'Splain this one Atheists...

[JimC]

Fuck off, all gods.

[surreptitious57]

Seth : your definition of belief and my definition of belief are not the same and unless we can agree on that then we just can not discuss
this logically. I take belief to be an article of faith that does not require any evidence or proof to validate it. Using dictionary definitions
as you have here is wrong for words are prescriptive not descriptive so I do not accept your literal interpretation. But even if I did accept
it for the sake of argument my so called belief in science it would still not be the same as belief in God. For my belief could be validated
by evidence or proof whereas belief in God cannot. And yet once again I must tell you that I do not hold either atheism or science to be a
religion. Indeed the only thing I think is absolutely or objectively true is mathematics for it is a deductive system of logic whose premises
are validated by proof. For me it is an incredibly useful mechanism for under standing how the Universe operates. The laws of physics are
after all in mathematical form. But I do not worship it like I would worship God. For despite its remarkability it is still only an abstraction

[Seth]

Seth : your definition of belief and my definition of belief are not the same and unless we can agree on that then we just can not discuss
this logically.

"My" definition of belief is found in the dictionary:

belief
[bih-leef]

noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief. (emphasis added)
3.confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

I take belief to be an article of faith that does not require any evidence or proof to validate it. Using dictionary definitions
as you have here is wrong for words are prescriptive not descriptive so I do not accept your literal interpretation.

As I said, you are attempting to define the word to suit your argument rather than using the published definition.

But even if I did accept
it for the sake of argument my so called belief in science it would still not be the same as belief in God.

Nor does it have to be.

For my belief could be validated by evidence or proof whereas belief in God cannot.

Can you prove that claim? Can you subject your confidence in the truth that belief in God cannot be validated by evidence or proof? If so, please do so.

And yet once again I must tell you that I do not hold either atheism or science to be a
religion.

Religion is as religion does.

Indeed the only thing I think is absolutely or objectively true is mathematics for it is a deductive system of logic whose premises
are validated by proof. For me it is an incredibly useful mechanism for under standing how the Universe operates. The laws of physics are
after all in mathematical form. But I do not worship it like I would worship God. For despite its remarkability it is still only an abstraction

Religion does not require one to "worship" anything unless one chooses to define religion narrowly so as to fit one's argument. My preferred definition of religion, which is again found in the dictionary, is both more expansive than that and is also both accurate and pertinent to the use of the word in the lexicon of the day, which is why it's found in the dictionary:

Religion
[ri-lij-uh n]

noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing 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; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
a world council of religions.
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 one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

As I've said before, definitions 1, 2, 3, and 6 are most pertinent.

You can continue to make up definitions if you like, but I'll stick with the authorities on the subject because I BELIEVE them to be credible, rational and accurate.

[surreptitious57]

Can you subject your confidence in the truth that belief in God cannot be validated by evidence or proof

If he is metaphysical as he invariably is then his existence cannot be validated by evidence or proof
If he is physical his existence could be verified by evidence or proof but then he would not be God
I think he does not exist but allow for the possibility that he might as I cannot prove or disprove it
But whether he does or not makes no difference to me personally since I am actually an apatheist
Though if his existence were proved tomorrow beyond all reasonable doubt then I would accept it

[Seth]

Can you subject your confidence in the truth that belief in God cannot be validated by evidence or proof

If he is metaphysical as he invariably is then his existence cannot be validated by evidence or proof

How you know he's metaphysical.

If he is physical his existence could be verified by evidence or proof but then he would not be God

Why not? Why would God allowing himself to be verified by evidence or proof be proof that he's not God? That makes no sense at all.

I think he does not exist but allow for the possibility that he might as I cannot prove or disprove it

Precisely, so you carry beliefs instead. Beliefs that he does not exist, beliefs that he might exist, beliefs that you cannot prove or disprove his existence. Each one of those beliefs is not subject to immediate rigorous proofs and each of your beliefs could easily be entirely wrong. You might come to believe he exists, you might come to believe you can prove or disprove his existence, and you might come to believe that he does or does not exist. Belief piled on belief stacked upon belief.

But whether he does or not makes no difference to me personally since I am actually an apatheist

That's a belief too. A belief it doesn't matter if he does or does not exist. But it might matter. Or it might not.

Though if his existence were proved tomorrow beyond all reasonable doubt then I would accept it

Or at least you believe you would....

[mistermack]

The definitions of belief and religion that you have found don't fully match my own understanding of the words.
Nor do they match the way that most people use the words.

They are widely defined, to cover less common usage, as well as the day-to-day understanding of the words that most people have.

You can cherry pick dictionary definitions for the bits that suit your argument.
It doesn't prove your argument. The dictionary only gives examples of what people mean, when they say the words. The ACTUAL meaning is in the minds of the people using them at the time.

If I say religion, I don't include atheism. Nor do the vast majority of the English speaking people.
That makes your argument wrong. Because words mean what the people using them mean.

And none of your weasly cherry picking can change that.

[Seth]

The definitions of belief and religion that you have found don't fully match my own understanding of the words.

Evidently you need to amend your understanding of the words. Dictionaries are a great resource for the correct understanding of the meaning of words. I suggest you examine one.

Nor do they match the way that most people use the words.

