Religion

[hard]

It is a religion as you believe that there is no god.

Watch your definition of religion there

whats wrong with that definition?
[/quote]

no. religion does not equal not believing in god. Not believing in god may equal a religion but judging by the amount of debate around this i'll stay clear to whether it is or is not.

[Mao]

my understanding

atheism: belief in the absence of a deity
agnosticism: absence of a belief in the existence of a deity

i am an agnostic.

the definition that a religion is any belief is obviously too wide. that would mean just any belief in anything can be classified as a religion.

Richard Dawkins clarifies that the majority of atheists are of the idea that, "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assmption that he is not there." So, not outright denying a God, but seeing it as considerably less probable. He also gives a further category of "Strong" atheism, in which people may "know there is no God". This would have a theist counterpart, that claim things such as C. G. Jung, "I do not believe, I know [that my God exists]."
(The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, pg. 50)

that, I must say, is the misconception of 'atheism'

a lack of belief is most definitely 'agnoticism', these people, including myself, believe that there are insufficient evidence to believe in a theism or atheism

atheism is the belief that there is no God. It is commonly used [erroneously] to represent agnoticism. It is safe to say that most atheists are in fact agnostics, but most do not care enough about to topic to find out more

No mao, it is a huge misconception to think that all athiests are somehow just as fundimental as their religious counterparts, and make claims just as unsubstantiated. your comments show a fundimental lack of understanding of the term, i will re-iterate that atheism is merely refuting the current evidence/arguments in support on theisms (i.e holy texts or miricals) 

This point is exactly the reason i dislike the word athiesm, and only call myself one in lack of a better word. An athiest can believe that their is no god, an this itself could be called a leap of faith, yet an athiest can just as well admit they have no clue whether or not god exists, and like me, merely refute the current evidence from the religious.

call yourself an agnostic

[sxcalexc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAF2NuAI9EU
The question is "Do you believe in a God?". No = atheist, Yes = theist. This is a good criterion to base it on I think. The term agnostic was invented needlessly.

PS. Youtube "Bullshit - Penn & Jillete", very funny show.

[bturville]

Nothing will be said here that hasn't been said before, so i'm stopping. But just do a quick google for "Atheism Not a Belief" and reaaaaaaaaaaaad

EDIT: Scratch that, this works: http://tigergrowl.wordpress.com/2006/10/09/atheism-is-not-a-belief/

[sxcalexc]

Okay, bringing out the big guns. Oxford English Dictionary.

"atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of."

This definition also rules out the possibility of atheism being called a religion.
__________________________________________________________

Hopefully this ends the talk on 'labels' because labels are pointless and only fuel further confusion. If there is to be a debate on anything, please don't make it on such obscure semantics. People know what they believe. (or don't hehe )

[brendan]

PS. Youtube "Bullshit - Penn & Jillete", very funny show.

They make some really good points in that show, but their constant swearing does not help their argument.

[sxcalexc]

PS. Youtube "Bullshit - Penn & Jillete", very funny show.

They make some really good points in that show, but their constant swearing does not help their argument.

The swearing, in itself, is symbolic, emphasising that swear words are merely part of the collective lexis. There is nothing 'special' about swear-words and there is no reason swearing should discredit or detract from their argument. In fact, they also did an episode covering profanity. It's quite interesting, there is input from language experts and psychologists. Sure, it may not be distinguished, and I don't look favourably upon swearing either but I think P & T are actually making a point in their use of profanity.

[Mao]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAF2NuAI9EU
The question is "Do you believe in a God?". No = atheist, Yes = theist. This is a good criterion to base it on I think. The term agnostic was invented needlessly.

quite wrong, the term agnostic is very necessary. There is no black and white answer to that question

theist would say "yes there is a God", a leap of faith
atheist would say "no there is no higher power", also a leap of faith
agnostic would say "I don't have enough evidence to decide, and I believe there may or may not be a higher power"

Okay, bringing out the big guns. Oxford English Dictionary.

"atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of."

This definition also rules out the possibility of atheism being called a religion.

actually, this definition highlights the leap of faith atheists make, to deny something requires as much proof as when something is asserted. When there is no evidence either ways, both are based on faith.

many atheists get very offended when I make this point, that they are no different to theists in their belief.

