[John 6:29]

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

It doesn't give a purpose by that logic. Let me show you why using really simple math. What is the cause of getting 4 (via subtraction just to keep it simple)? 4-0, 3-1, 2-2 and you can then toss in integers. According to you, because these combinations of numbers produce a difference of 4, their purpose must be just that. But that's false, their purpose is to denote a numerical value of something in the physical world or abstract. The point of this is you cannot simply say that because atheism acknowledges that cause of the universe was not god, then the purpose is given through the cause. The purpose is derived possibly through one's atheistic beliefs but also through other beliefs and life experiences. Atheism is simply the disbelief of a god and so you cannot somehow formulate a purpose from that sentence. If you can, then is whatever you deem the purpose to be based on something else? I can flip this around and ask the same for theism, does the belief in a god inherently give a purpose to the universe for someone? No. Even if the religion states one, the person makes their own by adding in elements, such as life experience.

As I've been saying this whole time. The same qualifies theism. My belief in God formulates a set of beliefs. These are not beliefs that are to be performed religiously but out of love for God. I do not follow practices because my "religion" requires it, but because it pleases God. However, my singular belief in God formulates a belief concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the Universe because everything revolves around this single issue of God existing or not. It would be unjust for me to say that it only applies to Atheism being described as being religious, yet Christianity not being religious because they are both concerning a belief in the same object... namely, God. Therefore, if theism is a religion an atheist is also belonging to a religion. My point is simply this: If I am considered religious because I believe in a deity this denies the specific definition of religion. I believe I have a relationship with a living God and therefore it is not a religion. However, if you do not believe in this God and if He is real as I believe He is, your lack of belief does not nullify His existence. You have a relationship as do I, whether you acknowledge that or not. Therefore, in essence, we are in the same relationship but on opposite ends.

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

You've lost me as to how you've come to the conclusion of two things: 1) The purpose of the universe is pleasing oneself and 2) The purpose you're telling me is somehow absolutely correct because you're not acknowledging any other beliefs or experiences, you're taking this as fact and as far as I can see... there's no way to get that from the one simple statement of a disbelief in god.

It is a fact. Allow me to elaborate.

If God is an objective being and He is sovereign then everything revolves around this being and not us.

Therefore, if God is non-existence what is the purpose of life? It is left to an individual to determine these things. Why? Because there is no objective purpose to life and is therefore relative for each one to decide these things. In other words, without objectivity there is only relativity defined by a singular individual. Even with intentions of looking out for society, you are defining what "looking out for society" means in your own head and is therefore relative to only you because there is no objective value in purpose.

Let's put it this way: When you take out God, there is nothing but yourself to obey.

You may say, "Well there are laws." Yes, true. But are there really laws? By this I mean certainly government have placed rules down. You on the other hand can decide in your own mind the relativity of whether the law is worth keeping. For example, you're late to school, you might speed 10 miles over the speed limit to get there in time. In essence you decided you had a good purpose to speed and relatively decided that it was acceptable and justifiable to break the law at this point. You may be saddened if you get caught, yet in your mind you believe the speeding was worth it because you were late. Or perhaps you believe it wasn't worth it because now you had to pay a fine. Either way you decided subjectively whether it was worth or not. Thus when God is out of the equation there is only room for self-relative answers. Are there facts of life out there? Yes. There are objective truths but regarding purpose it is only subjective when God is taken out and therefore a disbelief in God does change all of this.

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

Nice try but no. See, if I play your game, which I will of saying that somehow the disbelief in a god provides the purpose and such of the universe, then all that stems from ONE belief. The purpose is an INFERENCE from the one belief. This is why your argument it's a religion is still failing because you're taking the one thing to mean several things and then saying that because it means several things, those several things constitute a set of beliefs. Unfortunately, those several things are inferences one makes, not something atheism states.

