[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by ahammer

so what you are saying that a athiesth can know there is no god.. unless they can is it still a belief. (and if ether side can prove themself right with no way to disprove it then there would be no other reiligions)

Athiests don't 'know there is no god'. Some may claim that, but it is not something that can be attributed to athiests as a group. The majority of athiests simply don't believe in god in the same way they don't believe in fairies or magic slippers. Is not believing in magic slippers a 'belief'? No, it's not.

the only way that athiesm can come up as lack of belief in god is for the person to have never incountered a person that believes in a god(s).(I think you will find no one on this world that has not) else they must chose to say that "I belief there is no god" to be a athiest.

Athiesm is by definition the lack of a belief in god. Theism = a belief in god(s). Athiesm = the lack of a belief in god(s).

Your viewpoint starts from a false assumption that it requires some kind of knowledge or proof to not believe in the existence of gods. You imply that it is an active belief to deny the existence of something for which there is no reason to believe exists.

It's a difficult distinction for some people to understand, but:
not believing in something is not a belief in itself.

Not believing in god is not the same as believing there isn't a god.

Not believing I am wearing green socks is not the same as believing I am not wearing green socks. Can you see the difference? To believe I am not wearing green socks you would have to go on faith or some evidence, some reason to believe I am wearing green socks. To not believe I am wearing green socks simply means you don't have an opinion on the matter, probably because you have no way of knowing the answer.

One is an assertion: a belief based on faith or evidence.
The other is a neutral stance based on the question being in itself meaningless. An athiest has seen no evidence for the existence of god, and therefore doesn't have an opinion on the matter (since to him it is an irrelevant question).

this is a moot point as they do not expen how the world began.
Athiesm does try to explan this point. that is why it is a religion and said "magic slippers" is not

I think you just said that athiesm is a religion because it tries to explain how the world began. This is so wildly wrong that I don't know where to start.

Firstly, there are no beliefs in anything (let alone the beginning of the world) in athiesm. There is no set of common beliefs or values that athiests share. This is why athiesm is not a religion. It is a single opinion on a question that is meaningless to athiests - that there is no belief in gods. All other values, beliefs, etc. are unique to the individual.

Religion claims (generally) to explain the beginning of the world, universe, etc. But since athiesm is not a system of beliefs it cannot and does not make the same claim.

athiests do have a set of beliefs they all hold
that man was made thru natual meens.
that the universe was made thru natual meens.

You're viewing athiesm through a paradigm that is completely opposite to it - religion.

And it also needs to be said (apparently) that no other beliefs that an athiest has are directly tied to their lack of belief in god. That is a hallmark of religion - 'god did it'. Athiests are not tied to a common interpretation of the universe, and any attribution of common ideas to religion is simply the religious paradigm failing to understand that not everybody has religion.

Athiests do not claim to know (well, some will, some won't, but that is just further proof that there is no athiest belief system) how the world came into existence (at least not beyond currently understood scientific knowledge). As with the question of whether or not there is a god, the most common athiest response would be 'I don't know' or 'it's impossible to know' or 'it's irrelevant'.

tell me when you look up words do they have to meet all the diffrent useage
becuse if so there are a lot of word that must confuse you.

If you are going to provide a definition of a word to try to prove that something fits that word's definition, at least one of the definitions has to fit. Athiesm does not fit any definition of the word 'religion'.

im also of the belief right now nothing I say will let you see my point and yet still I try hmmm.

At the risk of being blunt, what you are saying is flat out wrong. Athiesm is not a religion. It is the lack of a single belief in something for which there is no reason (to an athiest at least) to believe in.

As someone said, athiesm is a religion as much as not collecting stamps is a hobby. Do you collect stamps? If not, do you identify yourself as having 'not collecting stamps' as a hobby?

I think our big issue here is there is not realy a set diff on what a religion is.
we each have diffrent veiws on how it sould be defined.

Most dictionaries agree on what a religion is, and so do most people.

Put simply, a religion is a belief system, usually including a belief in a supernatural god or gods, accompanied by set laws and values.

No matter what the definition, athiesm does not fit a definition of religion any more than not believing in magic slippers fits the definition of a religion. You've yet to provide a single point that backs up your claim that not believing in god is a religion.