legacyme3 : I did read your post, but it was very confusing... And I thought this was more of an opinion topic that a fact or fake topic.

thing1 :

You should base opinions on facts though. Otherwise, what is your basis for thinking what you do?

I stated my opinion, and I am challenging yours, because my post contradicts yours, and likewise.

legacyme3 :

I disagree.

Oxford dictionary:

"Pronunciation: /r0®10·4l0®1d0²1(0¬5)n/


noun [ mass noun ]


the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal Godor gods:


ideas about the relationship between science and religion


[ count noun ] a particular system of faith and worship:


the world¡¯s great religions


[ count noun ] a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion:


consumerism is the new religion"

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/beliefdisbelief.htm

Disbelief isnt belief or we'd only have the one word.

The inversion of disbelief is belief, and much like a mathematical sum, when you change the equation, the result changes.

What youre saying is like 2x 5=10

The equation being disbelief, the result being the product.

Then we invert it to -2x -5=10 the fact is the value 10 no longer holds true.

In non mathematical terms.

I wouldnt believe someone if they told me they'd been abducted.

However i dont have enough consensus to outright state i have no belief its true.

Equaly,if belief translates to religion, i believe the meatloaf i ate tasted good, apparently i am religious.

And another addition, belief is based on something with little to no evidence.

Since real tests and scientific discoverys have disproved parts of the bible, not believing religion is much more based on facts, as it has been discredited due to facts. To that extent to me its not even a matter of not believing. Its a matter of knowing.

Equaly, because you think someone isnt nice, that dosent mean you think your evil, not being loud dosent translate as quite. The language is a little more complex than that

thenumberone :

Ironically, you need to open your mind. If your mind is open enough for christ, or to not believe in christ, you should also be able to open your mind to the idea disbelief is belief.

Disbelief is the lack of belief by definition. However, this isn't what is the end all.

Belief is defined as a set as "something believed; an opinion or conviction:"

Now, think of it in terms like that.

Not believing is the same as believing, as your opinions/convictions are still existant, you just don't believe in christ. And that in itself is a belief system

legacyme3 : its not about opening your mind to what it can mean, words have set meanings and hence being willing to accept a word meant something, does not validate it within said definition.
Dictionarys only provide short simple information,as a result certain words can appear ambiguous in certain scenarios, at that point a deeper investigation is required. I have found that to disbelieve you must find it unlikely or greater, to conform with belief a certain degree of conviction is required, a degree that many atheists really dont reach.
On top of my previous points, where, even if we accepted people had sufficient ground to believe god is a false concept, if that is based on evidence it dosent come down to belief, and by the oxford dictionary, religion requires a higher being and code of beliefs.
Religion requires multiple constituant parts, and barely any, if any, find there way into atheism.
Also a system cant comprise one component.
"1 a set of things working together"
1belief that god isnt real
end;
unless you hairsplit, belief jesus wasnt real.
well yeh, but that is just the same thing.
i wouldnt class my belief that there are no rocks that taste of chicken as 10*10^99999999999999999 beliefs because there are that many subfactors, or stones in thd world.
All that unites atheists is we believe that god isnt real. 1 thing. Not a system

thenumberone :

I had to read that post several times to understand what you were saying.

To put it in the simplest terms possible

IF
Atheism =/= belief = religion

Then

Christianity =/= Religion.

That's how ridiculous you are sounding right now.

Atheism is as much a belief (even being a non belief) that Christianity is, and by logic is as much as a religion as it is.

If you cannot accept the fact that Atheism is not a religion, then you cannot accept Christianity as one either.

I'm not going to read this entire thread, but I did skim through a few posts. This is my ideology:

A disbelief of god is a belief that there is not one. Christians believe that there is no other god than their Jesus. Likewise, you could say that Christians have a disbelief of other gods. That's a belief.

Atheists believe that there is no god. They believe that the world is not held in place by godly powers and our actions are not subject to punishment or reward from celestial beings.

There's a set of beliefs. It's definitely a religious philosophy. The difference between a religious philosophy and a religion is very vague. However, the term philosophy seems more constricted whereas the belief that there is no god and implications that follow are about the entirety of atheism so I believe that it is a religion.

At that point it comes to a comparison of definitions. Definitions differ from source to source, but we still must take into account whether atheists regard themselves as following a religion. If they tend to, then who are we to object?

Anything that is believed in a mass following regarding superior life (whether if it exists or not) is a religion. Put 100 christians in a room with a 100 atheists in a room what do you get? A bunch of people who have a religions beliefs on who god is and whether he exists or not.

In order to have no religion you can not label yourself as an atheist, it has way to big of a following and too many people agree with it making it a universal religious belief.

Those who have no religion usually dont assume scientific data or scriptures as facts, people with religions do that. On the same note, people with no religions like to speculate of possibilities and keep their mind open to what is out there and what is possible. Saying god exists or does not exist while classifying yourself as a label ultimately defines you as religious and apart of a religion cause you have a definite belief on the subject of superior life within a select group of people who share the same idea.

