Summations Only

Do you know enough about reading to...read what I wrote? I explained the test to you: But this is not a thread about the definition of atheism. Why don't you try arguing your case on topic somewhere like The definition of atheism or What does the word Atheist mean? Is an Agnostic Atheist? or Atheist vs AgnosticEdited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Oh, yes, as some have said, there is no organized set of laws or behaviors.

...which means that atheism does not meet the definition of a religion. You're trying to force your own definition of the word religion ("any belief surround god(s), including their nonexistence") instead of the dictionary definition. You don't get to redefine words, greentwiga.

No, we can't. Atheism is typically an absence of belief. Is a shadow a color of light, greentwiga? This obviously doesn't fit atheism. A lack of belief in god(s) is independent of any belief in the cause, nature, or purpose of the Universe. It doesn't even necessarily exclude supernatural explanations, so long as they do not involve deities. Atheism says absolutely nothing about ethics or anything else; it's not a set of beliefs at all. It's a label applied to any person who lacks a belief in any god(s). There's nothing to follow. Clearly not. What you are willing to do is irrelevant. Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief. "Not-a-lawyer" is not a profession. "Absence-of-light" is not a color. "Lack-of-belief-in-Santa-Claus" is not a belief system.And neither is atheism.

The Christian beliefs include a set of beliefs about other Gods. Deut 32:16 says they are strange gods, abominations, demons, Gods they have not known, and New Gods. I Cor 10:19-20 combines Idols, and demons, While Gal 4:8 says they are no Gods. Basically, it says that These gods that others worship are not gods, and some may be demons, which are spiritual entities with some power but not God type power. Zeus, as worshipped by the ancient greeks and possibly fairies, when people truly believed that they had powers, fit into this category. Invisible pink Unicorns, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, Lord Voldemort, and Santa Claus are just fun. My belief in them is that they are fantasy. So, all those things have a place in my religious beliefs. Can I prove anything about my beliefs? no, but they do fit into my belief system.

Yes, I have read your answers. I thought Atheism may fit; a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. For example, if you believe that the universe was caused by a natural phenomenon called the big bang, its nature is a completely physical one, and that there is no purpose but the only guiding forces are evolution and other natural forces, then does that fit? I am trying to ask reasonable questions and stick to generally recognized definitions. You all have got me to adjust my thinking some about Atheism, and I am willing to adjust more. I respond to reasonable responses.

This seems to be an overly simplistic view of the supernatural. What defines "fantasy" vs "not fantasy" in your model? It sounds like "anything described or implied by the Bible is not fantasy, and everything else is fantasy." How exactly does your lack of belief in Santa Claus qualify as a religious belief? If you were not a Christian, would you believe in Santa Claus? Without the Bible's words on non-YHWH supernatural entities, would you believe in fairies? Goblins? Trolls?A more rational approach is to determine what is "real" and what is "fantasy" based on objective evidence. That which is supported by objective evidence is likely to be real, and that which is not supported by objective evidence is likely to be fantasy. The degree of certitude should be determined by the quality and quantity of the evidence.By this standard, I can evaluate fairies, goblins and trolls as "almost certainly fantasy." The lack of evidence supporting their existence is so complete that I can confidently laugh at anyone who suggests that they actually exist - the probability of their existence is not zero, but it's so close as makes little difference.I evaluate deities in the same way. There is just as much evidence supporting fairies and goblins as there is supporting a deity, or Lord Voldemort, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster - none at all.You may be able to have faith in the existence of your particular unsupported deity - this requires special pleading, as you have confidence in one entity without evidence of its existence yet classify other unsupported entities as fantasy with no objective reason to differentiate between them - and that's your business, but your method of classification as posted above is essentially useless. It appears that you're using a "gut feeling" method of evaluating "fantasy" vs "non-fantasy."Why, for example, couldn't Lord Voldemort be a demon that inspired an author to write books intended to draw children away from Christ? Wouldn't that qualify him as a "real" supernatural entity in your view? By what method of determination are you classifying Voldemort as "just fun" and "fantasy" as opposed to the demons that you also profess belief in?

