come on now everyone knows the the flying spaggetti moneter is part of the NWO. He is "pasta" aka Italin aka Mafia. (never mind spaggetti comes from China that's just what evil poeple who read books think.) He flys around kinda like a "spaceship" huh? And he collects "pirates" this is a symbol for people who are outside society who can see through the sheeple and know about the illuminuts and the 13 wiat now it is 15 families who rule the planet form their space ship in the sky (the monster). The food refference mean they want to eat us. Pastafarianism is an alien word for keep spread entertaining disinformation and ignoring the facts about Israel.

lol pretty good huh?

Not to nitpick Cynagen, because you rock, but technically atheism is the absence of theism, not religion. Like Buddhists who have a religion, but are atheists.

Now most people define religion as only that which has to do with a diety, and I suppose in that sense it could still be the absence of religion.

I agree with that. It's dictionary.com definition #4 that alwasy gets me. Rook and Jake always like to say that 4 is an extension of the first 3, and if that is so, then belief systems without deities aren't religion (as you are positing). I joke, that if definition 4 suffices as religion, then I could be said to go to the bathroom religiously or eat food religiously, or work on the computer religiously.

For reference here's what I'm referring to:

re?li?gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

strange...I get that from theists myself... the religiosity of assholiness.

Theism is a belief in as god?
Antonym
Atheism is a lack of a belief in a god?

Religious is adhering to a belief in a supernaturally based philosophy?
Antonym
Secular is not adhering to a belief in a religion?

Philosophy is a set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity, which may or may not have supernatural parts.

It?s possible, though I haven?t seen it, to have a secular theist, or even a religious atheist.

Most people whom title themselves atheists are also secular atheists, and most people whom call themselves religious are religious theists.

I guess that would make me a secular atheist philosopher.

I added the philosopher part because I follow some philosophies to some extent. One of those I adhere to is Naturalism. I believe that everything can be explained with out the need of anything supernatural.

I would define religion as believing that something supernatural does exist. I'm sure this definition has problems too: You can believe in ghosts, and not have a religion, for example. Guess "religion" is just one of those hard to define words, like "game", "sport", etc. Any definition you come up with will leave some things that fit the category out, or include some things that don't fit (probably both.) But you know what it is when you see it.

The file no longer exists for that mp3.

Well I guess this article would fit in here, its written by Jim Marcus of the band Die Warzau...the beginning is sorta all over the place, as are most of his writings, but he always manages to tie a number of unrelated topics together in the end.

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=3826132&blogID=64665608&Mytoken=8848B7BF-10BF-4F04-837DB99FF79AB4161043797453

Thanks for your input here. I was looking through the relevant portion of your writing, and noticed you included Pantheism in the list of "theisms". But I don't know that there's really any God to speak of in such a system. At least not the sort that would be germane to that which atheism is intended to oppose. I know one can speak of "Ultimate Reality", "The Ultimate" or "Oneness with all", but on a monistic view of the universe, can there be any such distinction between creator/creation?

When I hear the question: "Is atheism a religion?" I usually respond:

"Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair style."

Technically bald doesn't fall under the defintion of what makes a "hair style," as atheism doesn't fall under the definition of what makes a "religion." Bald, however, IS a statment on your current hair state, as atheism is a statement on your current religious state.

The MP3 link has been 404'd. Not there anymore. Help?

It's about 50 minutes after your post and doing the 404 thing.

Sorry bout that guys, I adjusted the link above and here it is again:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/media/Atheismnotbelief-WaronEaster.mp3

I checked, it's working now. Enjoy!

Me too man, we're definetly doing a perpetual enlightenment. We've all been so busy, it seems we've been in the brainstorming phase for about two months. But we'll get there. We've got some good ideas on this. I don't want to release it half assed.

In the meantime, if you create a flyer that you thing is a good nontract, please send it our way.

It says it in the word. (A) meaning "not". (Theist) meaning "one who believes in religion", so putting it together says "not one who believes in a religion".

I'm sure I'm repeating someone because I didn't have the energy to read through this whole thing. But basically you're all throwing around your own definitions of theism and atheism. There can't be more than one.

This will sound REALLY agnostic of me, but I don't have a def. for either because of all of the miscontrued views I have heard throughout me life. To me, in a nutshell, Thesists say that Atheism is a religion just to bug us and Atheists say it's not just to sound even more Atheist.

The bedtime stories of the last melenium have become the building blocks of today.

Which type of atheist is the newborn baby, the first or second?

Incorrect. You're violating one of our irrational precepts here.

Read here to start.

Then here.

Notice the definition of atheism:

atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

Now the definition of disbelief:
disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.

Babies do not believe or credit the existence of Gods, they are without god belief. Anyone without a positive god belief is an atheist. If you have belief you're a theist, everyone else is an atheist. Agnostic has nothing to do with belief, it answers the question "do you know?" Everyone is agnostic, including babies, however I wouldn't be so arrogant as to tell everyone they were agnostic unless they can embrace the term to describe themselves.

I'm willing to discuss this with you further, but hopefully you'll read the two very important articles I posted, and that will open your mind to the non-Christian pre-bastardized definitions.

Obviously someone isn't reading the links. :roll:

Welcome stOneskull!

Saying you are neither a theist or an atheist is like saying a light is neither on nor off.

Not believing is the definition of disbelieving. If the baby doesn't believe he disbelieves, or he is not alive.

Because you have a preconceived notion of how the words are defined given to you by those who had no clue, and haven't accepted the etymology and reality of how the word actually is defined. A baby isn't a theist unless it holds a positive belief in god, if it isn't a theist, it's an atheist. It's rather simple.

Nobody defines mom and dad as god. You could argue it, but most intellectuals would laugh at your unwillingness to embrace reality.

And I noticed on your myspace page you say, "I'm an atheist nihilist agnostic gnostic."

Why muddy the waters with an impossibility? It's that type of dishonesty that I detest from theists.

Everyone on Earth that has a belief in a god or gods is a theist, everyone else is (a)without gods and therefore: atheist.

No.

This might not be the community for you. Most of us here were open minded enough to realize we were lied to about the defineable terms and decided to embrace the actual definition, not the one we brought to the table. I was an agnostic 7 years ago, until I got schooled on the definition and had to accept the fact that I was an atheist or be labeled a close minded fool. So keep using your bastardized Christian definition, might as well attend Church, and pray to Jesus while you're at it.

You mean de-convert others to atheism? Anyway, I gave you the question in hopes that the question would be more awakening to you, then bashing you over the head with a dose of reality. Most people do better and are able to accept a personal misunderstanding when you give them the chance to recognize the problem themselves. The two definitions of atheist you submitted were simply ridiculous.

can there be atheists without theists?

can there be a counter-culture without a culture?

it's very simple to say 'i don't know' you know.

but you know that the counter-theists need theists..

otherwise you'd call em just people right?

a baby is a baby not an atheist.

you can argue they are with a definition,
but arguing that a baby is asexual is weird to me.

you don't seem to appreciate that some people
consider themselves neither theist nor atheist..
knowing full well the official definitions.