Theology and Religion of The New Pope Dawkins - The Devils Chaplin

re•li•gion
n.
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usu. involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code for the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion.
3. [the person or] the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. emphasis mine
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something a person believes in and follows devotedly.
7. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion.
Idioms:
get religion,
a. to become religious; acquire religious convictions.
b. to resolve to mend one's errant ways.
[1150&#8211;1200; religioun < Latin religi&#333; conscientiousness, piety <relig&#257;re to tie, fasten (re- re- + lig&#257;re to bind, tie; compare ligament)]
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

 

it does not matter, you cant prove no evidence exists, all you can prove is that you do not have evidence you want, indeterminate is agnostic, I have proven using boolean algebra that lack of belief is ridiculous and merely a negation of belief.

 

feel free to prove it in formal logic that I am wrong, otherwise I cant consider your claim since I have already proven the matter.

 

Good definition. Now explain how athiesm is a religion under that definition. As far as I can tell athiests fo not believe in a superhuman agency which eliminates #1. Nor do they follow or adhere to a set of beliefs and practices ( note - and practices) which eliminates #2and #3. Nor do they become monks, practice religious beliefs, acquire religious convictions,or follow athiesm devotedly which rules out the rest.

 

You mean scoop out 1/2 my brain before posting? I have a better idea, go to school. No language does not change, usage changes.

 

Good point about proving no evidence exists. All we can prove is that no one has found any. May be possible sometime in the future but as of the present we can only say that no evidence has been found yet.

 

lol, you haven't proven the matter. if no evidence exists for the existence of something, I don't just "believe" it doesn't exist. I have a lack of belief in that something because no evidence exists to cause me to believe it exists.

lack of belief is the default position.

 

No, you don't have to scoop out anything. Just come into the real world.

So you would understand 14th century English. Yes language does change. With the influx of immigrants additions are added to every language. With new techniques, science and technology language is changing all the time. Old terms and phrases go out of use. New are introduced.

Why should I go back to school? .. I n 77 years of life I've managed to understand what I've been taught, the conversations I have had, and to get through life without any of the 'stuff' (can't think of a more polite word) you are parading around. It has no meaning in the life of real people. Life goes on without worrying about it and the various paradoxes that are around.

 

Wrong.

It is proven that there is no evidence period.

You have consistently failed to prove anything.

 

stop avoiding the point.

I use formal logic, you know the stuff they teach in school, to prove the point and you advocate dumb so the ordinary dumb person can relate and understand it. NOT my problem.

 

Like so many other words and terms you misuse you merely toss out the word logic and ignore it's use thats why you are proven wrong every time

 

Oh?

So you dont adhere to not murdering people for fun eh? Your premise is absurd and shows lack of understanding.

 

really?

seems I did. your inabilities to accept the proof is not my problem.

 

No,you have taken a conclusion - that atheism is a religion - and tried to shoe-horn all atheists into this pre-conceived construct.

But an autistic person who does not grasp the concepts of gods would be an atheist - yet have zero, "religious" convictions
toward the subject. A person who had never heard of gods would be an atheist - yet have zero, "religious" convictions
toward the subject. A child not yet indoctrinated into the concept of religions or gods would be an atheist, yet would
have no religious conviction on the subject.

 

yes, really.

you seem to think making baseless assertions, which defy logic somehow changes reality. lol

 

no, formal logic is not cheap shot opinions like the one you just posted, it is boolean algebra and logical operators.

I and everyone else knows that you are the one making baseless assertions because you cant or refuse to support it in formal logic.

 

which you've shown you clearly do not understand.

I already supported it, as have about a dozen other people. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods. It is NOT the belief there is no god. Lack of belief is the default position.

 

looks like you are going to be number 2 on my ignore list due to roe violations #12 and 16.

prove your point using formal logic or join the other one who is on ignore due to incessant obnoxious roe violations.

 

He did prove it using logic which is why he violated your little ROEs.

ROE # 12 states: never allow logic to prove me wrong.

ROE# 16 always use endlessly repetitive assertions to prove a point then accuse others of doing the same

 

Yea, I'd run away too after getting owned as bad as you have.

I've proven the point. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods. It is NOT the belief there is no god. Lack of belief is the default position.

 

Wrong you do not speak for everyone.

In fact based on responses to you nearly everyone agrees you are silly and ignorant and wrong.

 

No. Your problem is that you think everyone should be like you. People are not dumb and they don't need you to tell them what they already know. You show a jumble of words and signs, etc. to tell them they are wrong. Why should they believe you? They don't have any religious/non-religious belief in god because god doesn't exist. That's all they need to know.

 

Your problem is you cant get it right. I think everyone should be 100% themselves and have the freedome to exercise their religion regardless if I agree with it or not. People are incredibly dumb, case in point they have mobsters running the government and and cal it freedom and they vote on no laws only new overlords every every 4 years and think themselves a democracy because the overlords do the all the voting. Its a monumental achievement to obtain that level of delusion in any society!

You dont need to believe, I could care less, you only need to prove your premise using formal logic, not atheist can do that because their premise is bs on its face.

soupnazi still on ignore due to incessant roe violations rules# 12, 16

 

There is some truth in your position since claiming certainty is a difficult thing to do about anything we experience. For instance, I believe you are posting to a blog but there is a chance it is not you but someone else or even a figment of my imagination. This type of thinking goes back a long time and is fun stuff but most people discard it to deal with reality instead of philosophical puzzles. So the truth is, does God exist? Since there is absolutely no proof that he exists, one can say quite certainly that he does not exist and not ever be proven wrong until the God actually shows itself to us. So, do you exist or do I need to actually see you to prove to me that you exist? Even if I met you or God, how would I ever know it was you or God? The real question God people never seem to answer is this:

If God did show up, how could he prove he was God?

That my friends is an impossible task.

 

Problem of course is in your assumptions like not believing equals being an athiest. Not believing can be agnostic or not believing can be just not caring. Start a logic with false premise and all the rest fails. Or even more simple flaw like not athiest is equivalent to theist.

Simply put boolean algebra works where there is only true or false which of course doesn't apply to belief in God where there is athiest, agnostic , believer, and then believer in specific god, or believer in multiple gods.