Bartender wrote:

Atheism and theism are forms of religious belief.

The former isn't a religion.

It isn't a religion, however it is a belief about religion, thus the term I used "religious belief".

Thats not really a great term for a religious belief even in that sense. It would contradict itself in a sentence.

"Atheism is a religious belief about the rejection of the existance of deities."

It would suggest that Atheism is religious.

Its more accurate saying Atheism is a belief about religion. Tho imo your just using thatexcuse to cover up what u said....

Agnosticism is the "common sense" approach. We don't know how we're here, we will never know, and there is no point in believing in something we will never know is the truth. We believe there was dinosaurs because there are dinosaur bones. We believe the Romans and Greeks existed because of, well, Rome and Greece.

Bartender wrote:

It isn't a religion, however it is a belief about religion, thus the term I used "religious belief".

It's a belief concerning god. The concept of a deity in itself isn't a religion.

It is a belief concerning a concept present in many religions. It doesn't apply to all religions, but it only applies to religions, so using the term religious belief is still OK. Also religious belief isn't the same thing as religion.

Bartender wrote:

It is a belief concerning a concept present in many religions. It doesn't apply to all religions, but it only applies to religions, so using the term religious belief is still OK. Also religious belief isn't the same thing as religion.

Exactly, which disproves your own argument. It's a belief concerning a concept (god); that concept being present in many religions is irrelevant. Atheism doesn't have a direct correlation with religion. It has a direct correlation with god. Since God is present in many religions, and since atheism is a lack of belief in god, consequently, many atheists are not religious. However, you can still be religious and atheistic.

If you have a religious belief, then you're a part of a religion.
You're fallaciously playing with words.

Atheism isn't a lack in the belief in God, but the belief in the lack of God. You need not be religious to hold a religious belief - not a belief that is religious, but a belief about religion. God is very relevant to some religions.

You can twist it however you like.
The point remains that atheism is a belief concerning god and god alone. A deity, not a religious figure. Theism, atheism, agnosticism, etc. are not religious beliefs. Deism and Christianity are religious beliefs.

By saying atheism is a religious belief, you'd essentially be saying, "you have a religious belief about a religious belief" for people who are atheist and without a religion.

"Common sense" is accepting and believing in things by means of logic and other things. Ignoring the insurmountable amount of evidence supporting the inexistence of god just because we don't (yet) have the capability to thoroughly prove it isn't what I would regard as common sense.

It's funny how you used those examples with the dinosaurs as if that's actually how agnosticism works. Atheism works more closely to that than agnosticism. We don't believe god because there's no bones to be found. Agnosticism is 'I don't care because I don't believe we can find the bones anyway'.

gardenhead wrote:

"Common sense" is accepting and believing in things by means of logic and other things. Ignoring the insurmountable amount of evidence supporting the inexistence of god just because we don't (yet) have the capability to thoroughly prove it isn't what I would regard as common sense.

Would this "insurmountable amount of evidence supporting the inexistence of god," be actual evidence of absence, or just an absence of evidence?

I'm new here, so ignore my input if you please however this thread has impassioned me to post a couple of my thoughts. I'll number them in an attempt to keep it organized and brief.

1) I know this is a forum intended for teens, but if you're going to discuss a topic that requires adult maturity, I don't understand why people are more consumed with "being right" or "catching someone in a lie" instead of forgiving their "poor" choice of words and trying to grasp the point or context and respond to that.

2) Religion and anything that falls remotely near that broad category tends to be very ambiguous. People interpret "God" as a concept in many different ways and apply very limited or specific attributes to it. If you're going to discuss a topic of religion/irreligion, it is smart to clearly outline a definition of each term. No one seems to have bothered to open a dictionary or Wikipedia.

3) Simply put and obviously you could expand it.
'Agnosticism' is a view (more firmly than it is a belief) that the truth value to both sides of the debate arguing the existence of God (and other metaphysical claims) have flaws and it is unknowable. You cannot refute this as a logical stance since no one has definitively proven or proven false God's existence. The word 'Agnostic' is derived from the word "agnostos" meaning "ignorant, not knowing". It certainly is not a stance that lacks consideration and decision, it's rooted in human experience.

'Atheism' is a little trickier since you can logically argue two different atheistic stances; implicit atheist and explicit atheist.

An implicit atheist is someone with an absence of theistic belief but with no conscious rejection of it. (ie a baby, living pet, etc.)

An explicit atheist is obviously someone who refutes the concept or existence of God. (ie. every self-proclaimed atheist in this thread)

Atheism by definition is 'a' meaning 'without' and 'theism' meaning 'God' or 'deity'. Therefore you could obviously argue it is the opposite of a religion. (If you accept the common definition of 'Religion' being a doctrine or organized set of beliefs outlining life's meaning and origins and existence of God or deities.)

However, since popular culture has made "atheism" mainstream, you could fairly argue that atheists (or a branch of) have set principles and arguments they adhere to that follow a basic doctrine and therefore, a religion.

Religious philosophers have also fairly argued that any explicit atheist holds a belief with their conscious rejection of another established belief. You cannot really settle this argument since it's an issue of perspective, really. (Is the glass half empty or half full?)

I feel I'm getting too long winded now, so I'll possibly continue later.

Otherwise, I'm wasting my time if nobody bothers or feels overwhelmed by my lengthy post. I apologize after the fact, hehe.