Dictionary definitions of religion and atheism

 
  steamhead Train Controller

Location: Home
Steamhead, I have a complete understanding of the point you're trying to make - just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean I don't "get it" or that I am stupid. How about I simplify my point for you...

Until you can prove the non-existence or existence of god(s), you have a BELIEF either way.

You either BELIEVE there is/are god(s), or you BELIEVE there is/are not any.

Having a lack of belief in god(s), without having a belief that there are *not* any, is far closer to agnosticism than atheism.
"KEG"


Incorrect. Have you not understood a word I've said?

It is entirely possible to be completely neutral about the existence of god
(s).  Millions of Buddhists, Raelians, Ojectivists, Secular Humanists and so on do it every day. Not to mention babies and very young children.

Lack of belief in gods is not agnosticism. The agnostic position is that it is not possible to have knowledge of the existence or otherwise of gods. Time to get your dictionary out, methinks Wink

Regards, Adrian

Sponsored advertisement

  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Norda Fittazroy
I think we're wasting our time with KEG.
  Bwana Chief Commissioner

Let's once again indirectly quote a dictionary...
Atheism:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
atheism. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved February 13, 2009, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
"xxxxl bear"


Thanks again for the quote xxxxl bear.

Neither of those definitions seem very neutral to me, both seem to suggest an atheist would argue that there is no God(s), not that they don't know. The english definition of a word does not necessarily stop with the definition of the two words it is made up from.
  steamhead Train Controller

Location: Home
I think we're wasting our time with KEG.
"Valvegear"


... and Bwana.

Cheers, Adrian
  hidden Chief Train Controller

You too are an Atheist Bwana, with respect to all two thousand odd deities that man has created, except for one.
  KEG Junior Train Controller

I think we're wasting our time with KEG.
"Valvegear"


... and Bwana.

Cheers, Adrian
"steamhead"
Yeah. You definitely are.
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Norda Fittazroy
In a book called The Houseman's Tale, by Colin Douglas, a surgeon named Hadden is called to treat a bloke who is a keen religious practitioner.
I liked Hadden's  comment,  " There's nothing like Valium for religion, acute or chronic."
  dullsteamer Deputy Commissioner

Location: Waterfall, NSW
Most recently, that I'm aware of, on Thursday just gone, when
"bwana"
Religious chaplaincies? Why would you want to involve them? Debates should be about facts and reality, not superstition.
"dullsteamer"

Is that the best you can come up with? (But then, I've noticed christians always cry "oppression' when their claims are questioned...)

You're a big girl's blouse if you reckon asking why religious chaplaincies should be involved in debate about the legalisation of euthanasia is oppression. Get some sense of proportion!

why can't the presence or absence of a deity be tested scientifically?
"dullsteamer"
I'm all for it, I'd love to see this definitively answered. So tell me, how do you plan to scientifically test it?

I don't, because I couldn't give a toss either way. I was questioning your dogmatic assertion that such a thing can't be tested scientifically. Why can't it?
  dullsteamer Deputy Commissioner

Location: Waterfall, NSW
"I'll just brush my teeth, have a slash, and then get my clothes ready for tomorrow, because I have faith I'll wake up in the morning".
"dullsteamer"

Nope; that is a fallacy. You cannot undertake fatal self harm and at the same time maintain the intention to undertake acts the day after. Your fatal act of self harm causes you to leave your mortal coil and so you have no actor, agency or will left within the body to complete the intention of waking up in the morning.
"574M"

You're an idiot. "Have a slash" = urinate, take a leak, do a wee, go to the toilet.

Aren't you familiar with Australian vernacular and idiom? Maybe you should spend less time reading Tolkien...
  dullsteamer Deputy Commissioner

Location: Waterfall, NSW
Thinks ya mean pretentious.  Not sure what ol' 574M's long-winded posts are a portent of, except on a lot of occasions some of the better padding seen on RP.
"Deep Throat"


No, portentous is the word I intended to use.

• done in a pompously or overly solemn manner so as to impress : the author's portentous moralizings.

• pompous, bombastic, self-important, pontifical, solemn, sonorous, grandiloquent.

I've noticed that people whose debating skills are poor, or are a bit short on logic, often use this style of writing or speech. They think it adds weight and substance to their words. It doesn't.