Ignorance of the lexicon is no excuse.

They are widely defined, to cover less common usage, as well as the day-to-day understanding of the words that most people have.

Well, that's what lexicologists do, isn't it?

You can cherry pick dictionary definitions for the bits that suit your argument.

Of course I can, that's why there are alternate definitions. Definitions in dictionaries reflect current common usage of words. Dictionaries are amended regularly as those who study such things examine the changing lexicological landscape and how words are being used in the contemporary sense. That's precisely why the definition of "religion" I use exists in the first place. If you look at a dictionary from the 1700s you'll indeed find that "religion" was pretty narrowly defined as being part of theistic or deistic worship. But that's changed over time and now people practice religions that have nothing to do with gods or theism. One of the groups that changed the meaning of the word, thanks to the US Supreme Court, is Scientology. It argued, for tax purposes, that it was a religion, and after a long, long battle with the IRS in the courts the Supreme Court acknowledged that "religion" does not necessary require theistic or deistic practices or beliefs.

The definition "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience" exists because it is how many people both use the word and practice religion.

It doesn't prove your argument. The dictionary only gives examples of what people mean, when they say the words. The ACTUAL meaning is in the minds of the people using them at the time.

If I say religion, I don't include atheism.

Then you're simply wrong, or ignorant, or mendacious, or all three. Your inability to properly use the language isn't much of an argument.

Nor do the vast majority of the English speaking people.

The lexicologists who study such things seem to disagree with you.

That makes your argument wrong. Because words mean what the people using them mean.

Nonsense. Words mean what they mean, and just because you choose to use one particular definition to the exclusion of all others does not mean that the other definitions cease to exist. It just means you're being narrow minded because you dislike the notion of being labeled as being "religious" in your atheism.

And none of your weasly cherry picking can change that.

It doesn't need change because your statement is simply idiotic and false.

[mistermack]

Funnily enough, the dictionary that you yourself chose, defines atheism thus :

noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Not a word about the "religion" of not believing in a god.
Sunk by your own "idiotic and false" argument. Again.

[Seth]

Funnily enough, the dictionary that you yourself chose, defines atheism thus :

noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Not a word about the "religion" of not believing in a god.
Sunk by your own "idiotic and false" argument. Again.

Er, the word "belief" is the important point. An atheist who holds a belief that "there is no God" may hold that belief in such a manner as to qualify as it being a religious belief, or in other words a belief practiced religiously.

The relevant definition of "religion" as it relates to non-theistic or anti-theistic beliefs is ""something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience."

Whether a particular individual "follows devotedly" a belief that there is no god as a point or matter of ethics or conscience is an individualized assessment. I do not claim that ALL atheists are Atheists (religious atheists), merely that some are, and in my experience, every single self-professed atheist I've ever met or communicated with, including you, show all the requisite behaviors required to demonstrate that they hold their atheistic beliefs quite religiously.

So, if the shoe fits, wear it. And it looks absolutely lovely on you.

[mistermack]

Get it put in the dictionary then. Until then, you are just making yourself look stupid.

When I see atheism classed as a religion in a respected dictionary, you argument might stand up.

It's not even there in alternate meanings. In other words, Atheism is not a religion, in the current usage of the word.

Maybe you should write to dictionary dot com, and explain that a troll from rationalia thinks that it is.
Good luck with that.

[rainbow]

I have only one question.

If I stop collecting stamps, will I go to hell?

[mistermack]

I have only one question.

If I stop collecting stamps, will I go to hell?

Depends. If you "believe" that collecting stamps is worth doing, then collecting stamps is your religion.
Because any belief is a religion.
So if you stop, you will go to stamp-hell. Where you get licked 24 hours a day for eternity.

[rainbow]

Where you get licked 24 hours a day for eternity.

You say this like it is a bad thing?

[surreptitious57]

Dictionaries are a great resource for the correct understanding of the meaning of words

They reference words individually that deprives them of context and it is context which ultimately
gives words their meaning. And dictionaries can not do this as they are descriptive not prescriptive
Since any word has greater relevance and understanding within a sentence than it does in isolation

[Seth]

Get it put in the dictionary then. Until then, you are just making yourself look stupid.

It's in the dictionary, by definition.

When I see atheism classed as a religion in a respected dictionary, you argument might stand up.

How about the Supreme Court? It recognizes atheism as a religion with respect to law.

It's not even there in alternate meanings. In other words, Atheism is not a religion, in the current usage of the word.

It can be, that's the point. Atheism is a religion if you form a belief/practice set that meets the definition, which you, and most folks here observably do. The definition doesn't list every single religion, old, new or otherwise because that's not what dictionaries do. Dictionaries define the term and one determines if the term fits the behavior or object under examination. In this case, the definition of religion can, and often does precisely fit the belief/practice set of self-identified atheists.

Maybe you should write to dictionary dot com, and explain that a troll from rationalia thinks that it is.
Good luck with that.

I don't have to, they've already done it. The definition defines religion by the way a set of beliefs is practiced. I've already established that Atheist have a set of beliefs and I've established that many (if not most) of them practice those beliefs in ways that comply with the definition of "religion." Therefore, religiously-practiced atheism is Atheism, a religion, and those of you who practice their atheism religiously are religious Atheists.

QED.