| The Batlord |
12-20-2015 01:40 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hip-Hop Homework
(Post 1662109)
There are myriads of examples from both the merriam-webster listing and dictionary.com including communities most would traditionally not associate with the colloquial usage of religion, but people omitting those examples either betrays a failure to understand it or willful omission that's not faithful to the strict definition of the word...how I use it. Do whatchu feel...if there's an "ATHEIST CHURCH" in London and you can't admit that supports my claim, I can deal with that.
|
Yeah, uh... I'm not part of any "ATHEIST CHURCH", so I do not share the same beliefs as those atheists do, and neither do the vast majority of atheists, as we likewise do not go to any atheist church. If you want to call atheists who go to an atheistic church a religion, then you can probably justify that, but don't lump us all together with them. It's like calling black people "you people" when asking why they like watermelon so much.
Which is kind of the point. Atheists do not have any religious texts that we agree upon as being central to our beliefs. We do not have any agreed upon dogma to unify our beliefs. We do not have any agreed upon rituals that give us a shared sense of community. In short, though many atheists may have similar beliefs, there is nothing to give us a "shared standard of beliefs and ethics" (especially in the "standard" sense).
So please peddle that elsewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hip-Hop Homework
(Post 1662109)
yeah, read the new disclaimer, bud!
So how does metaphorically describing a set of people with a shared standard of beliefs/ethics in the context of food, or the like, equate to true but not describing atheists who are also a set of people with shared standards of beliefs and ethics not equate to true? That's the part I'm having trouble understanding...mainly because the two separate sets of standards being mixed to apply as tests for validity.
|
They're not different standards, you're just beating your head against a wall trying not to understand them. I already explained how only one of the definitions for "religion" which you provided applied to atheists, and it was purely a metaphorical definition. The same standard being applied to food as a religion is being applied to atheism as a religion, just like neither food nor atheism falls under the definitions of "religion" which applied to literal, theistic religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hip-Hop Homework
(Post 1662122)
I recognize science deals with cold hard facts but it also deals with a lot of theory, and that does necessarily require the practice of faith...regardless of how much circumstantial evidence supports the theory, it's still a theory and an expression of faith until it's proven true with no possibility to be falsified.
|
Alright, if you're gonna try to take people to task over the definition of "religion", then I'm gonna need you to start using "theory" correctly, cause whether or not you are aware, or whether or not you are doing it intentionally, you continually use "theory" in the colloquial sense (i.e. a hypothesis), rather than its scientific definition. |
