construction is faulty. The correct construction would be "despite the lack of evidence in their is a God".

That is the central plank in the construct called Atheism. That you can not prove that there is a God or anything divine. You start with the assumption that there is a God (or plenty evidence of him/her/it) and that is the job of the Atheist to prove otherwise.

It still doesn't explain where the "NoGod" comes from. That's like trying to extract a positive value from something inherently negative or abstract. Possible considering how the human mind operates in a non-linear (and non-logical) manner, but you offer no proof to back this up so it makes little sense to me beyond your statement that this is so.

darkeforce might have a good point here.

For example:

I don't believe in leprechauns; therefore it's a religion. Can you see why?

It's a "belief" based in faith that there is no leprechaun. Therefore it's a religion. Make sense?

And other a-Leprechaunists like me have declared that despite the lack of evidence that there is no leprechaun, we are going to believe that there is no leprechaun anyway.

That makes a-Leprechaunism a belief based in Faith, because there is no evidence that there is no leprechaun. So I'm afraid he's right, boys. It's a faith-based belief, and therefore a religion.

(I wonder if I'll ever get my tax break for my a-Leprechaunist religion?)

What? You say you ...

darkeforce might have a good point here.

For example:

I don't believe in leprechauns; therefore it's a religion. Can you see why?

It's a "belief" based in faith that there is no leprechaun. Therefore it's a religion. Make sense?

And other a-Leprechaunists like me have declared that despite the lack of evidence that there is no leprechaun, we are going to believe that there is no leprechaun anyway.

That makes a-Leprechaunism a belief based in Faith, because there is no evidence that there is no leprechaun. So I'm afraid he's right, boys. It's a faith-based belief, and therefore a religion.

(I wonder if I'll ever get my tax break for my a-Leprechaunist religion?)

What? You say you don't believe in Santa? Can you prove that Santa "doesn't exist?" Then it's a faith based belief. It's a religion!

What? You don't believe in werewolves? You're kidding me, right?

John, your denial that your so-called "lack of belief" is a belief system does not make it so. The fact is that evidence doesn't support the stand that there is an absence of God, so it is, in fact, a belief; a faith. You have made a leap of intuition from the insufficient evidence to your stand that there is no God.

Your denial of your faith does not make it cease to exist.

Aces, you don't believe in leprichauns? Okay; you have faith they don't exist because they've never been seen. But then again, air has never been "seen" either; so are you going to say you don't believe in air? You see, you're just playing with ideas, trying to twist them into ridiculous concepts. Certainly, you can do...

John, your denial that your so-called "lack of belief" is a belief system does not make it so. The fact is that evidence doesn't support the stand that there is an absence of God, so it is, in fact, a belief; a faith. You have made a leap of intuition from the insufficient evidence to your stand that there is no God.

Your denial of your faith does not make it cease to exist.

Aces, you don't believe in leprichauns? Okay; you have faith they don't exist because they've never been seen. But then again, air has never been "seen" either; so are you going to say you don't believe in air? You see, you're just playing with ideas, trying to twist them into ridiculous concepts. Certainly, you can do that; but that doesn't make the basic premises any less true. It's easy to stretch incredulity, but remember; every flight of fancy that mankind has ever dreamt of has its basis in something very real.

Aces, you don't believe in leprichauns? Okay; you have faith they don't exist because they've never been seen. But then again, air has never been "seen" either; so are you going to say you don't believe in air?

No, no! The question isn't "Do you believe in air". The question is: "Does NOT believing in air (rightly or wrongly) make it a RELIGION?"

You're claiming that belief based on faith makes it a RELIGION! I tried to show you how silly that was but you didn't get it.

You are simply applying definitions to terms incorrectly insisting that your definition is what the world must subscribe to -- you're defining RELIGION as a faith-based belief. FALSE!!!

Look it up! Here..

...

Aces, you don't believe in leprichauns? Okay; you have faith they don't exist because they've never been seen. But then again, air has never been "seen" either; so are you going to say you don't believe in air?

No, no! The question isn't "Do you believe in air". The question is: "Does NOT believing in air (rightly or wrongly) make it a RELIGION?"