Atheism says nothing about this. Atheism is the lack of theism.Do some atheist believe the above? Yes. Do most? Probably. But that is separate from atheism.In your mind, is everyone that believes in a "big bang"(even though beginning of the universe is more complex than this term) and evolution an atheist.There are a lot of theists that know those are real too.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Atheism does not require a belief in the Big Bang, or even Naturalism. I've already pointed out several technically-atheist belief systems that do not accept naturalism or the Big Bang.There are religions that can be atheist, but not all atheists are religious. Thus atheism itself cannot be a religion. It's really quite simple - you're overcomplicating atheism becasue of your previous understanding of the term.Atheism is a lack of belief in any god(s). That's all. Nothing more. It's a lack of belief. There are belief systems and even religions that incorporate atheism - but there are belief systems that incorporate gecentrism, too, and geocentrism is not a religion (simply an inaccurate model of the solar system).If you don't believe in any god, you are an atheist, whether you are also a religious Scientologist/Taoist/Buddhist/Animist/New-Ager/what-have-you, or if you are like me and simply lack a belief in any deity along with all other unsupported supernatural hoobajoo. Some atheists do claim knowledge that there is no deity as opposed to simply lacking a belief, but this is still not a religious belief. It's irrational, sure, and you could even classify it as "faith" and a "belief," but since this does not apply to all atheists it's improper to qualify all of atheism as a belief or a religion.Some atheists have beliefs regarding the supernatural, or regarding the certainty of the absence of deities. But you can't use some atheists to define all atheists. That would be like me claiming that all Christians believe in the Book of Mormon, since one Christian sect does.

You said, "Any definition of atheism that means that Richard Dawkins is not an atheist." I can read that clearly, but I haven't the foggiest idea of who Richard Dawkins is or most specifically, what he believes, or what set of his beliefs you were refering to. I just asked you to explain, so I could respond intelligently.

Well you're obviously on the internet because you're posting on this forum. Did you know they have these awesome things called "Search Engines" where you just type something into a box and it searches all over the internet for the thing that you typed into the box. I recommend a popular one called Google. You can find it a Google. If you just type "Richard Dawkins" in the box that's there then it will find out all kinds of information for you on Richard Dawkins so that you don't have to wait for someone to reply to your post here. Plus you get the satisfaction of looking something up yourself.

I can agree with you that there is no organized set of behaviors and admit I was wrong to call it a religion.

After seemingly endless discussions of this subject with theists, I have become convinced that the root of the problem lies in the all-encompassing nature of religious beliefs. To the theist (or at least many of them), belief in God is the center of life. It informs their views on ethics, morals, cosmology, history, and virtually everything else. They literally cannot comprehend that a lack of belief in gods doesn't fill the same roll in the atheist's life that belief does in the believers. Hence such meaningless concepts as "atheism is a religion" and "lack of belief is a belief".Atheists as individuals have beliefs about many or all of the same subjects as theists, but those beliefs are informed by the things we do believe in, not the things we don't. It's kind of a turf war. Theism tries to claim concepts like ethics or morals as their turf, and then by extension claim that lack of theistic belief must therefore constitute the basis for the beliefs of others regarding such subjects.Capt.

If you don't know who Richard Dawkins is or what his position is, why are you posting in a thread about him and his position, as well as other 'celebrity' atheists?You know the first post in this thread? Try reading it before posting in this thread again. It gives you brief information on the position of Richard Dawkins as well as some others - including links to their web pages should you want more information, and it lays out the topic of this debate.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

When I was a Christian, the idea of not having a religion was literally unfathomable. The concept never occurred to me - a person was Christian or Jewish or Buddhist or whatever, but there was no such thing to me as no religion.I wonder if a similar mental handicap affects other theists and results in the insistence that atheists must have some sort of religion.Clearly, my horizons have broadened. I would imagine that any theist who is willing to listen to what atheists say regarding atheism rather than their own preconceived notions could do the same.