Patrick Elliott wrote:
> In article <475### [at] hotmailcom>, a_l### [at] hotmailcom 
> says...
>> I have never said that. I said that I am an atheist and in a religious 
>> way, not that atheism is a religion. So your premise is wrong. Logical 
>> says that from a false premise you can derive anything. Hence you can 
>> from here on deduce anything.
>> [snipped some invalid conclusions].
>>
>> I try to answer Darren elsewhere, perhaps that might shed some light. (I 
>> hope not).
>>
> 
> I quote: "As just another atheist I'd like to point out that atheism is 
> a religion too."

Oops, you're right. Please replace 'is' by 'can be' and restart this thread.

> 
> That hardly sounds like a vague assertion that its sort of kind of like 
> one, in some ways. All my conclusions lead from this assertion of yours.
> 
> Oh, and just to be clear. I am using the definition for religion that 
> ***religious*** people most often claim it is, and the definition of 
> atheism that is most common among atheists. 
Bot sure if these definitions are as universally true as you think. I 
don't live in the US.
> That your definition 
> deviates from those isn't all that relevant, especially since it also 
> deviates from most dictionary definitions too, which pretty clearly do 
> not include anything other than disbelief in gods in one, and list a 
> whole mess of stuff you have to believe to be the other. But, what ever 
> definition or denial floats your boat. ;)
> 
AFAIAC an atheist is someone who does believe no God exists. I fit that 
bill. Don't know what I should be ascribing to more to be a genuine one 
in your book.

Post a reply to this message