People with no religions should not have a label on them at all. If you follow a label and an idea in a group with others you are definitely apart of a religion. Religion in my opinion has to consist of group of people who share the same idea. You can technically be religious without being apart of any religion as long as you are not attached to any label or following in the process; example: believing in god without being apart of any religious sector.

legacyme3 : i think it is youre point that is invalid. as iv already stated if belief is religion then everyone has about 20 trilion religions

thenumberone :

You are missing the point entirely. It's pointless to try to convince you. You are being too closedminded about what is and isn't a religion.

When you said that disbelief = belief, you just should have stopped  there.

There is something other than belief, it's called evidence. IF you claimed you rode to work on a Unicorn alongside Santa Clause and I didn't believe you -- it wouldn't be because I belonged to an ASanta/AUnicorn religion -- it would be because a lack of EVIDENCE suggested that you were either lying or delusional.

Evidence isn't a belief. Scientific Theory isn't a belief. The refusal to mindlessly accept the proposal of an all-powerful (but, of course, invisible) deity does not constitute a "belief"; any more than rejecting an untestable scientific assertion would be a matter of belief. It's a matter of EVIDENCE.

When you make an assertion that your "evidence" is supernatural... you're not really making an assertion -- you're making an excuse.

legacyme3 : i would say the reverse to you.
words have rules, you cant make your own.
Astynax27 : well said

SamB :

It's not the belief of no religion. I think I know what you're trying to say, and that's that it's the belief that there are no gods. And while some would dispute that and try to define it as a lack of belief in a god, it could really apply to either. But neither definition would contradict the idea of atheism itself being a religion explicitly.

And it's not really a belief system, either. The only thing required to be an atheist is to not believe in a god. So I'm not quite sure what makes you claim that it's a belief system. Feel free to explain.

That said, I'd like to try to clarify my position a little. I wouldn't define theism itself as a religion, since that is simply a belief. A belief, even a belief that one or more gods exist, without any system or worship isn't a religion. There are theistic religions, but theism itself is not a religion. In that same sense, I would say that atheism is not a religion.

How can all "Atheists" be considered a "religion"? That doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. Just because they don't believe in a "God" doesn't mean that they should all be lumped together with other people.

I believe that it is a lifestyle instead of Religion, or something people emphasize....


Read-rate-reply~Kyle Parker Griffith

legacyme3 :
thenumberone :

Sorry to dig up an old post, I hadn't seen this thread and I want to comment on this topic.

I made a post in a similar topic using the exact same definition of religion that Legacy used. Now of course atheism isn't a religion in the conventional sense of a structured belief system revolving around worshiping a God. The oxford definition is by far the most commonly thought of when some one thinks of what a religion is, but I prefer the definition that legacy used because it is modern. The oxford definition dates back to centuries before the age of enlightenment when you would be severely punished for being heretic. There is no word that defines an atheistic view of nature/the universe so I see no reason why that old definition shouldn't be revised... especially if we "cant make your own" words like numberone says.

This is pretty much what I believe about atheism being a religion and I feel confident that the it is truth. Basically neither Theism or Atheism are a religion according to both versions of the word. In the oxford definition, religion is basically worship while 'Theism' is just the belief in God without the worship. Atheism obviously isn't a religion in this sense because it has absolutely no worship.

Under the definition that Leggy and I used, it clearly says a "set" of beliefs and not just a singular belief. As numberone mentioned in one of his posts, believing there is no god( atheism) is only a single belief and surely not a set of beliefs. Likewise the belief in a god (theism) is also only a single belief.

So neither of them are religions no matter what definition you look at. The thing is, both atheistic and theistic singular beliefs lead to a set of beliefs in most cases. I know that I have never met a Theist who doesn't have a set of beliefs regarding nature/god. In other words, their beliefs go deeper than just the basic belief in a God. Similarly, I have never met an Atheist who's beliefs on nature end at "God doesn't exist". Technically neither of them are religions, but in the majority of cases they lead to religion aka a set of beliefs about nature/god so as far as I am concerned they might aswell be considered religions as the two go hand in hand.



This part is directed to thenumberone.

If we "cant make (y)our own" words , than just what word should I use to describe my views? If words can't be created or changed than how in the hell did language come into existence? You do realize that many words have all ready changed over time. Different definitions of the same word coexist quite fine, just open your dictionary to any random page and you will likely see this.

Perhaps we could use a more fitting word such as Naturalism to describe athiestic beliefs. Actually that word all ready exists in that context, but it too was 'made up' hijacking a preexisting definition so you may want to suggest a different word - if you are allowed to create one that is.

Although I don't overly care one way or another if atheism is considered a religion or not (lets face it, its almost pointless as it doesn't greatly impact anything significantly) it is kind of nice to think that my beliefs on existence are treated equal to the various different God worshiping beliefs of existence. Even though I despise religious organizations and sort of wish they never existed, I completely support and respect people's decisions to believe in what ever they want no matter how crazy. Further, in the secular world every religionmajor belief system are supposed to be treated equal. There is no reason why an atheistic view of the world should be considered second class in any conceivable way to more traditional views.

smotpoker86 :
The oxford dictionary is constantly updated, if it was considered wrong theyd have changed it.
You misunderstood, you cant make your own rule for set words, obviously words can be created.
As i said. If belief = religion then every living creature has about 5 million religions.
I believe that daytime tv sucks. Time to apply for my house to get tax relief as a place of worship.
Bargain hunt be praised!