[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Michael.

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.

I'm trying to piece together what you're saying because to me, you cannot be a scientist without adhering to science just as you cannot be religious without adhering to a religion. You cant be buying something in a mall if you're not in a mall and so forth, so to me it really isn't clicking because if I agree with you, then by that logic, a scientist who doesn't adhere to science is still a scientist. I know there is the common expression of acting religiously as an equivalent of being excessive but that idea I'm tossing out the window.

Originally Posted by Michael.

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.

You're wrong here in saying science accounts for everything because it's obvious there are many topics that it doesn't. But besides that technicality, science is purely objective, no two ways around that. A purpose of life or the universe is really something that is subjective because science cannot explicity say it. It can give some bits of information but it's up to the person to arrange them and choose the bits they like. So for this reason, defining the purpose of the universe is subjective and science cannot account for it.

Let me give you an example because this idea of the purpose of the universe is pretty abstract. A baby is born (its sex is irrelevant) and someone asks me then asks you, what is the purpose of the baby's life on Earth? I can say various things, such as to populate it, to create things, etc... but you see, I'm constructing what I think using my opinions satisfies the question. The fact that the baby can make things and populate the world is part of science but I'm choosing to include those, just as I can choose to not include those. So for abstract things, such as the purpose of life or universe, whether you adhere to science or Christianity (or whatever else), it's subjective.

Originally Posted by Michael.

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

I read that part but it does not say what a religion should be based on. All it's said is it is not based on this one thing in particular but fails to define the definition of religion. Returning to algebra examples, this is like saying X cannot equal 5 but doesn't answer what X actually equals. X can still be from negative to positive infinity except not 5, which really doesn't help us in answering what X equals. Certainly you can see that here. You're assuming the court was meaning that it is not needed to believe in a supreme being to answer the questions of cause, nature and purpose of the universe but that's not stated anywhere, that's an inference you're making by tossing in your definition of religion.

Originally Posted by Michael.

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'm going to respond to this part mostly because much of your post is just saying the same thing. Not to sound rude but it doesn't matter one bit why you perform your beliefs just as it doesn't matter for me as that's a whole other issue. Your argument of if atheism is religious then theism is or if atheism isn't a religion then neither is theism is one that I don't agree with for one reason, namely the one I feel you're dancing around as much as possible: "set of beliefs". This set in the definition does not state being derived from the belief or disbelief in god but rather that there is a pre-existing set to explain the cause, nature and purpose of the universe within the parameters of belief/disbelief of god. In other words, I'm saying the set of beliefs in theism is present all at once only when we consider specific theistic beliefs, such as Christianity. When we "zoom out" and go more general to just theism as a whole, then you're right, it's the equivalent of atheism in that technically neither are religious. However, when you look at a specific belief within theism, you find it adheres to the definition of a religion but the same is not true for atheism. If you compare atheism to Christianity, you find Christianity has its set of beliefs (i.e. bible). For atheism, when we get more specific, there is still only just the one belief of no god. All other beliefs are derived from elsewhere outside the parameters of theism or atheism, such as science.

So in a way I'm agreeing when we look at it very vaguely but when we get specific, then I disagree. You've brought up the whole thing of it indirectly has a set of beliefs and such but unfortunately, that set comes from sources outside atheism whereas for Christianity, it can come from outside but there is also the Christian set of beliefs.

To put it clearer:

Atheism = no god
Theism = god

Christianity = god is good, god did this and that, etc... .
Specific atheistic belief = no god

Originally Posted by Michael.

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.

Here's where we go off on a tangent. By saying this, you're essentially saying you're right no matter what and I'm wrong but I'm merely ignoring the fact I'm wrong and you're right. You cant tell me I have a relationship with something I don't believe in and expect me to accept that because I think we've gone over this before and it's always ended in you telling me I'm wrong and you keep making the assumption god exists as being factual.

Originally Posted by Michael.

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.

Even if god does exist, a person can still define what they believe to be the purpose to life outside the realm of theism. There's nothing saying otherwise.

Originally Posted by Michael.

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

That is still there even with god existing. You think or believe god wants you to do X so you obey yourself and do X.

Originally Posted by Michael.

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.

Fair enough, so it's subjected to some subjectivity depending on the person and context.

Originally Posted by Michael.

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.

This is where you're confusing me and your answers really just say the same thing so I'm still confused, if not more confused than before. According to you, when god is there, beliefs are objective yet when god is gone, beliefs are subjective. The common thing is "belief", which is completely subjective so you cannot avoid subjectivity unless it is factual, which it certainly is not. This returns to the issue you brought up before, the double-standard of atheism in general being non-religious while in general theism is religious. Now, you're making the double-standard saying theism is factual and objective while atheism is subjective and opinion-based. To me, it seems biased because both are subjective and all I can presume is you're devotion to your belief makes you think the beliefs pertaining to god are completely objective and correct while everything else is wrong.

Originally Posted by Michael.

I go on later to explain that theism is the same if your worldview is the correct worldview.

What is the correct worldview? Once again, you're sounding factual and not subjective so I'm curious and confused.

Originally Posted by Michael.

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.

Here again I'm confused as to the double-standard of theism being objective while atheism is subjective. Why are they not both subjective?