Cheers,

Mark.
  Sir Thomas Bent Minister for Railways

Location: Banned
No worries, dullsteamer.
  dullsteamer Deputy Commissioner

Location: Waterfall, NSW
scatalogical ---> refers to dullsteamer's use of the term BS
"574M"

It's scatological. If you're going to try to impress us with your vocabulary, you need to learn to spell. Also, you need to learn to use words that are most appropriate to convey your meaning. Scatological is incorrect in this context.

show prior cause for ab-hominem attack --> means he needs to show where I said he was full of sh*t.

aD-hominem. You claim to be an editor - of what, exactly? Not anything involving English language text, I hope.

I didn't accuse you of saying I was full of sh*t, merely that what you wrote was bullsh*t. So your comprehension skills aren't up to much, either.

Or are you just being nasty?  --> possibly statement of fact

Your opinion is not a fact.

You cannot abuse people or treat people as less than human beings...or post in a manner that intimates that other people here on Railpage Australia™ are lesser persons that you or have animals for ancestors.

What orifice did you pull that out of? Who did I accuse of having "animals for ancestors"?

Forbearance and tolerance is what is needed.  --> statement of  fact.

Again, opinion, not fact. Tolerance is overated - particularly when dealing with semi-mystic fan-boys.

Please supply your auspice to make that claim --> means "who told him he speaks for all atheists?"

I only know of two meanings for "auspice", and neither of them make any sense in this sentence. More gibberish.

But regardless, you're in no position to criticise me for speaking on belhalf of atheists, YOU made a claim on behalf of all atheists when you alleged that we all have faith. Where's your authority to make that claim?

your reply infers I have said what it is you think --> analysis by me.

The implication was plain in your post - you claimed to know the minds of all atheists when you claimed we all have faith. Which, as I noted before, is bullsh*t.

fallacy -->   an error in reasoning. You cannot plan to kill yourself AND plan to get up in the morning.

Nobody mentioned killing themselves, dimwit. All I planned to do was have a piddle before going to bed. Again, your comprehension skills are lacking.
  dullsteamer Deputy Commissioner

Location: Waterfall, NSW
Neither of those definitions seem very neutral to me, both seem to suggest an atheist would argue that there is no God(s), not that they don't know. The english definition of a word does not necessarily stop with the definition of the two words it is made up from.
"Bwana"

Never mind the dictionary definition, ask an atheist.

I'm one, and my view on the existence of gods can be summarised as "Don't know, don't care, consider it monstrously unlikely, but in the couldn't give a toss either way." Would I argue that there are no gods? Depends on who I was arguing with. For the most part I couldn't be bothered, since people who believe in deities do so in spite of evidence or logic. Arguing the alternate case is wasted on them, and I've got better things to do than hang out with god-botherers.

If I encountered someone who was considering taking up religion, I'd probably do my best to dissuade them. But then, most of the people I've known who did that were crims or junkies, so again my efforts might have been wasted...
  dullsteamer Deputy Commissioner

Location: Waterfall, NSW
Incorrect. Have you not understood a word I've said
"steamhead"

Adrian, I suspect he has, but he wants to cling to the discredited idea that atheism is a religion. KEG wants to dictate the terms of reference, as it were, and by claiming that atheism is a religion, he thinks he can make it more manageable.
  billybaxter Chief Commissioner

Location: Bosnia Park, Fairfield
Here's an atheistic religion.
  dullsteamer Deputy Commissioner

Location: Waterfall, NSW
Here's a loony, more like.

What's your point?
  billybaxter Chief Commissioner

Location: Bosnia Park, Fairfield
That by definition, Atheism is not a religion, but that some Atheists can behave like religions, such as in the example. Although strictly, he denies rather than disbelieves the existence of God so he's not really an Atheist. Unless he can't tell the difference. I think the Raelians call themselves a 'movement' anyway. Despite the loony cover, Mr. Vorilhon does make some interesting points. Unfortunately, listeners are invariably distracted by his outrageous UFO stories, his funny suit and the chignon hairdo (unusual on balding men).
  dullsteamer Deputy Commissioner

Location: Waterfall, NSW
That by definition, Atheism is not a religion, but that some Atheists can behave like religions, such as in the example.
"billybaxter"


Again, what's your point? That the behaviour of loonys and the religious are indistinguishable?
  billybaxter Chief Commissioner

