[ShizukaMikudou]

Originally Posted by killshot

First of all, your account is new and you immediately jumped into an incredibly controversial topic. Second, your posts contain common fallacies which appear so frequently I can't help but assume they are intentional.And lastly, your post style is weird and draws attention to itself.

One, so what if my account is new? As far as I know, there aren't any rules about requirements for account experience and age in order to post. I find that rather rude that the age of my account should somehow label me a troll and render my due respect as a human being less than any other member here. Second, as I have said before, there are no rules against my being allowed to post here as long as I follow the rules. You can claim that my posts contain fallacies, and believe it too, but in the same way, I could easily say that you are just as wrong. Instead of just telling you so, though, I take on a mature approach by discussing it in a civilized manner. You can choose whatever you want to believe, or not. You can call it all lies. I believe in the same way that the atheistic beliefs are severely flawed and logically impossible. But in a proper debate, it actually matters less about what you believe and claim is true or not - what matters is if you can back up your claims with evidence, reasoning, and logic. Lastly, cursing, telling me that I don't know what we are talking about, and telling me that I don't know how to use the internet, are not helping your stance in this discussion.

Originally Posted by killshot

No. No it isn't.

See original post for full quote.
My source was certainly more professional than a wikipedia page. How about this, then? Secular Humanism. In this very well researched article, Secular Humanists are indeed atheists. This article explains it very clearly.

Originally Posted by killshot

Here. A quick google search would clear up most of the confusion you seem to be experiencing. If you want to have a real discussion, you need to familiarize yourself with what we are actually talking about.

I reference to the Secular Humanism article above, which explains and tells exactly what atheism is all about.

Originally Posted by killshot

Worldview
1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
Religion
a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
Seriously, can you not use the internet? How hard would it be to look this up and get on the same page as everyone else?

Please read my first paragraph. Yes I can use the internet, and yes, indeed, these definitions pop up if you were to google the definition. Did I say I agreed with these definitions? There are many definitions of the words, and I believe that the definition of religion here is very fallible, for it uses the word, religious, in its own definition. A religion isn't all about praying and believing in a god.

Originally Posted by killshot

Please stop telling me what I believe.

I'm glad that we are on the same page about atheism, then. So you understand that I do indeed know what atheism is. Since you do not disagree, then unless you have anything else profound to say, then you have lost the debate arguing against the philosophy that everyone has a religion and worldview. Although it also technically means that the statement that Atheism is a religion has met no more arguments against it, I assume that isn't the case yet.

Originally Posted by grimfang999

You are disputing religion, which in the context of religion, belief means following of religious code and God.
As soon as you go into talking about chairs...

See the original post for full quote.
You are correct in that the chair is related to particle physics, senses and philosophy, however the focus now is that you believe in those atoms and their purpose. But have you ever seen how the atoms do it? Scientists claim that the atoms are there and have those massive gaps, yet most of us have never truly seen these atoms and understood how they really work. You rely on faith alone, and trust in your judgement that what you see is real.

Although you originally read the term, belief, in a very broad context, it is not. If a religion is only a worldview in which you follow God, then the term should be discarded completely from this entire discussion. But that doesn't change my argument that Atheism is another subcategory amongst Christianity, Buddhism, Nihilism, and Communism. Many of these have similar philosophies - Atheists and Communists do not believe in God. Buddhists and Shintoists believe in many gods. Christianity and Judaism both believe in one God. But they are all philosophic beliefs about reality.

Originally Posted by grimfang999

You stated this:
Atheism=No belief in God
Atheism=Secular humanist
Secular humanist=No belief in God
Secular humanist=individualistic
Meanwhile
Communism=Collectivist
Individualism opposes Collectivism
Communism=/=Secular humanist
Therefore
Communism=/=Atheist
However, Communists are anti-religious. The way you phrased it, all Atheists are secular humanists, therefore communists cannot be Atheists, but they in fact generally are. This therefore renders your argument pointless. You didnt menion communism, and that was the exact problem.

I know what Communism is, and although it has many similarities with Atheism including the non-belief in God, it has a very different philosophy, which is what you said right there - Communists are Collectivists, and Secular Humanists are individualists. Secular Humanists and Communists, also known as Marxists, are both atheists. I do not disagree with that. The atheists that everyone here are, as it appears, Secular Humanists. Yes, Marxists are also atheistic in that they do not believe in a god, however my explanation on Secular Humanists, which is a [i]religious[i] worldview, as stated in the Secular Humanists article link that I posted above, was to prove that atheism is a philosophy that has its own sets of beliefs, just like all the other religions.

