[John 6:29]

Originally Posted by !!!YOU'RE$NUCKING$FUTZ!!!

I've said this a few times, as have others but you seem to re-use the same argument over and over. So, first, the definition you're adhering to says "a SET of beliefs". Does atheism have a set of beliefs? No. Hence, for that, it cannot meet your definition. But ignoring this problem, does atheism say anything about the nature, purpose or cause of the universe? No. Why? Because these are inferences on one's belief system and by saying one doesn't believe in god, then one says whatever caused the universe was not god. You can argue this to be part of your definition but you cannot argue for a disbelief in god as an explanation for the purpose of the universe, just as theism cannot. The specific belief systems and morals and such one adheres to determines the purpose of the universe but atheism alone cannot. As for the nature of the universe, well, this is hard to say but likely it does not say anything about it.

I disagree. Atheism does have a set of beliefs. Yet as I will show you later on in this post, atheism accounts for the nature, purpose and cause of the universe indirectly. And even if it does not each person subjects their own. However, when you nullify God from the equation it DOES give a belief regarding the cause and purpose of the universe. You say yourself, one says "What ever caused the universe was not God." Therefore, you are saying the cause was not by God but the cause was by something else. You're saying the cause is by something else and therefore deeming a cause to the universe. You say it does not give a purpose? Well it does. It gives a purpose that is relative to an individual but a purpose none the less, one that is focused on pleasing self. Therefore, the purpose is self-centered. You may say, "Well I do things for the better of society." Great. But in essence you do those things for society because you feel that is the right thing to do and therefore is relative to self and is again self-centered. Now, I'm not saying all atheist are selfish, but that their purpose is self-centered. There is a difference, but I think you see that. If not I'll explain.

Now, as far as having a set of beliefs. It appears you are right, but I will say indirectly it does. If there is no belief in God, then your set of beliefs are merely relative concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe and therefore it indirectly gives you beliefs and qualifies as a religion. Though it may be subjective to each individual within the religion it does not disqualify it as a religion because it is still self-focused.

Let me give you an example within Christianity. Instead of self-focusing, our purpose is on Christ, yet in your view this would still be self-focused. Why? Because our subjectivity concerning these questions is a matter of being answered by God, yet these are our relative answers (if you are correct -- though I believe they are objective answers) and therefore still focused on self. However, ignore this for a minute. In Christianity, instead of focusing on self, we focus on Christ (if I am correct about it being objective). Yet in focusing on Christ, He indirectly answers our questions, much like atheism indirectly answers your questions. Regardless, ones purpose is to please Christ within Christianity. One person may be struggling with pornography, another may have struggles with lying. They have a purpose in their Christianity to cut these out because they struggle with them, yet in that purpose it is to please Christ, so indirectly Christ shaped their struggles because they want to please Him, yet their purposes are differing, yet they are still considered a religion.

In atheism, you believe in no God. Therefore, most things are relative and subjective to an individual. No longer is your goal on pleasing others (though it may be), it ultimately is self-centered, if relative to an individual. Therefore, though one person may have a purpose to be a drunkard and another person to be intelligent, they both have answers regarding the purpose. Each different, yet still qualified as atheist. Why? Because they have a similar belief in no God, which in Christianity the similar belief is a belief in God of the Bible. Therefore, one singular beliefs provides a set of beliefs, though these beliefs may differ.

Atheism does not DIRECTLY answer these questions, yet indirectly and therefore is a set of beliefs relative to an individual. Yet if this is true, then the same is true with Christianity because everything is relative. The only difference is you believe in no God, I believe in the God of the Bible and my response differs from yours to these questions because I believe in a God. I do not follow a set of rules because of a religion, I respond to the idea of God correctly. You respond to the idea of no God correctly. Therefore, indirectly we are only responding to a singular belief and hence forming a multitude set of beliefs based on our responses of one belief that unites us with others.

What I am arguing is that atheism does have a set of beliefs.

Originally Posted by !!!YOU'RE$NUCKING$FUTZ!!!

So, to summarize, atheism is a SINGLE belief that can be related to the CAUSE of the universe. It cannot say anything about the purpose as that's an inference that is not described within atheism. As for the nature of the universe, it's debatable depending on what one means by "nature of the universe". If one means the size or expansion of it, then atheism says nothing about that. Hence, the definition you gave of a religion is not met by atheism. Therefore, according to your definition, it is NOT a religion.

As mentioned before. My belief is only a singular belief in God and I am responding to it appropriately.

Your belief is only a singular belief in no God and you are responding to it as you see appropriate.

Therefore, one belief gives a set of beliefs indirectly and qualifies atheism as a religion.

Originally Posted by !!!YOU'RE$NUCKING$FUTZ!!!

True, every person may have a set of beliefs regarding the cause, nature and purpose of the universe but does this make those beliefs religious? By this, you're saying science is religious if one adheres to science for the cause and nature of the universe but anyone who passed high-school science knows science is nothing like religion. So we have a conflict here because your statement is too generalizing and broad.