You're claiming that belief based on faith makes it a RELIGION! I tried to show you how silly that was but you didn't get it.

You are simply applying definitions to terms incorrectly insisting that your definition is what the world must subscribe to -- you're defining RELIGION as a faith-based belief. FALSE!!!

Look it up! Here..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

"A religion is an organized exploitation of human spiritual vulnerabilities which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power, God or gods, or ultimate truth."


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?jss=0
[American Heritage Dictionary]

"Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."
----

You are once again trying to change a definition to suit your belief. It's clear proof of confirmation bias.

It's seeing only the parts that agree with you but ignoring EVERYTHING else. And it makes for gross errors of judgment.
---

Friedrich Nietzsche
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."

No, something being based on a personal deception makes it a religion. That is why atheism is a religion; because it is based on the delusion that science and logic conclusively states that there is no God. Faith, however, is based on your own personal observances and what you know to be true; hopefully based on thoughtful and careful study of the information at hand (far too often, it's not).

I don't care about the dictionaries say (and especially not what Wikipedia "Truth-By-Popular-Opinion" says). Those definitions are written by people influenced by religions. They don't comprehend the meanings of words that have been glossed over and forgotten by Pop Culture and Populism. In reality, a...

No, something being based on a personal deception makes it a religion. That is why atheism is a religion; because it is based on the delusion that science and logic conclusively states that there is no God. Faith, however, is based on your own personal observances and what you know to be true; hopefully based on thoughtful and careful study of the information at hand (far too often, it's not).

I don't care about the dictionaries say (and especially not what Wikipedia "Truth-By-Popular-Opinion" says). Those definitions are written by people influenced by religions. They don't comprehend the meanings of words that have been glossed over and forgotten by Pop Culture and Populism. In reality, a religion is any perversion of any system of belief. That is what it is in practise. Definitions are meaningless if they don't have context, and you are missing the context entirely.

But I can't blame you. Assumption is an easier path than Comprehension.

Look at the fastest-growing groups, though, AL. The so-called "New Testament"/"Non-Denominational"/"Pre-Constantinian" Christian groups. Enlightenment is out there, but so is deception, and deception comes in an infinite number of flavours.

And kudos to them for chucking the first half and calling it Enlightenment. And as they continue to use reason to compare facts against folk lore they will become enlightened further and chuck the second half, too.

What they are tossing away 'IS' the deception. In the light of reason, self delusion gives way to the truth.

The only good things that come out of those ancient tales is the Humanism -- that is of kindness, justice and fair...

Look at the fastest-growing groups, though, AL. The so-called "New Testament"/"Non-Denominational"/"Pre-Constantinian" Christian groups. Enlightenment is out there, but so is deception, and deception comes in an infinite number of flavours.

And kudos to them for chucking the first half and calling it Enlightenment. And as they continue to use reason to compare facts against folk lore they will become enlightened further and chuck the second half, too.

What they are tossing away 'IS' the deception. In the light of reason, self delusion gives way to the truth.

The only good things that come out of those ancient tales is the Humanism -- that is of kindness, justice and fairness, and leaving the world a better place for our future generations.

Everything else is crap, from stoning our children as mandated by a god, to praying in place of proven medicine. It's nothing but superstition. You may as well follow astrology or reading tea leaves. (Ah, but religion is far more lucrative, and it pays to keep the masses ignorant!)

AcesLucky said:

"The only good things that come out of those ancient tales is the Humanism -- that is of kindness, justice and fairness, and leaving the world a better place for our future generations."

Mankind was capable of good before religion and will be capable of it after it has faded into the mists of time
It is part of human nature any religious significance attached to that is unnecessary and will only pervert those qualities and attempt to use them to further its own selfish agenda, if religious people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then that is a truly sad way of being.

I just reminded myself of a particular quote that explains that a l...

AcesLucky said:

"The only good things that come out of those ancient tales is the Humanism -- that is of kindness, justice and fairness, and leaving the world a better place for our future generations."

Mankind was capable of good before religion and will be capable of it after it has faded into the mists of time
It is part of human nature any religious significance attached to that is unnecessary and will only pervert those qualities and attempt to use them to further its own selfish agenda, if religious people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then that is a truly sad way of being.

