toba:

@DSight I'm disappointed with your post. how could u have descended to such a low level? I'm here clamouring that u deserve to be this sections poster of the year, not minding your numerous attacks on Christians&Christianity.
U started a thread apologising to Christians on Nl for your numerous,unpleasant & unnecessary attacks on the pretence that u would turn a new leaf. What u just posted about this chap is unfair&unnecessary.

jesus.:

though not decided yet, but Deepsight may have my vote for the poster of the year

InesQor:

@Deep Sight:

Speaking objectively, can you confidently say your tone was not accusatory but was rather designed to enquire if my beliefset had changed?

Did you not see the response by Martian that followed immediately after it, and then your own evil good grief that followed that one too?

So I am not deceived by your supposed ab initio "I was only trying to find out" aspect on the alleged accusation.

Once again I say, "Whatever dude".

Deep Sight:


Given the foregoing, your contributions to this thread are paradoxical.

Mudley313:

Enigma:

An interesting thing on this thread and in part why I stopped bothering is the double-standard almost bordering on intellectual dishonesty. The definition of "religion" proffered by thehomer unquestionably takes in at the least evangelical atheism as a religion. The intellectually honest thing to do is to either acknowledge this and/or to disown the definition; in fairness, thehomer himself tacitly does this (Edit: and to some extent Purist too) but I see some of his supporters pursuing red herrings.

Enigma:

Interestingly, myself and InesQor did not initially seriously argue that atheism per se is a religion; however, it was very easy to turn the argument of the atheists and their supporters on its own head.

Enigma:

^^^ After initially providing and vaunting a definition as your "preferred definition" you later stated that the same definition was "inadequate"; see your post numbered 184; see also your posts nos 166, 178 & 191.

I argued and proved sufficiently that evangelical atheism is indeed a religion --- according to your own supplied and preferred definition; see esp my posts nos 169 and 170 among others.

Enigma:

^^^ Pitiful argument! Your first task is to show that these things fit within your own, I repeat, your own definition of religion. Show how they do!

Enigma:

If you can show that, then you would have  to face up to the fact that you need to disown your own definition of religion and start again. If you want to argue that the definition of religion with which we are working is unworkable or possibly even nonsensical, well, it was you who supplied it.

Enigma:

One thing I know is that it cannot be intelligently, objectively and honestly denied that evangelical atheism is within the definition of religion that you supplied and preferred --- as I have shown.

thehomer:

@ Uyi Iredia

I think you're making a fundamental error in claiming that atheism is a religion. You may also need to consider that theism is also not a religion. But Christianity, Buddhism, Islam etc are religions.

I would go with Wiktionary's first definition of religion for the purpose of this discussion.

This is the quote from http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/religion

A collection of practices, based on beliefs and teachings that are highly valued or sacred.

Going by this, one can see that the examples of religions that I gave above do fit but neither atheism nor theism does. . . .

thehomer:

I picked the first definition because like many other words in English with multiple meanings, a particular definition may be closest to what one wishes to say.

The other definitions would require adding some other beliefs and practices that I would not consider as religious in this discussion.

To clarify, the second definition could also add people going about their jobs as being religious e.g a lawyer going to courts 4 times a week, an architect designing buildings 7 hours a day etc.

The fourth definition could also include concepts like capitalism, socialism and even peculiar dance moves of some tribes.

I'm not sure what militant atheism means because in regular conversation, militants advocate or use violence. From what I've read about Dawkins and others, they speak and write more about opening up religious beliefs and practices to criticism just like other human endeavours. I've not read about Dawkins advocating or using violence to get his points across.

I don't think atheism fits with the second definition because what is the particular act that atheists do that marks them out as a particular group?
About the fourth definition, I don't think atheism has been adopted as some traditional view somewhere neither does it have enough distinguishing characteristics to elevate it to the level of an ideology.

Enigma:

No, either you are missing the point or something else and I'll show you "something else" in a minute.

The point is this: you provided a definition of "religion" which you said was closest to what you wanted to say: evangelical atheism fits within your definition of religion (please note the word "fits" because I will return to it in a minute); if you are unhappy that evangelical atheism fits within your definition of religion, do something about your definition --- or acknowledge that evangelical atheism is a religion.

Enigma:

Now to "something else" and "fits": you took your preferred definition of religion from a source that had three other definitions; you rejected the other three definitions because certain things fit within them that you do not wish to classify as religions. As your preferred definition has now suffered the same fate (i.e. something, evangelical atheism, fits within it which you do not want) the honest intellectual course open to you is to discard your preferred definition as you discarded the other three, otherwise acknowledge that evangelical atheism is a . . . .

Here are your own words:

Going by this, one can see that the examples of religions that I gave above do fit but neither atheism nor theism does. . . .


And when you were challenged on why you ignored the other three definitions from your own source:

So you see, you have form when it comes to discarding definitions of religion that take in certain things that you do not want to be included. As your preferred definition now also takes in at least one thing, evangelical atheism, that you do not want to be included, your honest choice is to disown your own definition -------------- or accept that evangelical atheism is a religion on that definition at the least.

Enigma:

Na wa; I dislike that sleight of hand modus operandi; its parallel is the atheist asking the theist to prove the existence of God when he the atheist cannot prove that God doesn't exist. They say 'oh the burden of proof is on you'; well, that trick works with some but I say to them 'try the other one'.

InesQor:

@thehomer:

The burden of proof is not more on either side. If it is, please prove that it is so. 

This burden of proof is often asymmetrical and typically falls more heavily on the party that makes either an ontologically positive claim, or makes a claim more "extraordinary", that is farther removed from conventionally accepted facts.

InesQor:

@thehomer:

The burden of proof is not more on either side. If it is, please prove that it is so.

thehomer:

There's an entry on this issue on Wikipedia. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

InesQor:

When I made the post above, it was a weak attempt at presenting a paradox. I said "the burden of proof is not more on either side" and then contradicted myself by placing the burden of proof on you to prove that it isn't so. Lest some dudes rise in my face and start saying Im contradicting myself again, let that go.

InesQor:

Honestly, I checked out the wikipedia entry after my post above, before your reply.

"Ontologically positive claims" are those that would extend the current body of knowledge. Agreed, in the case of an argument for existence of God, the theist makes the ontologically positive claim because if the argument is proven sound, the "current body of knowledge" would be extended rather than contracted (if atheists can present a superior argument).

But for the second half of the self-same definition you know the question I asked myself?

Which side has the "far removed from conventionally accepted facts" argument? Is atheism the conventionally accepted fact, or is theism so? And when you speak about conventional acceptance, in what domain?

sauer:

enlightening topic. Read it from first to last. Apparently, it is lost on some people what 'religion' really is. I can see modern day use of english has rendered the word rather trite; it still doesnt remove from the fact the religion has codes, dogmas, books, principles, and often times a central figure of admiration/worship, except for buddhism (which though is only separated from Buddha with difficulty). When you have such settings, you have a religion. Atheism lacks such.
Even if atheism were a religion, isnt it wonderful to be part of a circle that seeks to understand the world and throw light on its workings. . . .more like being part of a university. And is a university a religious institution too