Why Atheism Is A Religion

There is such thing as an Agnostic that is neither an atheistic agnostic nor a theistic agnostic. You do know this, right?

 

So it you don't believe that 1 + 1 = 2, that's not equal to believing that the notion of 1 + 1 = 2 to be false? (even though it isn't false, but it's just hypothetical...please don't go on some tangent about how you have evidence and knowledge that 1 + 1 = 2, as it is besides the point)

We can go in circles all that you wish with this. At this point you're just being stubborn on the issue.

 

and what, prey tell, do they believe?

 

If your definition of "stubborn" is "disagreeing with me"

Come up with a more relevant hypothetical, please.

 

You can make any scenario out of it. If you don't believe that someone is spying on you, that is not equal to believing that the notion of someone spying on you is false?

 

I have grown up as an Agnostic even though I was raised Catholic. I know that I don't know for certain, that it's an unknown mystery, and I'm not making a stance about it one way or the other.

 

I already adressed this with the bomb in the garden scenario.

I choose not to believe that I am being spied on because of a lack of evidence, however I remain open to the idea that I am being spied on and will adopt that position if sufficient evidence is presented to me. the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence required.

I have rejected/discounted your position without adopting a firm position of my own.

And look how easy it was!

 

So you don't believe then?

We're getting close to the nub of the matter; you believe that there is a fundamental difference between an atheist and an agnostic who has not made a faith based decision to believe in a deity. I do not.

when it comes to atheism/theism there is only one stance: that of believing in God, no matter how firm you are in your lack of belief you are still an atheist if you lack belief.

 

I have rejected/discounted your position without adopting a firm position of my own.

Have you?

I choose not to believe that I am being spied on because of a lack of evidence

 

If there is no fundamental difference then why are there even different terms then for Atheist and Agnostic?

And if you are going to make that black and white difference then you are mirroring Religion and your identity literally is dependent on Religion and believers, which is why Atheism is a Religion.

 

Yes. my position is neutral, just as it was before you brought your assertion to me. you brought me an assertion, I rejected it on its face due to a lack of evidence, while remaining open to the possibility of additional evidence to support your claim.

It hardly seems worth pointing out that this situation is very similar to your own departure from catholicism. You have moved away from belief in the claims presented to you due to a lack of evidence, but have adopted a neutral position, believing that certainties on the matter are impossible.

My position on spying is the same as your position on Catholicism, the only difference being that the issue of my being spied upon has the potential to be settled by evidence.

 

There is no fundamental difference in terms of belief
Agnostic is a different term from atheist because it is not a measure of belief, it is a measure of knowledge. (We've done this bit quite a few times)

Even if my identity as an atheist were dependant on religion (and it isn't, it's dependent on belief, since atheism is the lack of belief and if there was nothing to be a lack of then it wouldn't exist. Belief and religion are seperate things btw, but im sure people have already told you that on this thread) That would not make atheism the same as religion, it would just mean that atheism is dependent on religion.

A fireman is dependent on fires, he is not fire.
A policeman is dependent on criminals, he is not a criminal
A greengrocer is dependent on groceries, he is not groceries.

Frankly, if that's your argument for atheism being a religion, erm....no.


Back to the drawing board I think.

 

No, the difference is a difference of a conclusion. Atheists make a certain conclusion, and Agnostics do not.

How is it a measure of knowledge? Atheists, theists, and agnostics all have the same lack of evidence or knowledge about the existence of God, as I have already pointed out.

 

What is the difference between religion and belief? To me, belief is the crux of religion.

 

It hardly seems worth pointing out that this situation is very similar to your own departure from catholicism. You have moved away from belief in the claims presented to you due to a lack of evidence, but have adopted a neutral position, believing that certainties on the matter are impossible.

This is simply incorrect. I don't disbelieve in the existence of a God, as an Atheist does.

 

I agree, but they are not the same. A religion is an organised collection of beliefs.

 

Do you believe in him?

 

Religions also have a foundational belief and/or conclusion, as do Atheists.

 

First off, I'm not going to call it "him". Like I said, I neither believe nor disbelieve, I just know that I don't know. This is why I am an agnostic and not an atheist, and not a theist. I'm not concluding that God exists and I'm not concluding that God doesn't exist. What is so difficult to understand about this?

 

Ugh, again, no they don't.

agnosticism is a measure of knowledge, IT LITERALLY TRANSLATES AS "WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE"

Atheism and theism are measures of belief THEY LITERALLY TRANSLATE AS WITH AND WITHOUT BELIEF.

atheists, theists and agnostics DO ALL HAVE THE SAME LACK OF KNOWLEDGE.

THAT IS WHY BOTH ATHEISTS AND THEISTS ARE ALMOST ALWAYS ALSO AGNOSTICS, AGNOSTICISM IS NOT A NEUTRAL POSITION INBETWEEN THE OTHER TWO.

I don't know how much longer I can repeat myself on this.