Originally Posted by grimfang999

As I stated, many moral views come from society itself, but some ideas are universally held and have clear links into the means of survival...

See original post for full quote.
"Hell even on the right wing which see humans as evil..." I cannot make sense of this phrase. Are you saying "Hell", which is on a "wing", sees humans as evil?
Anyway, that still doesn't explain why our nature is to believe that stealing and killing is generally a moral injustice. Wild animals don't see it as unjust, yet we generally believe that the Holocaust was a terrible thing on behalf of the millions of Jews cruelly tortured and mass-murdered. As naturally social beings in nature, we learn from each others' mistakes, and especially as children, we pick up morals from each other. But again, this doesn't fully explain where the morality originates from. In terms of an atheistic philosophy that the world has no beginning, when did who or what in the first place decide the morals that we share today? The claim that morality is part of our nature contradicts with this. In terms of an atheistic philosophy that the world happened by accident, the link is broken, for there is no initial morality, as animals do not share the same beliefs on injustices that we do. The origin of morality has no base in either philosophy, and the existence of morality proves the existence of a moral law giver.
"Most people (Atheist or not) inherently know that systems that lead to such atrocities must be wrong, but Atheists cannot give a logical reason for why it is wrong." Quoted from this article, http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion
"A world governed purely by Atheistic, evolutionary ethics has been shown by history to be a horrible place to live. Most Atheists recognize this and choose to live by the ethical systems of other religions instead, or at the very least, live by the laws enforced by the government." Also quoted from that article.

Originally Posted by grimfang999

Are you sure you are a Christian?...

See original post for full quote
I guess I should make my sarcasm clearer. I am only explaining the points in the atheistic philosophy that prove that atheism is a philosophy. If you want me to tell you all about what I, as a Christian, believe, then fine, but the original subject was on atheism's status as a philosophy and religion.

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

In regards to the first definition, well...

See original post for full quote.
Atheism is the belief that there is no god. To better explain this: I may have already referenced this, but this gives the answer. Also stated in this article, the biggest reason that atheists try to claim that their philosophy is not a religion is to "allow them to propagate their beliefs in settings where other religions are banned, but this should not be so." Quoting from that very article. But due to this, public schools try to enforce many atheistic philosophies on the students, such as the flawed and failing theory of evolution. Atheism is "not just the lack of belief in a god, but the assertion about the non-existence of any gods, spirits, or divine or supernatural beings." Quoted from the article link above.

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

Well, once again, what you said makes little to no sense...

See original post for full quote
Yes, I'm afraid you are incorrect in your assumption, but that only means it can't be helped that you are led to think that. I am not telling you to suddenly change definitions of words, like a made up language, but often times the given definition found on Google or even Webster is incorrect when used to claim that atheism is not a religion.

I quote from the article link posted in reply to your first argument in your last post: "Atheism will be defined in the contemporary western sense: not just the lack of belief in a god, but the assertion about the non-existence of any gods, spirits, or divine or supernatural beings. Atheists in this sense are metaphysical naturalists, and as will be shown, they DO follow a religion.

Religion is a difficult thing to define. Various definitions have been proposed, many of which emphasize a belief in the supernatural.4 But such definitions break down on closer inspection for several reasons. They fail to deal with religions which worship non-supernatural things in their own right (for example Jainism, which holds that every living thing is sacred because it is alive, or the Mayans who worshiped the sun as a deity in and of itself rather than a deity associated with the sun)5; they fail to include religions such as Confucianism and Taoism which focus almost exclusively on how adherents should live, and the little they do say about supernatural issues such as the existence of an afterlife is very vague; they also don’t deal with religious movements centered around UFOs—which believe that aliens are highly (evolutionarily) advanced (but not supernatural) beings."

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

You seem to be working under the misconception...

See original post for full quote.
Atheists generally believe that "humans are basically good." Quoted from the article, Atheist: A religion article. As I have said before, this is difficult to explain, because the words closest to the correct explanation often have other meanings attached to them. Instead, I will use examples to explain this. Although you may not consider yourself an idol or role model - and of course, you likely aren't some celebrity on American Idol or a famous philosopher whose words are almost always accepted by society - you trust in yourself, right? You trust that if you see a wall in front of you, there is indeed a wall in front of you, and your eyes do not lie to you. Almost every religion has its own definition of "god". Being an atheist, you (not you specifically; any atheist in general) choose not to believe in a god, because your definition of a god is "a supernatural figure that demands worship", and you view it in the same light as unicorns and magic. The difference between the atheistic definition, the Christian definition, and a very philosophic definition, such as the one I am trying to imply, needs to be understood before this argument can continue.

