Originally posted by Alfheim
Er maybe because you just came at the end of a LONG discussion.Boy didnt sound like it. Well to be fair im not sure if I want to discuss this anymore ....not its not a cop out. I started this thread and ive been discussing it for ages. A couple of pages back before you arrived I already said I was fed up.
I might list my points later but im not sure. Just fed up of getting stressed out.
Can't say fairer than that
Originally posted by Alfheim
I dont want anything.
you selected certain places to get definitions of what a religion was. From those, you selected the ones that most suited your point. What you want in this case, was to use those as the definition for what a religion is, and thus we are now using them
Originally posted by Alfheim
Did I put them in the dictionary? 🤨
I wouldn't expect so, no
Originally posted by Alfheim
Take it up with the people who put it in the dcitionary it doesnt suit your defintion therefore its wrong because you are always right.
I am?
In all seriousness you haven't been paying attention to what I am saying. The way a word is defined in the dictionary has nothing to do with what my argument rests on. In fact, it is possible for your definition of religion to be correct, and my points to also be valid.
Originally posted by Alfheim
Furthermore implicit atheism doesnt fall under any of those categories so it doesnt apply to everything.
then atheism isn't a religion, the same way theism isn't a religion, for the very reason you pointed out above, for instance "it doesn't apply to everything"
Originally posted by Alfheim
What you mean just agree with you? Ok atheism cant be considered a religon.
cool 🙂
Originally posted by Alfheim
So i'll just use sources that suit you?
aside from the fact that dictionaries aren't scolarly sources, and encycliopedia's are just a step above that, I don't generally have a problem with you using them to back up your argument.
However, I'm not arguing semantics
Originally posted by Alfheim
So do you want me to ignore the dictionary and all the other sources?
Do you really think dictionaries and etymology studies are the best way to determine what a word means in its common usage?
Really, my problem with your argument is that you are saying that the symbol which is used to describe something with particular characteristics can also be used to describe something without those characteristics.
For instance, a almost perfect analogy can be drawn with colour and blue. Regardless of what a dictionary says or of what Latin word "blue" comes from, a true definition of "blue" is impossible to get. This is because "blue" represents a certain range of wavelengths of light as interpreted by our brain. however, there is no real objective distinction of where blue ends and green begins. Using text book or dictionary definitions of blue, you could see how one could then make almost any spectrum of colours those that are categorized as blue, however, the more of that spectrum that "blue" represents, the less specific the term "blue" becomes. A better way would be, as scientists have done, define clearly subjective qualities that "blue" refers to and all people subjectively experience in a similar way.
Now, with religion, sure, I believe that you have found a way to use strict definitions and make religion be the same as no religion. But I hope you see how that fails to address the point that I am making. "religion" refers to specific characteristics. We could argue where those characteristics lie and what the strict limits to what is or isn't a religion, but this matter does not require nearly that much specificity. "no religion" as a concept and not the symbol to describe that concept share virtually none of the qualities that "religions" share, specifically the ones that they share which we interpret as being significant to their classification of religion.
Originally posted by Alfheim
Furthermore implicit atheism does not come under those categories.
all types of christianity are a religion thus christianity is a religion
not all types of theism are religions, therefore theism is not a religion
not all types of atheism are religions, therefore atheism is not a religion
Originally posted by Alfheim
Im not manipulating anything your getting me mixed up with somebody else
ok, if it isn't manipulation of words it's a complete misunderstanding of the nature of language
Originally posted by Alfheim
So why were you complaining then? I dont see you quoting jack ****.
you can't prove a negative, my argument is that atheism is not a religion.
What point have I made that you want me to show sources for?
Originally posted by Alfheim
Its incredible anything that doesnt suit your point of view is wrong and you dont see anything wrong with that?
ummm, thats human nature 😉
my less glib response would be that you have yet to show any credible reason for why I should change my opinion on this.
Originally posted by inimalist
you selected certain places to get definitions of what a religion was. From those, you selected the ones that most suited your point. What you want in this case, was to use those as the definition for what a religion is, and thus we are now using themI wouldn't expect so, no
I am?
In all seriousness you haven't been paying attention to what I am saying. The way a word is defined in the dictionary has nothing to do with what my argument rests on. In fact, it is possible for your definition of religion to be correct, and my points to also be valid.
then atheism isn't a religion, the same way theism isn't a religion, for the very reason you pointed out above, for instance "it doesn't apply to everything"
cool 🙂
aside from the fact that dictionaries aren't scolarly sources, and encycliopedia's are just a step above that, I don't generally have a problem with you using them to back up your argument.
However, I'm not arguing semantics
Do you really think dictionaries and etymology studies are the best way to determine what a word means in its common usage?
