Then what is?

You're saying that atheism has absolutely nothing at all to do with belief in god(s)?

I don't know if you noticed my post where I quoted the dictionary. But the first 3 entries say that religion is a set of beliefs. You can't say that there is no definition of religion, when you find it directly in the dictionary. It doesn't specify what it has to be a belief in. Scientology is a religion, but it doesn't believe in a specific god per se.

As you can see, It has been termed as a religion, and yet there is no belief in a specific god. simply a belief in an idea. Atheism is a belief in an idea. Maybe that doesn't quite term it as a full religion exactly. But you have to admit that its pretty darn close.

RR: (To the whole take the kid into the lab and say "this is your god" thingy) I didn't like how people drags science into this. Even though some (me included) seeing that atheism as a logical extension of science, but in actuality, science itself should be neutral, since all question pretending to the existence of god is inherently none-falsifiable. However, that doesn't mean science and religion is inherently in conflict with each other. In a sense one should come to the conclusion to be an atheist as a matter of philosophical and historical conscious decision, science is not the main reason that I am a atheist, neither is being an atheist the most dominate identity that defines me, however, that doesn't mean it is less important to us then the ideology held by people who define their identity through religion.

I wouldn't call "atheism" a religion though, because it lacks many of the characteristic of a religion, such as dogmas and doctrines , although I guess you could just categorically dismiss that anthropological none-sense, however, just because specific ideologies is contrary to one another it doesn't necessary mean they are automatically comparable type of philosophical constructs. Since "atheism" isn't as a complex and structurally entrenched within the society or a cultural construct as religion with many dominating ideologies and institutions.

Also, despite its name, Scientology has nothing to do with sceince or scientific method.

Dammit, I don't know if you're trying to be dense or what, but it's annoying. There is no definition for religion. You can find one in the dictionary, but techinically, there is no true definition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion why don't you read up on this so you can bring an actual argument to the table.

How about the murders it causes? That's just one.

No, I'm saying that atheism is a belief that there is no god. In other words, I think it's ridiculous to believe in that stuff. You see, Atheism is based around religion, but that does not make it a fucking religion.

Actually, what I was saying was that one form of universal thought, extremism, was as bad as another. I'm a massive skeptic, and I believe there is currently much more evidence of no god, than of the existence of a god, and as such, I fall towards atheism. However, to argue that your way is right and everyone else is wrong is just bloody stupid, not to mention exactly what I dislike about religion.

The seperation of church and state is vital. Government and school have no place interfering in people's beliefs, and the church's politics have no place in secular institutions. But to say one or the other is the root of all evil is bloody idiotic. Moderate atheism exists, junior. And it isn't agnosticism, it just isn't millitant and close-minded.

P.S.

I just failed two students for using wiki as a main source in their term papers in a university level religious studies course. Get a real source so you can bring an argument to the table.

Which is often due to feelings of group superiority. You're really bad at this whole debate thing.

OK Professor, here it is.http://www.darc.org/connelly/religion1.html

As for being close minded, I close my mind to the idea of the existence of god because of how ridiculous it is. Sure I could say that there might be a god out there, but that's just fucking ridiculous and you know it.

Bad at this debate thing? Do you even remember what you're original argument was?

To answer your inane argument, only in religion do you see people acting out violence in the name of god. It may be group superiority that caused it, but their belief that it's ok with god is what allows them to do it.

Any less ridiculous than the idea of matter forming from nothing prior to the big bang? Physics/science can't explain the beginning any better than anyone else. For all I know, they're all wrong. I think belief in god is stupid, but an absolute belief in -anything- is stupid. You're as bad as they are.

There is more proof to support the big bang theory than there is to support the existence of any kind of god. That's a bad argument and you should know that.
If you want a source, here ya go. http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

Slick, there is endless evidence to say there was a big bang, but every theory about where the matter came from is still hotly contested. You should know that.

