[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Invert

Have you never argued something you either didn't particularly think through, or later decided to reform/review what you previously said? I'll admit I'm guilty on TH of sometimes just jotting down thoughts in posts without totally thinking them through... And I'm fine with changing my argument if it seems it needs to change. There's no point sitting there and continuing with something I no longer think makes sense?

I am guilty of that also, however, before I begin a debate, I do try my best to think my stance through although I am only human and my views can change.

Originally Posted by Invert

My actual position on the topic is, I don't think it really particularly matters. It's semantics. Whether or not Atheism, or sects of Atheism, are effectively a religion or not, doesn't change how they are in practice. I suppose the only real worth of the discussion is to bring light to how some types of atheism are. Because, like organised Religion, organised Atheism can be used dangerously, or blindly with particularly doctrine some sects may require of 'followers', and I suppose likening it to religion may at least aid as an illustration. Another thing, particularly if you are religious, I suppose comes from frustration. But it is usually over specific types of atheists. The range of atheists is highly varied, and I'm sure, even as an atheist yourself, you've meet types of atheists you would not really identify with.

Fair enough but if we discuss how some types of atheism are, then is that not a subset of the overall population of atheism, so one could attempt to make an inference that based on how these subsets operate, then all of atheism must do so also. I have no problem addressing only certain forms, although that concern is in the back of my mind.

Correct, I have met atheists who I disliked but it's not simply due to their atheistic beliefs. They don't believe in an deity and I agree with them on that. So for that purpose, we agree on atheism. Other topics we may not agree on but those topics can be irrelevant to our agreement on atheism. I suppose I'm beating around the bush here a little bit because I'm a bit perplexed by what you refer to as "forms" of atheism. It's simply a matter of disbelief in deities. How one applies that to other topics isn't really a form of it, it's simply the methods of application, not how one practices atheism.

Originally Posted by Invert

Ignoring those who are religious because of parents, etc.... we will call them blind faith people (I know some think all religious people are having blind faith, but I assume you get the type I mean)... If someone is devoted to a religious belief, they tend to have reasons for such a conviction, or enough evidence for themselves to believe. I think that essentially, if these reasons were shattered, most of them wouldn't keep holding on to religion for the sake of religion alone. I think it's a complicated issue, and I think it's one that may be hard to understand to many.

I disagree for two reasons. First, how does their belief get shattered? As a scientist, I could provide arguments to refute their religious beliefs but their faith isn't based on evidence, so more often than not, it may weaken their religious faith, sometimes even shatter it but it's not guarunteed to. So the point is, depending on how their religious faith is shattered, they may still cling to theism. Second, supposing their religious faith is shattered, people resort to what they know best and so they're likely to resort back to religious faith, perhaps of a different form. Alternatively, they may abandon it completely but only if they have had lots prior experience with something such as science.

Originally Posted by Invert

Though you cant be devoted entirely to theism and have no science unless you are totally mentally inept. Unless by that comment you mean no devotion to science, as oppose to no use/belief in any science, so they can pick and choose and throw whatever they don't like away without justification?

My apologies, I should have rephrased it better. I mean the second option, having no devotion to science but still using elements of it or some belief it.

Originally Posted by Invert

What I meant was more... the belief there is no God only exists because others believe there is a God.

Agreed, so I'll retract that statement I made in that post.

Originally Posted by Invert

But I have seen some Atheist get quite annoyed by being told they have a belief, because they don't see it as 'I believe there is no God', rather 'I do not believe in a God' (there is a difference here).

Agreed, there is a difference in those two statements, a rather large one and I speak for many atheists when I say we have faced such occurances although I'm certain many theists have also.

I suppose the universal problem I mentioned earlier should be changed to whether or not one accepts a belief in a god(s), goddess(es) or other higher being(s) for topics involving religious faith.