The Religion of Atheism

You have nothing but time on your hands, spending all day, arguing about something nobody agrees with, inventing definitions for words, and trying to convince others you are right. Nobody is biting. But, like I just did, feeding the trolls.

 

Not one word that address the counter argument that destroyed yours, and thank you for adding your petty personal attacks as well, a pleasure always.

I know thats the way obtuse works, I post resources and obtuse waves them away.

 

There was no counter argument. If you had one you'd like to introduce, have at it. Until then, you still haven't justified changing the meaning of the English word "religion" to your own private definition.

 

Told you that you didnt understand the argument. maybe reread it a few times will help.

 

It's not a counter argument, it's psychotic ramble, there is no answer you will accept.
It was funny at first, watching you, but now it is just garbage.

 

I understand it just fine, it just isn't a real counter argument. We English speakers will still continue using the word "religion" as we always have, unless you have a good reason to change it. And trying to score imaginary points against atheists isn't a very good reason to change the definition to the point that it is virtually meaningless. You are cheapening religion. Profaning it, actually.

 

I know thats the way obtuse works, I post resources and obtuse waves them away.

 

no I am quoting its actual meaning while you are quoting ciceros application, not that cicero is incorrect, neither is that the only application, and I am not saying football is religion in the same sense it is used to denote ones sacredly held beliefs/practices.

 

Where are you getting your definition from? Most English speakers do not use the word "religion" in the manner I quoted earlier, except figuratively. So why should we change it to your definition? I'm glad you don't think football is a religion, but according to the definition from earlier, it could qualify, so obviously the definition is faulty.

 

you havent quoted 'my' definition do you know what it is? football is missing an crucial ingredient to be classified as a religion as it is stated

 

I quoted the OP's definition earlier and you came to its defense. Glad to hear that isn't the case anymore I guess. Also, you don't know mine, despite everything you've tried to say about it.

 

It is still the case however because it is a religion in precisely the exact sense that lack is atheism

 

No one claims "lack is atheism." Anywhere. People claim that atheists lack a belief in God, because that is how self-described atheists use the term, because there is a strong etymological argument, and you'll notice many dictionaries define it this way. The same can't be said for the OP's definition of "religion." It isn't how self-described religious people use the term, there is no etymological relationship, and no dictionaries define it this way, except in the figurative sense.

 

that does not mean you can simply look at the word without understanding the extents of its application and blurt it out as everyone does here as a legitimate application of the word.

Where lack fails as I said it includes everything but 100% confirmed theists which would include weak theists. That is the point someone should be scratching their head with alarms going off ringing something is wrong, but it doesnt.

Lack and absence are the broadest sense that make no sense in any kind of investigative debate. Likewise with football as religion it is religion in the broadest sense.

If you want to get technical lack and absence was used as a slur, a pejorative, to slam those who acted with godless disregard to something considered a law, since religion is law and it was not separated from the state.

in both cases the full understanding of connected information is not being conveyed.

 

No, the definition does not include weak theists. We theists do not lack a belief in God. Otherwise they wouldn't be theists of any kind, weak or otherwise.

 

'weak' theists certainly lack 100% belief, unless you want to make my case that there is no such thing as a weak theist.

 

They lack certainty. They don't lack belief. Lack means an absence. Even if you were correct, being shy of 100% would not mean a true lack of belief.

 

if they are not 100% believer they lack belief, they are atheist.

lack
1.
the state of being without or not having enough of something.

there is no rule that says you have to use only the left side of the 'or'

and there are more than a single binary choice so there is no way to use it so it makes sequitur sense.

 

So far, you are the only person I've encountered, perhaps the only person in existence, who thinks that atheists "lack" belief in God in this fashion. Try highlighting the first half of the definition instead of the second. I don't think I have to explain what the word "or" means, and when people talk about atheists lacking a belief in God, they are talking about the "state of being without." And I think you know that, despite pretenses to the contrary.

Now, unless you can point me to one of these supposed theists who is without a belief in a God or gods, I think we are done here.

 

I explained all that in another thread. if you lack a gas tank clearly you have no tank. If you lack belief you might only lack a 1% belief. You come out here and talk about weak theists and they do not fully believe. I use it exactly the way you are using it. A weak battery is a battery that is not fully charged. a 3/4 full gas tank lacks the gas to get to toledo but is not empty Just because you may not have run into anyone who can add it up as well as I do does not mean its not fully applicable usage. It is, as I explained there are more than one choice unlike using it in a sentence like lack a gas tank where its binary, this is decimal and can be 98%.

 

You can explain all you like, or you can realize (as your previous definition makes clear) there is more than one definition of "lack." You are using the one that literally no atheist in existence is talking about and deliberately ignoring the part they ARE talking about. And, no, you aren't using it the same way I'm using it. I'm using the part before the "or" . . . you know, like every atheist does . . . and you are using the part after the "or" . . . which no atheist does.

 

does not matter how atheists choose to use it, its grammatically incorrect as I said and once again because you have more than one choice and again weak theists proves you have an infinite number of levels of lack.

Weak theists are atheists

 

Using the word lack to mean "the state of being without" is not grammatically incorrect. I understand someone believing that if English is their second language and they are unfamiliar with the term, but every native English speaker should know this.

 

but you arent using it that way. your statements do not come with a set of instructions. weak theists are the neoatheists design and proves many levels of lack.

Now we can take that the other direction.
Theists lack disbelieve in God
now everything in the universe thinking and nonthinking are theists.

welcome to the insane world of neoatheist movement

 

Yes. I am. Where am I losing you?

But not lack in "the states of being without" sense of the term. Which is the lack atheists are talking about.

No one in existence uses "theist" that way. You are inventing a new language to excuse your war on atheists.