We are talking about defining a religion, not someone being religious.

Let me show you what I mean:
Religion defines the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Therefore, in a sense everyone has a religion of something. Whether we have a direct name for them or not, it does in essence make them religious. But not necessarily religions, just pertaining to a religion.

What makes religious different?
Someone can do something religiously. For example, I can clean my room day to day 24/7 and someone will say, "Michael cleans his room religiously." Or "Michael is very religious in cleaning is room."

You see, you can be religious without having a religion. It's an expression. However, I think where we are getting confused in deeming that if you are in a religion it must be something followed religiously or excessively or have a set of rules. This isn't true. Though we can go to dictionary.com and we can argue with that. I agree with the definitions of dictionary.com but in this case, we must note that religion can be different from religious.

So I will say it makes a person pertaining to a religion but not necessary religious. Though if you want to use someone belonging to religion and defining them as religious, then yes. It is enough to define someone as religion. But I think better put is that one belongs to a religion. Being religious and having a religion I think is different in my eyes. I can stand corrected if you'd like. However, I think you see the point I'm trying to make.

Is it broad? Eh. I guess. Yet everyone I believe is part of a religion though they do not follow a religion religiously. Holding a belief in these questions is religion. Even though it's broad. As I've said, everyone has a religion so of course it seems broad.

Originally Posted by !!!YOU'RE$NUCKING$FUTZ!!!

Sadly, science does not fulfill all those. The purpose of the universe is subjective, based on one's morals and any beliefs of a god. Is science subjective and based on opinions? No. It can say the cause but it cannot say the purpose. Why? Because that's like me saying I can use science to figure out the purpose of life in general and the purpose of an individual's life, such as your own. Possible by science? Not a chance. The same applies here and it only works in your argument because you continue to distort what science actually is.

Yes, I know science does not answer this directly, but indirectly it does. Let me show you:

I am uncertain, but am guessing you assume natural laws can account for the creation of the universe. Therefore, you exercise a belief in the unbelief of God. Now, being that you accept science accounts for something it indirectly accounts for your purpose in life. You see, if you believe there is no God, than certainly your purpose is subjective. Therefore, science gives you the purpose of subjectivity, you define your purpose because science accounts for everything and there is no divine being to give an account to or live for. This means that even though science does not say, "This is the purpose of life," it gives you means to define your own purpose and therefore science has given you answers to these questions either directly or indirectly.

Originally Posted by !!!YOU'RE$NUCKING$FUTZ!!!

Now you're arguing something else. You're arguing the person is religious, not that atheism is a religion. A person cannot be a religion though because a person is not a set of beliefs.



So by this logic, if you ask me these questions and I do NOT answer, then I'm not religious. Also, a person is not a set of beliefs.

Excuse me for my lack of explaining this.

I am not arguing that a person is a religion. I am stating that expressing your opinion, whether that be belief in something, lack of belief, or uncertainty, you're still expressing a belief and belong to a religion. A person who has a set of beliefs regarding these topics is deemed to be in a religion. Though we may not have a specific name for each individual belief, each of us are all in essence part of a religion because we all have a set of beliefs regarding these things. If you do not answer it does not mean that you are not part of a religion because everyone has an opinion about these questions. Therefore, you're part of a religion, whether you choose to acknowledge that or not. Religion tries to give reasons and answers behind these questions and as long as you are a concious being you will always have an answer to these set of questions. Whether it's acknowledging them or ignoring them, your consciousness and motive to carry on proves that you have an answer to these questions. Why? Because if you didn't you would find no purpose in your living and therefore kill yourself. Yet then again, even in killing yourself you've proven you have a belief concerning these questions. If you wish me to explain further I can, but I would venture to guess that you see where I am coming from.

Originally Posted by !!!YOU'RE$NUCKING$FUTZ!!!

LOL!!!

This is so adorable because the one thing that's missing is... their definition of a religion. You have no idea if what they consider to be a religion is the same as your definition because it's not given! LOL. Find a source saying what their definition was, otherwise you might as well be comparing apples and staplers. Until then, it's irrelevant.

It's on the website I linked you to:
"The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion."
-WorldNetDaily

Originally Posted by !!!YOU'RE$NUCKING$FUTZ!!!

In psychology of advertising, this is called a bare comparative, where the comparison is unstated and you're guessing at what the comparison is. It's useless really because it's meaningless, just as the links is meaningless here without you showing the exact definition of religion they used in the trial. Show me it is the exact same AND that is equals every single bit of it and I'll eat my words.

It's not a guess. It says that religion does not to be based on a belief in a supreme being. I can go in depth to fine a particular case definition, yet I think that this is clear enough. I am not really trying to persuade anyone... just trying to get people to see my reasoning for deeming it a religion.