It's still got way more evidence than god. That was my point.

More evidence, yes. Which is why I believe in it. But not absolute evidence. I can't say there is no guiding hand, I can just say I doubt the evidence. Until there is absolute evidence to either direction, to absolutely believe in either direction is ignorant and extremist.

It's the same way with gravity. It's only a theory. But there's no definite proof. That's the same argument Creationists are using against Evolution. Do you really want to go that path?

You're right, you can't disprove the existence of god, but that doesn't mean you have to actually give it a chance. You also can't disprove the theory that the flying spaghetti monster exists.

And I say the same thing about the spaghetti monster and belief in god. Fucking ridiculous, but I can`t prove them wrong.

And creationists say that their theory is more valid than science based on scientific evidence, which is stupid. I`m saying you`re defending your side as violently and with devotion that mimics theirs. Science demands a certain flexibility, or else we wind up just as close minded and simple as they are.

But what exactly is wrong with entertaining the possibility? Crazier things have been believed in.

I just have strong beliefs about the issue. I used to be more flexible about the issue, as I used to be agnostic, but the more I've thought about it, the more ridiculous it all seems. And after having religion pushed in my face my whole life, I'm less likely to be nice to people who defend it.

I only get mad when they try to push it into politics, secular school and science.

That's exactly it. It's maddening that they take this ridiculous notion of god and try to apply it to our everyday life. I wouldn't be so mad if they just pushed morality, or being a good person.

I've actually seen the flying spaghetti monster. A couple years ago, while walking home from the bar. Some thugs pounced upon me asking for money. I didn't have any of course, and so they wanted to beat the shit out of me. And then all of a sudden, in a whirl of pesto sauce, in flies this tangle of spaghetting and the thugs are soon bludgeoned into submission by meatballs of menace. Ever since then, I've believed in the spaghetti monster.

Anyways.

Yah, its very silly to just blindly believe in something as far fetched as God. But if God really does exist, and all those hard to prove theories about the earth being created were really true. Wouldn't that just be awesome? You are right, its stupid for religious people to try and force their ways into secular environments. But I get annoyed when people try to push out the aspects that are already there. Why can't people just deal with it and get over it? So what if a christmas tree is a christian thing. Its also a secular thing as well. And yet this year, around christmas time, I read in the paper that some parents were petitioning against the school their children go to, for the school to remove the christmas tree from the foyer, because "Oh my god, the christians invented it!!!!". If you don't want religion to interfere with your precious secular environment, why can't you leave what little religious aspects we have left alone?

I hear godless Communist Soviet Russia was a pretty utopian place to be living. You know, no fear of war, no fear of famine, no fear of a brutal corrupt government.

Oh, wait.

Oh, you're so right, if they would've had Jesus they would've been just fine.

Disregarding the fact that we don't follow "the first laws" anymore, can you tell me what the legal punishment is for following false idols? For disrespecting your parents? For coveting your neighbour's wife and belongings?

I'm serving 15 years for taking the Lord's name in vain. God dammit...

What is a religion, really? It's faith, right? A set of assumptions about the way the world functions. Deities factor into this pretty heavily because they're neither provable nor disprovable. If you have a firm belief that something neither provable nor disprovable exists, you have faith in that. You have faith in God.

And if you have a firm belief in the nonexistence of this entity, neither provable nor disprovable? That's also faith. You purport, as does the theist, to know the unknowable: an essentially spiritual behavior.

Now, if you were to argue that agnosticism was not religious that would be accurate.

Your whole series of arguments is like tissue, sir. You seem to be of the opinion that religion is terrible, and then claim it's impossible to define. Exactly what should we be stamping out, then?

Oh, right. Whatever pisses off your Mom and Dad, I expect. THEY CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT TO DO ANYMORE

Don't kid yourself about religious wars. There has never been a war about religion, it is only used as justification or propaganda. Wars are fought over land, money, or the balance of power. That's it.