rladlof.

You seem to think my posts are discussing whether or not god exists. Reread my posts. I only present a proof that atheism is not a religion. I make no argument for deity existence one way or the other.

You are conflating concept with reality. A concept can exist wether or not the reality actually does.

Your premise is a good illustration of circular reasoning: "Ignorance of a deity does not negate that entity.". You presuppose your conclusion before you've proven it. Your premise is that this "entity" is a given. My own premise only states that there is a concept that we are discussing. This requires no proof, only agreement of terms:Responding to my posts using my concepts to make your point implies that you agree that the concepts(theism and atheism) exist. If you can't distinguish concept from reality you are beyond any illumination that I can provide for you and you are a poor advocate for your own point of view.

I am talking about the definition of 2 concepts, I'm not attempting to prove the existence of a god. If you have a rebuttal, make sure you are rebutting something I'm talking about.

@MDFISHER272: Actually, there were a number of conversations going on here . . . You are crossing my conversations with other folk with what I typed in response to you.

My points in my conversations with you are:

Concepts exist in language. Without language there is no framework for the concept to exist in. What is, is. If a concept is framed as the negative of another concept and that concept non-extant and the conditions for that other concept are non-existent in a society, the initial mirroring concept would not exist. There would be no need for the counter/negative concept. If there is no theism, there is no atheism. There is only the raw naked universe in all its splendor . . . The folk may come up with the concept that there is no god/guiding entity/hairy cosmic muffin monster/invisible sky-wizard BUT that would not be atheism . . . and the idea that there is a (fill in the blank) would be the “not” concept.

The idea that you are all-hurt that Mr. Hartman labeled your fanatical obsession as a religion just cause the article you have deified is concept “the lack of a deity” is worthy of a little mocking . . . All atheists need to do is point out that evangelism is an aspect of some religions BUT not actually religion itself . . . The same is true of sports fans . . . and of meth-addicts . . . and other zealotry. I am not judging you for your fixation . . . Hell, enjoy the heck outta it . . . It isn’t hurting folk . . . BUT inflicting it upon others and ridiculing others seems a little ishy and you seem more than a little reaction-formation driven. SIDE NOTE: It is your visceral reaction, your need to attempt to return a slur for what you perceive is a slur, that betrays you.

@MAXROT: Yes, of course, theism, like all –isms, are mental constructs. Toss in a little Aristotle and Socrates and material objects simply become tangible manifestations of the thought . . . Leading me to my own personal long-held belief that only nipple-piercings are real.

@Gerald: All religions and atheism are belief systems but not all belief systems are religions and/or atheism. The issue becomes murky when an individual elevates the concept of “there is no god” into a godhead and worships it. At that point, the practioner looses autonomy and a sense of being.