3/24    acknowledging God != religion
        \_ More to the point, acknowledging God != establishing religion
        Religion is a very exact way of trying to approch God.
        Atheist acknowledge the absence of God , whether he exists
        or not, they are establishing the fact that he could exist
        and that is either religious or not religious, Either way,
        not stating God is either establishing atheism as a religion
        or stating God is not religious but acknowledging he could
        exist.
        \_ Not stating God is not stating Atheism.
           Stating there is no God is stating Atheism.
        \_ I think you're confusing Atheism with agnosticism.  Atheism is
           a religion.
           \_ 'Strong' Atheism = "There is no God."
              'Weak' Atheism = "The case for God remains unproven."
              \_ I think you're confusing Atheism with agnosticism.  Atheism
                 is a religion.
                 \_ Religion: 1. The outward act or form by which men
                    indicate their recognition of the existence of a
                    god or of gods having power over their destiny.
                    So, atheism is by definition not a religion.  -tom
                    \_ Definitions of religion and atheism are fluid and
                       sticky. Here's one way to look at it: religion can be
                       defined as a belief system based on faith, not proof.
                       An atheist believes God doesn't exist even if it can't
                       be proven that God doesn't exist. A Christian believes
                       God exists even if it can't be proven that God exists.
                       So both are religions. Agnostics are actually less of
                       a religion, since agnostics aren't sure either way and
                       need some sort of proof to make up their minds.
                       \_ alt.atheism agrees with you, tom is a twink
                          \_ alt.atheism claims that atheism is a religion?
                             I think not.
                       \_ Well I believe religion involves a system of belief.
                          Not just existence/nonexistence. You could say that
                          simple theism isn't a religion, and I'd could agree,
                          but who is just a theist without any further belief?
                          You'd be believing there's a god without any notion
                          or system of behavior associated with it, which is
                          pretty rare, basically impossible depending on your
                          definition of what god is.
                       \_ Religion cannot be defined as "a belief system based
                          on faith, not proof."  Well, you can define it that
                          way, but your definition will have no validity
                          outside of your own skull.
                          \_ m-w has 4 definitions for religion, one of them
                             is "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held
                             to with ardor and faith", and one of the
                             definitions of faith is "firm belief in something
                             for which there is no proof", so I don't think
                             the definition given is "invalid". I understand
                             that it's not your definition, and that's fine.
                             \_ In addition to having no clue theoolgically,
                                you also can't read a dictionary.  -tom
                             \_ Good point.  And while I do not believe in
                                Santa Claus, I have no definitive proof that
                                the occasional present that noone has any
                                idea who gave it is not, in fact, from
                                Santa.  So, I guess I am religious.
                          In addition, believing something *does* exist, with
                          no proof, is not the same as believing something
                          *doesn't* exist.  The burden of proof is on the
                          person who claims that something exists--if there's
                          no evidence that something exists, why should
                          anyone believe it does?  So atheism isn't even
                          a belief system--it's just an examination of the
                          available facts.  -tom
                          \_ Why is it more natural to assume that something
                             doesn't exist than to assume it does? -- ilyas
                             \_ because the set of things that exist is
                                finite, and the set of things that don't
                                exist is infinite.  -tom
                                \_ The set of things that exist is not
                                   necessarily finite.  No one knows how large
                                   the Universe is.  Also, a more reasonable
                                   rule is that the burden of proof is on
                                   the person whose hypothesis is more
                                   'expensive'.  For instance, I think the sun
                                   exists, and someone might not.  The burden
                                   of proof ought not be on me, it seems.
                                   You can argue that God is more expensive to
                                   assume than no God, but that's a whole
                                   separate discussion.  Personally, I believe
                                   even that rule is too rigid, and that
                                   the burden of proof is on anyone who
                                   proposes anything, regardless of what
                                   their hypothesis claims. -- ilyas
                                   \_ Just because a set is finite doesn't
                                      mean you can't add to it.  Besides,
                                      God is more expensive because he
                                      wants 10% of your income.
                                \_ huh? how can you quantify things that
                                do not exists?
                                   \_ set of possibilities != existing
                                \_ take a math course please
                                \_ haha= so ZERO = INFINITY?
                             \_ Because there's no evidence for it. Things that
                                exist have evidence for their existence.
                          \_ so why do you ignore the fact that millions
                           if not billions of people believe in God?
                           That was be circumstantial evidence to prove
                           that you must as an atheist acknowledge the
                           the possibility that God does exist.
                              \_ What other people believe isn't relevant to
                                 truth. We know lots of cases in history
                                 where people believed something untrue.
                                 Additionally, the fact that all these people
                                 can't agree on the nature of god, and have
                                 lots of variations, and often don't act as
                                 if they truly believe what they say, and
                                 when asked admit they don't really know for
                                 sure and rely on faith, can be seen as
                                 against the existence of god. In fact,
                                 observational evidence tells me there's no
                                 sign of any god and never has been.
                           \_ Are you trying to convert me by speaking in
                              tongues?  Millions of people believe that
                              Britney Spears has talent, that doesn't make
                              it true.  -tom
                        \_ alt.atheism agrees with you, tom is a twink
                 \_ I'm not confusing anything.  I simply offered a definition
                    that you disagree with.
                    \_ him and the entire secular society that knows anything
           \_ "There is not Santa Claus"  -Would you say this is also a
              religion, by your above definition?  How about "There are no
              underpants gnomes"?
              \_ just stating the existance of something doesn't make that
                 a religion.
              \_ I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here.  All
                 I'm saying is that it's difficult to prove the
                 nonexistance of anything.  Atheists believe there is no
                 God.  Religion is just a question of existance that is
                 so important it defines a person's view of the universe.
                 I don't think the existance or nonexistance of Santa
                 Clause carries the same wieght.
        \_ Huh?  What kind of circular run-on talk is this?
        \_ If you're not informed enough to know the distinction between
           an atheist and an agnostic, why should we listen to your poorly
           worded and convoluted thoughts on religion and presumably its
           role in government?