Yes, but you're interpreting me wrong. I am stating this because this is why people consider me religious. My belief in God is the only thing that is different between you and me as far as concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Why? Because my belief in God changes the answers of these 3 questions from your answers as a result of your disbelief in God. You see, my set of beliefs are an inference from one belief. We are actually on the same page. We both are saying neither one of us are religious, while the dictionary deems it differently. All I am making is observations that tough I do not consider myself to be religious, according to dictionary.com I am and so are you. Though if we conclude that because there are simply a result of inferences from one belief, then neither of us are religious and Christianity should no longer be considered a religion.

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

If atheism is apparently self-focused then I see no reason why theism is any different. You say it is not self-focused so I really don't understand your thinking even here.

I go on later to explain that theism is the same if your worldview is the correct worldview. I don't mean to put words in your mouth so don't take it that way, and I apologize if you do take it this way. As I've staed before, if there is no God we determine relatively what these answers are. Therefore, if there is no God my theism is just as much self-focused as your atheism because both of us are deriving answers which please us.

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

Now you're going way into the deep end. You're assuming two very big things: 1) Your answers are indeed from Christ and 2) My answers are indeed from atheism however direct or indirect. You cant simply toss random assumptions around without attempting to remotely back them up and hope someone will follow. So before you begin refuting, back up your assumptions otherwise they're discredited and your strawman argument falls apart.

Eh. I think I was misunderstood again. I believe my answers are correct in coming from my beliefs in Christ and you believe your answers are correct coming from your beliefs. Therefore, if we assume there is no objectivity to the matter, then both of our answers are what we hold to be true and we follow what we believe to be true based on our assumptions on our world view which is derived from theism or atheism. I believe this answers your statement, though I think you misunderstood me and I am misunderstanding you.

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

What's funny about this... is it's an inference about your belief.



Ah, thank you for saying it so nicely. One belief (no god/god exists) provides a whole set of beliefs. Notice how the definition of atheism is only about the one belief that you're calling a set because it makes a set.

Exactly. I think you're beginning to see that we are actually on the same page. I cannot be considered religious without atheism being considered religious. I believe you thought I was refuting you, but rather I was showing that either we are both a religion or both are not a religion. Again, though I wish not to be considered part of a religion, I do because I believe that according to definitions given, I am part of a religion. I'll explain at the end.

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

Thank you yet again, we formulate beliefs through various means all derived from just the one belief. still, you haven't shown atheism is a religion.


I'll respond to the rest when I get back.

Namely, it isn't that atheism in itself is a religion, much like I believe Christianity in itself is a religion. Just common grounds of belief concerning God and yet they bring forth a world view that denotes a set of beliefs concerning the purpose, nature, and cause of the universe though these are simply inferences, we still hold views concerning this and therefore are religious. It is because of our world views we are religious, but it is not our world view that makes us religious. Let me show you what I mean...

Say you called me and told me, "Mike in 24 hours I am going to come kill you." Now, if I believe you, I will move, I will call the cops, etc I will prepare for you to kill me and try to avoid it by all means. My singular belief resulting my response in a multitude of ways. If I believe you are lying I will simply go to bed and sleep. A singular belief effects other aspects of your life.

The same is with religion. Our worldview gives us answers to the cause, purpose, and nature of the universe. For you it may be more relative to an individual and therefore these answers are relative, it still makes you part of a religion for having answers to those 3 things. The same is with me. Though I believe these answers are objective, my belief still answers these 3 questions. Perhaps not directly, but indirectly. It does not mean that I have a name for my religion, but it does mean that I have a religion based on my theism and you have one based on your atheism.

Again, you see that this definiton is broad but perhaps it gives light on how we truly abuse this word.

Now, I know you're probably thinking that his thread is about atheism being a religion or not so why in the heck am I trying to show through posting this and how are we on similar grounds? Well, my issue is that if Atheism is not a religion, then neither is Christianity. However, personally I believe even though our answers come indirectly from our world view that we are still part of a religion becaue of our core beliefs, though it is not our core beliefs that make us religious. I may have to come back and explain this because I am sounding very contradictory to myself right now. Perhaps you'll understand what I mean, but right now I am tired so if you don't understand I'll come back and explain.

Simply put, if I am religious because of my theism you are religious because of your atheism. But if you are not, then neither am I.