nope, as the definition of atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. That is not an active belief. That is the opposite of belief.
Be happy to do a few round with ya on religion if you like It would be better to take that to my thread since it would be off topic in this one. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ional-religion.564784/page-38#post-1071542595 what this guy is doing is first cherry picking an incorrect use, (a grammar/usage problem) second it violates LEM, therefore its illogical on its face third it would include dogs cats rocks etc forth it offers no information regarding their position on the existence of God. fifth as you said, it not possible to lack belief and self label as atheist last lack is polysemous, another meaning of lack is not enough, which can carry the meaning he has some belief in God but not enough. If you ask that poster to validate his position he simply says its in the dictionary, so we no longer need philosophers to sort out bungled up words in dictionaries. case in point, court jester posting the dictionary definition of a unicorn where the dictionary said they were myth and reality proves they are not. If you ask him validate his claim so you can understand and use his logic it ends at its in the dictionary, iow he cannot supprt his claim with reason and logic but everyone else can sure rip it to sdhreads using reason and logic. If put on the spot you will get as you did last time "I dont care" nah nah neener neener.....and his wacki spamming posts will continue ad infinitum just confused and in denial.
Now you are trying to put the cart before the horse. In order to not have an active belief, you cannot have knowledge of the idea. You have been exposed to the idea that God(s) exist. Thus you can only actively believe it true, actively believe it false, or actively believe there is insufficient evidence to say true or false. Since atheism is a lack of belief, you cannot be an atheist. You actively believe that there are no gods. You cannot lack belief because you have been exposed to the idea.
Same logic you keep trying to pass off as thinking is that any animal with one horn is a unicorn. All you proved is there are at least two people in the world who are thinking impaired.
I believe that he is showing the same thing I am with re: the unicorn. That animals we present are the actual creature upon which the legend is most likely built, with no claim that the legend of abilities and such is true. It's similar to what Chuck Norris is going to be in a century or more. There have been so many jokes about his prowness that it will probably warp into legend. The latest one I heard was that Chuck Norris isn't afraid of getting COVID-19, COVID-19 is afraid of getting Chuck Norris. At some point I have no doubt that Chuck Norris will be considered a myth and never have existed. But the legend will persist, much as the legend of the unicorn has persisted.
no, i'm pointing out the definition of atheism precludes it from being an active belief, as atheism is the lack of belief.
you know that is false, religion includes BOTH theists AND atheists: re·li·gion noun: religion Theists: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. "ideas about the relationship between science and religion" Atheists: 2. a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. and dont bother posting any its not important garbage after spamming every thread with that nonsense you post. Atheism is by definition a religion! Just like water is wet!
Government advancement of nontheistic or atheistic religious viewpoints would thus presumably be subject to the same limitations of the Establishment Clause as the prohibition against endorsing traditional theistic religious viewpoints. Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that non-theistic viewpoints can qualify as religious when 1 they “occupy the same place in [a person’s] life as the belief in a traditional deity holds,” 2 “occupy . . . ‘a place parallel to that filled by God’ in traditional religious persons,” 3 or comprise “an aspect of human thought and action which profoundly relates the life of man to the world in which he lives.” 4 In one case, the U.S. Supreme Court specifically listed “Secular Humanism” as a religious viewpoint.5 https://evolutionnews.org/2014/07/for_first_amend1/
I didn't argue against that. I stated that since you cannot have a lack of belief, since you have been presented with the idea, and this had to form an active belief in one of the three possible outcomes, by definition you cannot be an atheist. The definition of atheists precludes you from being one. If an atheist is presented the the idea of a god or gods, they no longer are an atheist, because they will at the least begin with a belief that there is/are no gods(s). Or they will believe what they were told. Or they will believe the evidence insufficient to decide either way. Regardless, they will now have a belief about gods. They will not lack a belief, even if it is a negative belief.
which has been refuted by the actual definition of atheism. It is the lack of belief. That is by definition, not an active belief. not according to the definition of atheism.
If I understand it correctly, rahl isn't saying that atheism is the lack of any belief vaguely in the vicinity of gods (for instance, rahl might believe the statement "arguments about God have proven unpersuasive"), he's saying that none of the beliefs he hold count as the belief in God. Neither holding the belief that there is no god, nor holding the belief that arguments for God have been persuasive is in opposition of his definition of atheism.
While the Supreme Court May and has used different criteria for rulings relative to 1A protection applicability, it has never provided a definition of religion for use as a standard. Looking at the history of rulings will show the variability of criteria applied, usually erring on the side of protecting an individual’s right of belief and on the side of prohibiting the Government to give preference to any system of ‘religious’ belief. For that matter, there is no consensus on what constitutes a religion among sociologists, anthropologists, or psychologists. My operating beliefs, key word ‘operating’ at a general level is that a belief in a God or Gods, or any other spiritual belief or the assertion denying the existence of the supernatural stand on equal ground; neither position can be proven with any empirical, undisputed, evidence or test. So, given that, when asked to take a stand on which is true or who to believe, I must provide an honest answer; I don’t know and hold a position of skepticism with any claim. In some mind, that is a religious position, but then that would be based on a definition designed to make some other assertion, and not a definition for which there is universal consensus, and further, it would be a religion consisting of a single follower. One I haven’t named yet.
or more likely read it and didnt understand it or took it out of context. thats popular aamong neoatheists.
