Re: ATHEISM - A Side-Effect of Religious Stupidity

On Tue, 13 May 2008 20:04:15 -0500, SongBookz wrote:

> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:jmapf5-vjp.ln1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Mon, 12 May 2008 22:32:57 -0500, SongBookz wrote:
>>
>>> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:mbdlf5-u05.ln1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> [snips]
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 00:32:43 -0500, SongBookz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Atheism qualifies as religion under word's, "religion," definition:
>>>>>
>>>>> - A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the
>>>>> universe
>>>>
>>>> Whoops, sorry, you dropped the ball there.  The one key aspect of
>>>> atheism is that it is precisely about *not* having a belief.
>>>>
>>>> Nice try, though.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> "A-theism" is not equal to "a-religion."
>>
>> No, it's equal to "a theism", the lack of belief in deities.
>>
>> Which is *exactly* as I said.  It is precisely about *not* having a
>> belief, in contradiction to your assertion that, I quote, "A set of
>> **beliefs**..." [emphasis added]
>>
>>
> "A-theism" refers only to "without theism (or deity," a synonym).. it
> does not refer to religion.  

Let us try this again.

Theism means the presence of a belief.
Atheism means the absence of that belief.

That's it.  It is *nothing* more than the *absence* of a particular 
belief, or type of belief.  It has no other significant features; it does 
not imply liberalism or conservatism, communism or capitalism, being 
white or black or green or orange or polka-dotted.  It is the lack of a 
particular belief.

Since you define religion *as* a belief, or as being about or including a 
particular set of beliefs, it follows that atheism *cannot* be a 
religion, by your own definition, as nothing about atheism implies any 
sort of belief whatsoever, let alone a particular belief.

Thus by your own "thinking", atheism is not a religion.

Which part of this are you having the difficulties with?