[sxcalexc]

Okay, bringing out the big guns. Oxford English Dictionary.

"atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of."

This definition also rules out the possibility of atheism being called a religion.

actually, this definition highlights the leap of faith atheists make, to deny something requires as much proof as when something is asserted. When there is no evidence either ways, both are based on faith.

many atheists get very offended when I make this point, that they are no different to theists in their belief.

Mao, respectfully, did you make a point of ignoring the rest of the definitions? Thus, making atheism an umbrella term. You failed to embolden atheism as "disbelief" and disbelief as "not to believe or credit".......... Very selective of you. By accepting both definitions, agnosticism does indeed come under atheism.

[Mao]

actually, I did. but the bits I highlighted make the most straight-forward sense. the same meaning is conveyed by the definition

and to your point, to "not believe or credit" a god, doesn't it require a leap of faith also?

[sxcalexc]

actually, I did. but the bits I highlighted make the most straight-forward sense. the same meaning is conveyed by the definition

and to your point, to "not believe or credit" a god, doesn't it require a leap of faith also?

No, it doesn't. It just means that you don't make a point of believing in one.

As I said, both definitions need to be accepted, making atheism a two pronged category.

[dekoyl]

So Mao, if one says,
"From current scientific evidence, I currently believe there is no God or high power of any form or kind."
what category would that person fall into? Would that be Atheism?

[sxcalexc]

So Mao, if one says,
"From current scientific evidence, I currently believe there is no God or high power of any form or kind."
what category would that person fall into? Would that be Atheism?

Yes! You are an atheist. Mao will tell you otherwise, if I haven't convinced him by now. He would say because you 'believe' but don't 'know' that you are an agnostic.

[Mao]

actually, I did. but the bits I highlighted make the most straight-forward sense. the same meaning is conveyed by the definition

and to your point, to "not believe or credit" a god, doesn't it require a leap of faith also?

No, it doesn't. It just means that you don't make a point of believing in one.

This is the first time I've heard "disbelief" being used in the sense that "I may or may not believe".

As I said, both definitions need to be accepted, making atheism a two pronged category.

no, they are very different, one is a leap of faith, the other isn't.

So Mao, if one says,
"From current scientific evidence, I currently believe there is no God or high power of any form or kind."
what category would that person fall into? Would that be Atheism?

that would be atheism
agnoticism is "From current scientific evidence, there is not enough to sway me either ways, I do not make a decision on believing whether there is a higher power."

So Mao, if one says,
"From current scientific evidence, I currently believe there is no God or high power of any form or kind."
what category would that person fall into? Would that be Atheism?

Yes! You are an atheist. Mao will tell you otherwise, if I haven't convinced him by now. He would say because you 'believe' but don't 'know' that you are an agnostic.

that is very correct, but there is still a difference, as I pointed out.

[bturville]

actually, this definition highlights the leap of faith atheists make, to deny something requires as much proof as when something is asserted. When there is no evidence either ways, both are based on faith.

many atheists get very offended when I make this point, that they are no different to theists in their belief.

that is wrong. I direct you to the link i posted, as i'm too lazy to repeat the point myself.

When a claim is made, especially one that runs counter to everything we know and understand about the world, the burden of proof rests with the claimant, not with the person to whom the claim is put. More bluntly still (because religious believers are apt to be very obtuse on this point): I do not have to prove that God does not exist; you have to prove he does.

If the believer responds that the atheist is expressing belief, namely belief that all existents necessarily furnish evidence of their existence, we might ask him whether he believes in dragons or Santa Claus. The answer is almost certain to be no. On what grounds does the religious believer deny the existence of dragons? If absence of evidence allows the existence of God why does it not also allow the existence of dragons, fairies at the bottom of the garden, the Cheshire Cat, Santa Claus and all other entities dreamed up by poets, novelists, science fiction writers and so on?

We are not obliged to accept the possible existence of every crack-brained invention until we can prove it false. If we were, we would be bogged down in the endless task of disproving the existence of unicorns, the tooth fairy, mermaids and every other product of the creative or febrile imagination. This is clearly as ridiculous as it is impossible.

I do not “believe” or “have faith” that God does not exist; I simply decline to accept a claim that such an entity exists.