WOOT!

One Hundred Pages!

Do I get a prize or something? Certificate for absurdly successful troll?
I would like to thank everybody for the dedication. And keep it on rolling. I'll check back 2020 for page 1000.

Welcome back, oskar. I was rereading the early part of this thread yesterday, including the war of words between you and Tinkster. Not sure who won. :)

There are no winners in internetz religion debates.
However, there are losers.

I don't remember what it was about, and I'm not reading it again. I'm sure it was embarrassing.

…so you think the number of posts/pages will increase exponentially over time, assuming this thread even continues for that long? :D

I hope it doesn't last that long…

EDIT: :doh: Okay, so it wouldn't require an exponential increase…I fail at math today.

Spot on!!!! There are only losers (who joined this thread (including me)):)

edit: arguing on the net is really a sign of bordom:)

I've noticed a problem here...

There are atheistic religions (one example is Buddhism, there's also satanism and even atheistic christians). There also are/were religious scientists (one example is Einstein). Another interesting thing is that in USA in 2005 court ruled that Atheism is a religion.

IMO this means that atheism is not an opposite of religion (is opposite of theism, not religion in general), being scientist doesn't mean being an atheist and that science and religion are compatible with each other. IMO, this pretty much defeats the purpose of all "existence of god" and "atheism vs religion" debates.

Just my 2 cents...

PUHLEASSSSE!!!

Are you really suggesting that Legal/Political decisions should be the basis for the meanings of words. Calling atheism a religion is like calling a vacuum an atmosphere. It tries to equate the lack of something with the presence of it.

These definitions make it clear that atheism is NOT a religion:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=religion
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=atheism

Now if you want to say those that call themselves are as hidebound by their disbelief as those who practice religion are by their beliefs then I'd not argue with you but please don't try to modify the dictionary to serve your point of view.

Also I don't think I ever saw anyone suggests that all scientists are atheists (or vice-versa). If they did they be dead wrong. Much of science is taken of "faith" by those of us who believe the experiments presented were done. Anyone with an open mind should be able to recognize that and I've seen closed minds in the name of science just as I have in the name of religion. The main difference however is that science has built into it the idea that it could be wrong and no religions do.

Buddhism IS not atheism because it meets the definition of religion.

Atheism is a religion? And so is secular humanism??

This is what happens when lawyers decide philosophical matters.

Others were faster in responding, but I'll post this anyway...

From your link:
"...God is unnecessary in Buddhism. For this reason, Buddhism is more accurately called nontheistic than atheistic."

From the Skeptic's Dictionary:
"...to appeal to Einstein to support a point in religion would be to make an irrelevant appeal to authority. Einstein was an expert in physics, not religion."

Of course this bears repeating, "Atheism is a religion the way not collecting stamps is a hobby."

The problem with human language is that different people have slightly different meaning associated with same word and assume that all other people share their opinion. Therefore, sometimes an "official" definition is necessary.

It would make it clear if there were only one definition. There are multiple definitions, and not all of them are incompatible with definition of atheism. See #3 and #4 in "The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language," entry. You could also google for "atheism is religion" for more opinions.
Anyway, I wanted to say that religion and atheism are not mutually exclusive.

There are also laveyan satanism, christian atheists, plus about.com has a list about the subject.

Absolutely, but such an official definition should be provided by linguists who create dictionaries, not politicians.

I think netcrawl's example about stamp collecting sums it all.

I think there's been a misunderstanding. I do not know whether atheism is religion or not.
However, it looks like religion and atheism are not mutually exclusive opposites, since atheistic religions exist.
Plus there are better terms for "opposing religion/belief in a god" - antireligion, antitheism, irreligion.

If you went around and told all the stamp collectors their stamps suck and anytime anyone mentioned stamps they go on for pages about the only way a letter should be mailed is through postage meter I would start to think that is your hobby. The only difference I see between the atheists and other religions is the number of gods believed in. You see the same need to share beliefs, same charisma on both sides, the same need to have people believe the way they do. The Atheists can claim it isn't a religion, but the actions say otherwise.

I was writing this, and then the other thread was closed.

Computers are hardware, similar to your brain, while the software is your consciousness. Of course the software will no longer work when the hardware does. But you should also ask yourself what constitutes "you" ? I think that each neural network becomes self aware and assumes that it is the only one that exists, because it cannot communicate to other networks. This makes you think that you are unique, and gives you a sense of self, and a fear that you may lose this sense when you die. In reality this sense is a lie, you are not unique, but you are not connected to the other networks out there, so you cannot know of them. Also see split brain experiments, i.e. if you split a brain in half each half is only aware of itself, and "you" gets cut it two. One half may want to do something, and the other may try to stop it. I wonder what would happen if you connect many brains together. I think they would meld or merge, and become something different.

Either way, you should not fear death, there is no reason to. But, I'm never gonna say that I know what happens when you die. I have to die to know. I think that only one of two things are likely: 1. Your experiences cease permanently. 2. "You" are software that develops on hardware (your brain). "You" can be created and destroyed, unlike things that exist, so you don't exist until you develop (I guess you can't be installed). However, when you don't exist, you cannot have experiences, so you cannot really die in the traditional sense, because you cannot experience death, it is the lack of experiences, but it is subjective and from an observer's POV. From your POV do your experiences end ? Take software, it die if you uninstall it or remove it from memory, yet it can live again if you install it again. However, there is not disk containing you, and you are not installed, you develop on the hardware. It makes me think on about these things. I'm not saying that you can be reincarnated, no way. But, what's to say that you will not develop again, yet lack any memory of the past. I can probably never know.

So anyone who ever said, "Stamp collecting is a waste of time" is a stamp collector??

I've seen worse arguments, but not many.