quote:

ORIGINAL: LanceHughes

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather

quote:

it is a lack of any fucking belief.

No Hun, it's not. God is a religious concept, and the question of the existence or non-existence of a god is a question of religious significance, it is in fact the most fundamental of religious questions.

Atheism is a belief on one particular answer to that question, the lack of a god is a religious stance. It is a belief that negates most religions, but it is still a belief regarding the most basic of religious questions, therefore it is a religious belief.

You, and the other atheists do in fact have religious beliefs in as much as you have beliefs on religious issues and questions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather
come on lance, there's a fucking hole in her logic there somewhere, i just can't find it yet.

Well, on first glane, she's defining what she wants to prove.  Circular argument is what I call it. LOL!
--------
God is a religious concept, and the question of the existence or non-existence of a god is a question of religious significance, it is in fact the most fundamental of religious questions.

That wasn't too hard. First sentence gives it up.  Take out "God is a religious concept," since that's a "DUH."  Then take out "or non-existence" since that's redundant.  Take out "it is in fact, the most fundamental of religious questions." since that's a "DUH" again.  We're left with:
 
The question of the existence of a god is a question of religious significance.

Not sure that's true, unless you want to define it that way.  The "existence question" more often falls under the subject of Philosophy.
---------------
Atheism is a belief [in] one particular answer to that question, the lack of a god is a religious stance.
She left out "thus...the lack of a god is...."  Again.  Defining Atheism as what she wants to define it as.  My definition?  A-theism is what the Latin break-down says which is literally "without gawd."  Madalyn Murray O'Hare made the following statement before the Supreme Court:
 
BRB

---------------

 
 
It is a belief that negates most religions, but it is still a belief regarding the most basic of religious questions, therefore it is a religious belief.

You, and the other atheists do in fact have religious beliefs in as much as you have beliefs on religious issues and questions.

Let's strip it down:

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

Well... I have read the posts until here (excepting some like the OP - hidden). I would like to propose a consensus.

The lack of belief is not a belief. It is a lack, not a belief. It is not "the opposite", it is another category of things. A belief is a specific kind of mental process. A lack is a specific kind of status. Therefore, Atheism, as it being lack of belief, is not a religious belief, it is a status over religious beliefs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather

Atheism is not a lack of belief, it is the belief in the nonexistence of god.

quote:

Our resident philosopher just shot his foot off again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather

quote:

Our resident philosopher just shot his foot off again.

fuck that. at this point i say that, at least in this context, that title goes to heather.

quote:

- Atheist: Does not believe in God. Lack of belief.
- Strong Atheist: Believes that God does not exists.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LanceHughes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
<snipped>
No I do not get it, it appears to defy reason.

I'm going to strip it down.....

I think we can all agree that: "If you are religious, you have beliefs."

The converse is: "If you have beliefs, you are religious."

Here's an example of why the converse is not (always) true:

Believers in Ra also believed the Sun would rise - mainly because they believed it was the chariot of Ra and the proper spells and chants and incantations had been done by the priest that morning.

I believe (as I assume you do) that the Sun will "rise" tomorrow.  Doesn't make me believe in Ra any more than it makes you believe in Ra.

Get it?

Take a beginning logic class. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather

quote:

- Atheist: Does not believe in God. Lack of belief.
- Strong Atheist: Believes that God does not exists.

Exactly how does not believing in a god differ from believing a god doesn't exist? They are just two ways of saying the same thing. Let's take god out of the question for a minute, I don't believe in dragons/I don't believe dragons exist; what's the difference?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather

Atheism is not a lack of belief, it is the belief in the nonexistence of god.

Nope, it is not. Please check the Oxford dictionary in English. It is online.
What you are describing is considered "strong Atheism", on that you can check the wikipedia and its sources.
What you describe later is "weak Atheism", and also considered a kind of Atheism, entering the same general category of "lack of belief in a God".

In English (consult the Oxford):
- Atheist: Does not believe in God. Lack of belief.
- Strong Atheist: Atheist who believes that God does not exists.
- Weak Atheist (sometimes called Agnostics): Atheist who does not believe that God does not exist either (no matter why, how, etc.).

Please, really, consult the sources I mentioned. I am rechecking what I write because this is not my mother tongue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Because if people believe a God exists they then believe that they must believe in that God.

Because if a God as depicted in our terms does exist, logically not believeing in said God would have consequenses.

Therefore people "believe" to avoid those consequenses. This is one of those things I find disgusting about humans. A Christian once argued with me, and his final argument to me was " But what if it is true ? ". Buddy, you just lost because to believe out of fear is slavery, in fact worse. I think it is the epitome of cowardice.

ETA : I think this about fits - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhSYbRiYwTY

T^T

quote:

ORIGINAL: LanceHughes

quote:

ORIGINAL: LanceHughes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
<snipped>
No I do not get it, it appears to defy reason.

I'm going to strip it down.....

I think we can all agree that: "If you are religious, you have beliefs."

The converse is: "If you have beliefs, you are religious."

Here's an example of why the converse is not (always) true:

Believers in Ra also believed the Sun would rise - mainly because they believed it was the chariot of Ra and the proper spells and chants and incantations had been done by the priest that morning.

I believe (as I assume you do) that the Sun will "rise" tomorrow.  Doesn't make me believe in Ra any more than it makes you believe in Ra.

Get it?

Take a beginning logic class. 

Real0ne: As usual, you glossed over this post.  Please respond. 

<edited to correct Real0ne's user name.  Sorry.>

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather

Atheism is not a lack of belief, it is the belief in the nonexistence of god.

A lack of belief in this context would be irreligion. I, for example am irreligious, I am neither a theist nor an atheist. I don't believe god exists, nor do I believe god doesn't exist, I simply have no beliefs one way or another. The issue simply doesn't exist for me other than as a mildly entertaining metal exercise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LanceHughes

I categorically state: "The Judeo-Xtian God does NOT exist."  No belief there.  Plain and simple.  Okay?

P.S.  Can't make me prove a negative - don't even ask.  Those that claim the udeo-Xtian God exists have the burden of proof.  They've been at it for 2,000 years, and I've been waiting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.

Actually, it looks like the decision is from August 2005.

...The court decided the inmate's First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.

The appellate court ruled the atheist group must be given the same rights as other religious groups.  This is what they said about it:


"...The problem with the district court's analysis is that the court failed to recognize that Kaufman was trying to start a "religious" group, in the sense that we discussed earlier.  Atheism is Kaufman's religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being.  As he explained in his application, the group wanted to study freedom of thought, religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, practices, all presumably from an atheistic perspective.  It is undisputed that other religious groups are permitted to meet at Kaufman's prison, and the defendants have advanced no secular reason why the security concerns they cited as a reason to deny his request for an atheist group do not apply equally to a gathering of Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or Wiccan inmates.  The defendants argue that all they are doing is accommodating religious groups as a whole, as they are required to do under RLUIPA.  See Cutter, 125 S.Ct.2113; Charles, 348 F.3d at 610-1.  But the defendants have not answered Kaufman's argument that by accommodating some religious views, but not his, they are promoting the favored ones.  Because the defendants failed even to articulate- much less support with evidence- a secular reason why a meeting of atheist inmates would pose a greater security risk than meeting of inmates of other faiths, their rejection of Kaufman's request cannot survive..."

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=263x9681


The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being.

Then their decision makes sense.  The atheist group is a "religious" group, and the prison must grant them the same rights as the other religious groups that meet there.