LJ wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: Why do you have to classify everyone? They say "I'm an atheist" because that is the term we use to describe someone with no religious views. What do you want them to say?

I personally don't care what they say. People are classifying themselves. I am not classifying anyone, only those who have classified themselves.

I believe you are "classifying" by the definition that someone else gave you. Not by your own opinion.

I Wear Pants wrote: Yes you are. What would you call someone with no religion?

Whatever they want to be called. I personally don't care. So how am I classifying people without them doing so first? If my indifference is not proof of that, then I dunno what would be, and you can just go on thinking whatever you want of me, but that assumption is wrong.

Darkon wrote:

LJ wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: Why do you have to classify everyone? They say "I'm an atheist" because that is the term we use to describe someone with no religious views. What do you want them to say?

I personally don't care what they say. People are classifying themselves. I am not classifying anyone, only those who have classified themselves.

I believe you are "classifying" by the definition that someone else gave you. Not by your own opinion.

So I am following a classification made by someone else and not my own assumptions.... gee, I believe that is what I said. I never said "if this is what you believe, this is what you are"... I said "if this is what you are, then you have to accept the fact of this"

But the thing is, how is a lack of belief considered a belief?

I Wear Pants wrote: But the thing is, how is a lack of belief considered a belief?

Because there is no such thing. You either believe something is there, or you believe there is nothing there.

it's like when you start your car, you can believe that's going to start, you can not know if it's going to start, or you can believe it's not going to start.

You're talking yourself in circles, see, cause I have already answered this 3 times.

I Wear Pants wrote: But the thing is, how is a lack of belief considered a belief?

Because you have to believe that you lack a belief, no?

There's a line from the movie "The Firm" that I like: "Don't tell me what you believe, tell me what you can prove." That sums up my thinking. Religious people can believe anything, but when it comes time to prove their beliefs, they fall flat on their faces.

If you can offer me some kind of scientific evidence to back up your beliefs, then I will listen.

CenterBHSFan wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: But the thing is, how is a lack of belief considered a belief?

Because you have to believe that you lack a belief, no?

No you don't. The lack of a belief is not a belief.

LJ wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: But the thing is, how is a lack of belief considered a belief?

Because there is no such thing. You either believe something is there, or you believe there is nothing there.

it's like when you start your car, you can believe that's going to start, you can not know if it's going to start, or you can believe it's not going to start.

You're talking yourself in circles, see, cause I have already answered this 3 times.

So now cars work by magic? There is no belief system needed to find out if a car will start. Either everything is in order and the car will start or there is a broken part or lack of fuel or some other essential item and the car won't start. Belief has nothing to do with it.

Just like many people without a religious belief see the universe as what it is. Not some super mysterious thing, they see the stars and galaxies and the expansion of the universe as processes that continue to go on until they are acted upon by something else. No magic or god is needed.

I Wear Pants wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: But the thing is, how is a lack of belief considered a belief?

Because you have to believe that you lack a belief, no?

No you don't. The lack of a belief is not a belief.

Correct. If you don't want to call me an atheist, then call me a non-believer.

I Wear Pants wrote:

LJ wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: But the thing is, how is a lack of belief considered a belief?

Because there is no such thing. You either believe something is there, or you believe there is nothing there.

it's like when you start your car, you can believe that's going to start, you can not know if it's going to start, or you can believe it's not going to start.

You're talking yourself in circles, see, cause I have already answered this 3 times.

So now cars work by magic? There is no belief system needed to find out if a car will start. Either everything is in order and the car will start or there is a broken part or lack of fuel or some other essential item and the car won't start. Belief has nothing to do with it.

straw man again.
If you don't get my example, then you are going to have to live with not understanding it.

Just like many people without a religious belief see the universe as what it is. Not some super mysterious thing, they see the stars and galaxies and the expansion of the universe as processes that continue to go on until they are acted upon by something else. No magic or god is needed.

Sigh.... So then they BELIEVE that the universe is whatever they believe it to be.

FairwoodKing wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: But the thing is, how is a lack of belief considered a belief?

Because you have to believe that you lack a belief, no?

No you don't. The lack of a belief is not a belief.

Correct. If you don't want to call me an atheist, then call me a non-believer.

You can call yourself whatever you want and I will address you as that, but if you don't want to be associated with a group, do not proclaim yourself to be that. Not all atheists are irreligious, so to say that atheism means to be against religion, is false.

Say you ask someone what their beliefs as far as god go.

They say "I don't believe in god or a god"

We call those people atheists. That's not implying that they are religious. It's just the word we use for people that don't believe in god.

Also, how can an atheist be religious? Are there atheist churches? <<<---- Serious question, not trying to inquisition or find holes in your argument. There are plenty of holes in my own arguments if that's what I was up to.

LJ wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: But the thing is, how is a lack of belief considered a belief?

Because you have to believe that you lack a belief, no?

No you don't. The lack of a belief is not a belief.

Correct. If you don't want to call me an atheist, then call me a non-believer.

You can call yourself whatever you want and I will address you as that, but if you don't want to be associated with a group, do not proclaim yourself to be that. Not all atheists are irreligious, so to say that atheism means to be against religion, is false.

You don't know what you're talking about. The term "atheist" is a title, not a group. Yes, there are other people who think the same as I do, but that does not make us a group. We are just individuals who have a common understanding of the world.

I Wear Pants wrote: Say you ask someone what their beliefs as far as god go.

They say "I don't believe in god or a god"

We call those people atheists. That's not implying that they are religious. It's just the word we use for people that don't believe in god.