I just reminded myself of a particular quote that explains that a lot more succinctly than my attempt.

"A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death" - Albert Einstein

@jay8h:

Pointless, irrelevant, and once again the bible is contradicting itself. Shown by these passages.

Job 1:1 "There was a man . . . who name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright."

Genesis 7:1 "And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation."

Luke 1:6 "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."

so to recap

jay8h said:

"(Rom 3:10) As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one;"

Except those above right?

If you're going to quote passages from from your "good" (and apparently only) book at...

@jay8h:

Pointless, irrelevant, and once again the bible is contradicting itself. Shown by these passages.

Job 1:1 "There was a man . . . who name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright."

Genesis 7:1 "And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation."

Luke 1:6 "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."

so to recap

jay8h said:

"(Rom 3:10) As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one;"

Except those above right?

If you're going to quote passages from from your "good" (and apparently only) book at least take the time and make the effort to learn the context and genre of it, or else it means nothing. If you had read your bible properly and considered its meanings rather than plucking a random sentence which seemed to fit, you would know that it doesn't apply here.

What you were actually looking for was this:

John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

(KJV)

But it still makes no odds because you can sin, (or to give meaning to a word so drastically outdated, make mistakes and have vices) and still do good.

which brings me to the philosophical issues raised.

"Greed and Competition are not the result of immutable human temperament... greed and fear of scarcity are in fact being created and amplified... the direct consequence is that we have to fight with each other in order to survive" - Bernard Lietaer - Founder of the EU Currency System

That is nurture (or response to environment) not nature. We may fight by design to survive, but it is not our nature. It is always possible for people either to improve their character through mindful striving, or to let it worsen through negligence and obliviousness, neither of which require religion or god(s).

IW, the fact that you believe that Christian morals is about a fear of punishment proves to me that you have no idea what real Christian morals are about. I can say that it is highly predictable for people of your type to assume that your twisted view of Christianity is right, and you will stubbornly deny any attempts to correct your misconceptions.

True Christian morals are personal, not collective. They are about you wanting to treat everyone else on earth with the mercy, courtesy and thoughtfulness due to them as fellow children of God — whether they know that they are the children of God or not. Christian morals are not about imposing your mores to other people; they are about enacting ...

IW, the fact that you believe that Christian morals is about a fear of punishment proves to me that you have no idea what real Christian morals are about. I can say that it is highly predictable for people of your type to assume that your twisted view of Christianity is right, and you will stubbornly deny any attempts to correct your misconceptions.

True Christian morals are personal, not collective. They are about you wanting to treat everyone else on earth with the mercy, courtesy and thoughtfulness due to them as fellow children of God — whether they know that they are the children of God or not. Christian morals are not about imposing your mores to other people; they are about enacting your mores in your interactions with other people. Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something. The so-called "Christian" morals of the religious right is just an excuse to impose their will on other people. It is oppression, not morals.

Learn to know the difference.

Study the etymology of words, AcesLucky, and perhaps you will understand. Or, you can just be a sheeple and let other people redefine what words really mean. Language is a function of human mentality and the zeitgeist. The Zeitgeist has changed, and thus, language has mutated to follow that. That doesn't invalidate the original meanings of words. "Gay" still means "Happy" as well. It is perfectly correct to call a person who lights up a smoke every day as soon as they wake up a "religious smoker", because they are acting in a religious (i.e. ritualistic) manner.

Strive to truly comprehend the meanings of words, not just accept contemporary alterations of the text. There's a reason why the E...

Study the etymology of words, AcesLucky, and perhaps you will understand. Or, you can just be a sheeple and let other people redefine what words really mean. Language is a function of human mentality and the zeitgeist. The Zeitgeist has changed, and thus, language has mutated to follow that. That doesn't invalidate the original meanings of words. "Gay" still means "Happy" as well. It is perfectly correct to call a person who lights up a smoke every day as soon as they wake up a "religious smoker", because they are acting in a religious (i.e. ritualistic) manner.

Strive to truly comprehend the meanings of words, not just accept contemporary alterations of the text. There's a reason why the English Language is something that you need to continue to learn all throughout your life.