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

That is not what being skeptical means...

See original post for full quote.
I am not the one being skeptical, but knowing that the subject is being approached very skeptically, I delve into philosophy and logic to further explain my beliefs. The definition of 'skeptical' is "relating to, characteristic of, or marked by skepticism." and the definition of 'skepticism' is "an attitude of doubt." Both definitions were taken from the Marriam-Webster dictionary. In the same way, the subject I have been explaining is viewed very skeptically.
And I agree that this debate is not really worth having, and it is getting far off topic; I don't see why you are so hung up about word definitions.

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

Atheism is not a worldview, it is ...

See original post for full quote.
I have already answered this, and given a source as well: http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion. Atheism is "not just the lack of belief in a god, but the assertion about the non-existence of any gods, spirits, or divine or supernatural beings. Atheists in this sense are metaphysical naturalists, and as will be shown, they DO follow a religion." Quoted from that article.

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

I actually do not mind that...

See original post for full quote.
I am not changing what it is. It is atheists who try to change what their religion is by calling it something else. I also wonder many questions like that: Why are you so determined to claim that atheism is not a religion? Why are some people so determined to make homosexuality natural? (And please do not start that debate here, anyone) The issue here is that you are trying to claim that atheism has no belief, faith, or worldview. If atheism has no rules, then nothing in the world is just or unjust, nothing in the world is true. I could go on, but you have just said atheism is basically the belief in nothing. And I mean absolutely nothing. Nothing philosophical, nothing moral, nothing at all. But you obviously have something you're trying to prove, here, or else you do not even have a reason to debate. If atheism were the lack of belief in any philosophy, then anyone claiming to be an "atheist" shouldn't believe in any truth whatsoever, and thus, they would get absolutely nowhere in life.
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." -Albert Einstein
I'll even go on to say that a true atheist, with the definition you provided, has little more of a mind than a robot. I do not mean this, of course, but that is because I believe that atheists do indeed have their own set of beliefs, and without those beliefs, they have no reason for anything they do, and nothing they do is of their own will.

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

Well, now you have moved the ...

See original post for full quote.
Then why are you telling me that I'm changing a definition, when the legal definition isn't so reliable either? When I say that I give a better definition, "better" really does mean better. In other words, you could say that it is a more reliable definition, a truer definition than the "legal definition" which isn't so perfect.

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

It is also worth noting that while atheism is not a religion...

See original post for full quote.
Either an atheist Buddhist is following his/her own made-up religion, taking selected beliefs from both religions, or he/she is just a very confused person. Buddhism is not the belief in a lack of a god - it is the belief where "Buddha" is their "god" figure whose "teachings" are what the religion is based on. You cannot be truly both, for they obviously do not share the same philosophies on life.
The reason that the atheists were acting in a religious manner is that they were trying to enforce their beliefs, because they were trying to teach atheism. It also makes no sense that you are trying to claim that they weren't truly atheists, since they believe in the same philosophies as an atheist. The reason why atheists can even try to preach their beliefs at all is because atheism is something they believe. The constant argument here that atheism has no belief, is not a religion, and believes in nothing, yet believes in anything at all, is a huge contradiction of itself in the most severe lack of logic.

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

This I have already refuted, so I will end here by saying, you never answered my question, so I suspect you simply cannot understand why you are wrong.
Thus why a meeting of minds between is impossible.

Okay, what question? You didn't ask a question. You just simply said once more that atheism isn't a religion, as you have been saying this entire time. By all philosophical evidence, logical reasoning, and facts, I have proved many, many times over just how atheism is a religion.

Anyway, thank you for your thoughts and contribution to this discussion. I had to shorten the quotes since this post was getting too big. xD

In my opinion, I also understand that the debate between Christianity and Atheism is one of biggest ones out there, yet I have seen that the atheistic struggle is losing, one of the biggest reasons being its many holes in logic and scientific evidence. God not so dead: Atheism in decline worldwide.
As a Christian, I also understand that the religion, Christianity, is the most targeted religion for attacks, because of the struggles of Satan himself.
But I am not afraid to stand up for my belief, if not at least to clear up the misinterpretation, and to explain what it really is. I go to a Christian school, and I have been taught Christian principles since I was a toddler, so I am very confident in my beliefs.
I also do not discourage a mature debate, because I believe that through inquisition comes knowledge, and by being challenged, and knowing the answer, my belief only gets stronger.
"Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble." -Albert Einstein
So basically, I think that it is good to debate about these things, because it leads people to gain more knowledge with which they can better judge the world and form their worldview.