Why do NeoAtheists deny the practice of atheism is a religion?<<MOD WARNING>>

Atheism by definition is not a belief.

 

And how did dictionaries come into existence? Was it not a group of people who compiled those words and decided upon which particular meanings of those words they would insert into their dictionary?

So why do you accept the idea that those particular people can have their own definition of the word "religion" but I can't have my own definition of the word "religion"?

By asking them to clarify whenever there is disagreement, as I have been attempting to do with you.

Some people use the word "yeet" in conversation... I have absolutely no idea what "yeet" is, but I could ask somebody and they could define it for me.

Correct, and I don't expect you to. But, if that person has a better definition of a word than the "standard definition", then you might want to adopt that better definition... Eventually, if it gains enough popularity, it might even replace the "standard definition"...

How many times has the standard definition of the word "gay" changed over the years? How many different ways can the word be used in a sentence?

 

I stumbled across Koko making a very good point that the burden of proof needs to be specified... I overlooked that bit in our exchanges, so within our exchanges, the specification is assumed, but Koko is right that it would indeed need to be specified... as in, what do you need to see in order for the burden to be met (ie, what specifically would convince you). I see that's what you and Koko are exchanging ideas about, so you don't have to repeat any of that here. I can just respond to your exchanges if I'd like.

 

What are you quoting of mine?

 

It is a real pity you have been distracted by Kokos strawman as we were actually having a decent debate. But we can address the Strawman later would you please reply to my post 1474. Then we can address Kokos strawman.

 

The point was that whether someone is convinced is not a significant indication of the truth of the argument.

In fact, someone could become convinced for reasons that have nothing to do with the argument. Jimmy could hear you making an argument and choose to believe on the grounds that you're his father or whatever.

 

Buddhism does include a supernatural.

There are a good number of dictionaries on line. Also, when there are words such as "belief" which have a broad range of meaning it's necessare to be careful to use the same definition throughout an argument - or avoid them.

Science is designed such as to account for humans being without full understanding - which makes it impossible to prove a proposition to be true. To accommodate that, science depends on falsification. As religion demonstrates, that's not the only way of handling the problem of humans being without full understandnig..

Religion is designed to address some ideas that aren't falsifiable. But, there are large numbers of ideas that are not falsifiable and not addressed by religion - other than just saying that the answer is "god did it".

If you want to write a new dictionary, go for it.

But, I'm not interested even slightly.

 

The first requirement would be that the god in question would have to decide it is satisfactory for humans to have such evidence.

For the Christian god, that seems highly unlikely. It's counter to solo fide. Would a god such as the Christian god decide he needed to change his mind on something so fundamental?

 

It is a real pity that GFM has stopped posting just when we were getting to the important part of our debate. I reviewed our discussion and realised I had made an error in that I had already discussed exactly what kind of evidence I required even though there is no obligation on myself to do so. We had discussed the Ontological argument and GFM had mentioned the five arguments put forward by William Lane Craig. If there are any better arguments for God than those put forward by Craig I would like to hear them since he is the darling of the evidentialists. I should not of entered into a discussion with Koko without first checking his assertion was actually true. I hope GFM can return to the debate.

 

rejecting it IS a truth claim, everything you accept and express a proposition as true or false that IS your truth claim. The only way you can get out of making a truth claim is to say [express] nothing at all.

Evidence? Sure

doesnt mean you chose the right sense, which is just as wrong as using the wrong word in the first place.

It is also the standard technique of people who have had their positions mowed down to put the gardener on ignore.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Buddhism

Again the abbrv version: Religion is the practice of your self governance beliefs whatever they are.

the term “agnostic” is often used (when the issue is God’s existence) to refer to those who follow the recommendation expressed in the conclusion of Huxley’s argument: an agnostic is a person who has entertained the proposition that there is a God but believes neither that it is true nor that it is false.

The problem is that it is also very useful for philosophical purposes to have a name for the epistemological position that follows from the premise of Huxley’s argument, the position that neither theism nor atheism is known, or most ambitiously, that neither the belief that God exists nor the belief that God does not exist has positive epistemic status of any sort. Just as the metaphysical question of God’s existence is central to philosophy of religion, so too is the epistemological question of whether or not theism or atheism is known or has some other sort of positive epistemic status

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

The problem you are faced with is that you dismiss evidence when you dont even know what it is!

Its like someone arguing there is air in the room when you have no clue what a gas is and you dismiss the existence of air out of hand because you cant feel it in your hand.

koko made a bang on target valid point, that I am sure you are very unhappy to see, since it demonstrates you are trying to judge something you know nothing about and cant even describe, so its impossible for you to know what is and what is not evidence.

 

See burden of proof.

No.

I do not have a problem.

 

You have a BIG problem if you want to demonstrate you are actually qualified to decide what is or is not bonafide evidence to prove the existence of God.

So the world needs to know what evidence would prove to atheists God exists.

This is really very simple process. If you say there is a monkey in the box when I open the box I expect to see a monkey as evidence that I would accept to prove a monkey was in the box.

What do you expect?

 

I do not expect anything of you, my discussion was not with you for all the reasons that I and others have stated, now unless you can come up with something new, something that has not been debunked by numerous posters I will bid you good day.

 

60 pages now, and atheism remains, as it did on page one, by definition not a religion. The same way not playing baseball is not a sport.

 

But there is nothing in the definition of atheism that you keep posting that says its not a religion.

Please read for comprehension, what EVIDENCE WOULD YOU EXPECT to accept that God exists.

Oh wait you bailed, now that the debate demands real answers, guess you probably dont know LOL

 

Read the discussion.

 

Yup read it the question is not answered.

The atheist team are the ones who dismiss all evidence offered by the theists, and the atheists can not even describe what evidence is admissible for them to accept that God exists. lol

Otherwise I am still waiting.

 

Read the thread or wait, up to you.

 

The question remains unanswered and now the games start, typical.

 

Except the definition of course, lol. Atheism by definition is not a religion. Just like not playing baseball is not a sport.

 

The question has been answered.
First. I do not have to tell you what evidence to use.
Two. GFM and I discussed the evidence anyway.

 

atheism
[ ey-thee-iz-uh m ]
|
noun
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism

nope nothing about religion here, why are you making stuff up?.

 

you dont even have to post for that matter, but if you want to demonstrate you are qualified to judge what is and is not evidence for theists to prove God exists you need to ante up or no one will have any reason to take your posts seriously.
Yes when GFM asked you the question you blamed him for accepting my point as valid, I expect its because atheists are not able to respond.
the question remains unanswered

pity because its just starting to get good

 

Correct by definition Atheism is not a religion.

 

Try reading it again, and I blamed GFM for nothing, do not start deliberately mis-representing me again.