Also, how can an atheist be religious? Are there atheist churches? <<<---- Serious question, not trying to inquisition or find holes in your argument. There are plenty of holes in my own arguments if that's what I was up to.

well, from what I know about atheism there is a ton of different parts to it and so on. So basically, a religion is defined as a set of beliefs about a higher being. The beliefs that they carry would classify it as a religion. Now, is that how we THINK of a religion? Well definitely not, but some atheists have made it a point to attack other religions with their beliefs. There doesn't have to be a church or anything like that. Like I mentioned before, I used the term loosely when talking about people who are attacking what others do, not ness. the people who go about the business not proclaiming one thing or another, and essentially not caring.

It's like someone saying that they believe in a God, but know nothing about any of the religions of the world. Would you have to automatically classify them as something? Or would you just say "ok that person believes on God". But you get peope who come out and say "I am a Christian" "I am Jewish" they have classified themselves, not by describing their beliefs, but by placing themselves in that group.

I don't think that's a really good system of classifying religion. I mean, being a Christian or being Jewish can be pretty broad terms. Is the person Catholic or Protestant or Presbyterian?

Also, I agree with you. Using your belief or lack of belief to attack others is lame.

I Wear Pants wrote: I don't think that's a really good system of classifying religion. I mean, being a Christian or being Jewish can be pretty broad terms. Is the person Catholic or Protestant or Presbyterian?

Atheist is broad too, as there are tons of different philosophies and schools of thought and so on that atheists will classify themselves as.

Also, I agree with you. Using your belief or lack of belief to attack others is lame.

word

Yeah I guess you're right about that too.

I just personally define religion as the actual organized part of peoples beliefs. Churches, groups, etc. I feel people can have beliefs without religion. And I guess that means that Atheists could be religious too (though I think most aren't) so you're right again.

This is one of those arguments that I'm fleshing out a lot but I don't have anything invested in. Like, trying to refute you isn't the point it's trying to figure out what I actually believe. If that makes any sense.

I Wear Pants wrote: Yeah I guess you're right about that too.

I just personally define religion as the actual organized part of peoples beliefs. Churches, groups, etc. I feel people can have beliefs without religion. And I guess that means that Atheists could be religious too (though I think most aren't) so you're right again.

This is one of those arguments that I'm fleshing out a lot but I don't have anything invested in. Like, trying to refute you isn't the point it's trying to figure out what I actually believe. If that makes any sense.

Yeah I don't really care one way or the other though. The whole point started with the people who are the "religion of freedom from religion" kind of fighters, which is where the hypocrisy term came out. You're telling people to start forcing you do see things that they believe, because you want to follow your own beliefs. It's a pretty fucked up circle when you really sit down and think about it. Yes, we know Christians forcing their beliefs on everyone that gay marriage is bad is wrong, but the people who get all pissed off and throw a fit because a clerk at a store says "marry christmas" is wrong too.

Yeah they can fuck off, I like Christmas.

holy shit I am tired and need to edit that post. Eh fuck it.

LJ wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: Yeah I guess you're right about that too.

I just personally define religion as the actual organized part of peoples beliefs. Churches, groups, etc. I feel people can have beliefs without religion. And I guess that means that Atheists could be religious too (though I think most aren't) so you're right again.

This is one of those arguments that I'm fleshing out a lot but I don't have anything invested in. Like, trying to refute you isn't the point it's trying to figure out what I actually believe. If that makes any sense.

Yeah I don't really care one way or the other though. The whole point started with the people who are the "religion of freedom from religion" kind of fighters, which is where the hypocrisy term came out. You're telling people to start forcing you do see things that they believe, because you want to follow your own beliefs. It's a pretty fucked up circle when you really sit down and think about it. Yes, we know Christians forcing their beliefs on everyone that gay marriage is bad is wrong, but the people who get all pissed off and throw a fit because a clerk at a store says "marry christmas" is wrong too.

I would liken Merry Christmas to "good morning" It is not so much as a statement of fact, as it is a a search for agreement.

Just to throw my two cents in on the argument, I have always though of 'atheists' as people who refuse to believe that God, gods, higher powers, etc. exist. It is not a scientific or intellectual stance any more than belief that God does exist. If you apply the scientific method to the question of "Does God exist?", you do not get 'yes' or 'no'. Therefore, you have a third group outside of 'religion' and atheism -- agnosticism. Which simply states that there is no way God's existence can be proven or disproven. It's the pure scientific only approach. Atheism has a belief system, albeit loosely defined, that guides them. It requires a faith that they are right in their belief, just like religions. While I stop just short of classifying atheism as a religion, they are more religious than scientific.

FairwoodKing wrote:

My belief system is built around science. I deal with theories that are observable and testable. For me, it is "seeing is believing." For religionists, it is "believing is seeing." There is a huge difference.

But yet I bet you believe in the Big Bang and "primordial soup" to single cell animal right? Do you see the contradiction in your "beliefs" yet?

BCBulldog wrote: Just to throw my two cents in on the argument, I have always though of 'atheists' as people who refuse to believe that God, gods, higher powers, etc. exist. It is not a scientific or intellectual stance any more than belief that God does exist. If you apply the scientific method to the question of "Does God exist?", you do not get 'yes' or 'no'. Therefore, you have a third group outside of 'religion' and atheism -- agnosticism. Which simply states that there is no way God's existence can be proven or disproven. It's the pure scientific only approach. Atheism has a belief system, albeit loosely defined, that guides them. It requires a faith that they are right in their belief, just like religions. While I stop just short of classifying atheism as a religion, they are more religious than scientific.

Yep, pretty much sums it up for me. In fact, the part that I bolded was so good that I think it needs repeating.

It requires a faith that they are right in their belief, just like religions