Location: Bosnia Park, Fairfield
What do you mean by my 'point'? The reason I posted the link? Because there was talk of Atheists behaving like religious people, and I remembered the Raelians who are Atheists and look just like a religion. They have ceremonies, a canon, a heirarchy with fancy clothes to show which level you're on etc. I thought folks may be interested. I wasn't saying ALL atheists are like this bloke. All Christians are not like Phineas Priesthood or that Danny idiot either. But is that bloke really a loon? If you don't believe in God then I guess you think this life is it. Better make the best of it while you can. Mr. Vorilhon is rich, has power over thousands of people, regularly chooses a new 'celestial wife' from hundreds of volunteers, and judging from that link and the number of followers he has, he is clever enough to put a convincing argument together. How many atheists wouldn't swap places with him if they had the chance?
  Bwana Chief Commissioner

Is that the best you can come up with?
"dullsteamer"
No, it's the most recent - or more acurately the start of the latest round of it. I never said it was very effective.

Why can't it?
"dullsteamer"
So you you're scared of the answer? It can't be tested because there are no tangible, measurable indicators. Once again, I would have expected someone who only deals in "fact and reality" to have realised that. You really are bad at this, aren't you?

Oh, still waiting on your definition of probability that doesn't involve measurable parameters too. Having a bit of trouble coming up with that one, maybe?
  Bwana Chief Commissioner

Neither of those definitions seem very neutral to me, both seem to suggest an atheist would argue that there is no God(s), not that they don't know. The english definition of a word does not necessarily stop with the definition of the two words it is made up from.
"Bwana"

Never mind the dictionary definition, ask an atheist.
"dullsteamer"

Why? So they can change the parameters to meet their current argument? I'll stick to something clearly defined thanks - I like fact and reality.

I'm one, and my view on the existence of gods can be summarised as "Don't know, don't care, consider it monstrously unlikely, but in the couldn't give a toss either way." Would I argue that there are no gods? Depends on who I was arguing with.
"dullsteamer"
Well you've put a lot of effort into arguing it here of late. Seems like a strange thig for someone who doesn't know to do. Just enjoy trolling maybe?
  Breaking Point Assistant Commissioner

Out of curiousity....what does it matter if Atheisim is or isn't a religion?

Whether it is a religion or not, the true answer doesn't make a difference to anything, anywhere.....just a few ego's.
  dullsteamer Deputy Commissioner

Location: Waterfall, NSW
Out of curiousity....what does it matter if Atheisim is or isn't a religion?
"Breaking Point"

It matters when theists, religionists, godbotherers, call them what you will, insist on trying to define my lack of faith and belief in their terms.
  Breaking Point Assistant Commissioner

Out of curiousity....what does it matter if Atheisim is or isn't a religion?
"Breaking Point"

It matters when theists, religionists, godbotherers, call them what you will, insist on trying to define my lack of faith and belief in their terms.
"dullsteamer"


Fair nuff.
Your "lack of faith" is your choice....  A choice not to beleive something isn't a religion.
Does that conclude the argument?
  dullsteamer Deputy Commissioner

Location: Waterfall, NSW
What do you mean by my 'point'? The reason I posted the link? Because there was talk of Atheists behaving like religious people...
"billybaxter"

There were a few posts from people who claimed atheism was a religion, not the same thing at all.

and I remembered the Raelians who are Atheists and look just like a religion. They have ceremonies, a canon, a heirarchy with fancy clothes to show which level you're on etc. I thought folks may be interested. I wasn't saying ALL atheists are like this bloke. All Christians are not like Phineas Priesthood or that Danny idiot either. But is that bloke really a loon?

Yes. It wasn't that long ago the Raelians claimed to have cloned some human beings. So he is either a loon, or a liar. Take your pick.

If you don't believe in God then I guess you think this life is it.

You guessed correctly.

Mr. Vorilhon is rich, has power over thousands of people, regularly chooses a new 'celestial wife' from hundreds of volunteers, and judging from that link and the number of followers he has, he is clever enough to put a convincing argument together. How many atheists wouldn't swap places with him if they had the chance?

I wouldn't. Vorilhon is a nutter, his organisation is a cult, and his followers are most likely a mix of the very gullible, the damaged, and the sorts of con artists who prey on them. You might fancy swapping places with him, but I rather doubt leading a cult would appeal to most atheists.

Whether it would appeal to religionists is another matter.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.