Really, my problem with your argument is that you are saying that the symbol which is used to describe something with particular characteristics can also be used to describe something without those characteristics.
For instance, a almost perfect analogy can be drawn with colour and blue. Regardless of what a dictionary says or of what Latin word "blue" comes from, a true definition of "blue" is impossible to get. This is because "blue" represents a certain range of wavelengths of light as interpreted by our brain. however, there is no real objective distinction of where blue ends and green begins. Using text book or dictionary definitions of blue, you could see how one could then make almost any spectrum of colours those that are categorized as blue, however, the more of that spectrum that "blue" represents, the less specific the term "blue" becomes. A better way would be, as scientists have done, define clearly subjective qualities that "blue" refers to and all people subjectively experience in a similar way.
Now, with religion, sure, I believe that you have found a way to use strict definitions and make religion be the same as no religion. But I hope you see how that fails to address the point that I am making. "religion" refers to specific characteristics. We could argue where those characteristics lie and what the strict limits to what is or isn't a religion, but this matter does not require nearly that much specificity. "no religion" as a concept and not the symbol to describe that concept share virtually none of the qualities that "religions" share, specifically the ones that they share which we interpret as being significant to their classification of religion.
all types of christianity are a religion thus christianity is a religion
not all types of theism are religions, therefore theism is not a religion
not all types of atheism are religions, therefore atheism is not a religion
ok, if it isn't manipulation of words it's a complete misunderstanding of the nature of language
you can't prove a negative, my argument is that atheism is not a religion.
What point have I made that you want me to show sources for?
ummm, thats human nature 😉
my less glib response would be that you have yet to show any credible reason for why I should change my opinion on this.
Erm, ok, errr, i had a something to say about this, but kinda forgot as i was reading your essay lol, very impressed though!
Originally posted by inimalist
you selected certain places to get definitions of what a religion was. From those, you selected the ones that most suited your point. What you want in this case, was to use those as the definition for what a religion is, and thus we are now using them
The only place I picked was the enyclopadia brittanica. I picked that because I thought that was a more respected source than the dictionary. As for the other sources I just typed in online dictionary into google.
If you actually paid attention some of my sources did not even prove my point but I still posted it.
Well yeah I selected points but if your accusing me of manipulating stuff thats bull****.
Originally posted by inimalist
I wouldn't expect so, no
So whats the problem then?
Originally posted by inimalist
I am?
😐
Originally posted by inimalist
In all seriousness you haven't been paying attention to what I am saying. The way a word is defined in the dictionary has nothing to do with what my argument rests on. In fact, it is possible for your definition of religion to be correct, and my points to also be valid.
You havnet been paying attention either and your next point proves it.
Originally posted by inimalist
then atheism isn't a religion, the same way theism isn't a religion, for the very reason you pointed out above, for instance "it doesn't apply to everything"
For the love of god how did you deduce that? It depends, thats what ive been saying over and over again. If you are committed to soimething then its a religion, if its just a belief then its not. Therefore its your attitude towards what you believe that make it a religion.
Originally posted by inimalist
cool 🙂
Of course you know that was sarcasm.
Originally posted by inimalist
aside from the fact that dictionaries aren't scolarly sources, and encycliopedia's are just a step above that, I don't generally have a problem with you using them to back up your argument.
You've got a problem with it now.
Originally posted by inimalist
However, I'm not arguing semantics
Well when two people debate something they need to agree on what they are debating on means. Until we can get some agreement were not going anywhere.
Originally posted by inimalist
Do you really think dictionaries and etymology studies are the best way to determine what a word means in its common usage?
1. Common usage of a word or concept may not be correct
2. Thats like asking me if looking in a physics book is the correct way of understanding physics.
Originally posted by inimalist
Really, my problem with your argument is that you are saying that the symbol which is used to describe something with particular characteristics can also be used to describe something without those characteristics.
No I am not. You dont even understand what im saying.
Originally posted by inimalist
For instance, a almost perfect analogy can be drawn with colour and blue. Regardless of what a dictionary says or of what Latin word "blue" comes from, a true definition of "blue" is impossible to get. This is because "blue" represents a certain range of wavelengths of light as interpreted by our brain. however, there is no real objective distinction of where blue ends and green begins. Using text book or dictionary definitions of blue, you could see how one could then make almost any spectrum of colours those that are categorized as blue, however, the more of that spectrum that "blue" represents, the less specific the term "blue" becomes. A better way would be, as scientists have done, define clearly subjective qualities that "blue" refers to and all people subjectively experience in a similar way.
Well considering that I can see you dont understand what im saying this point doesnt even apply to what im saying.
Originally posted by inimalist
Now, with religion, sure, I believe that you have found a way to use strict definitions and make religion be the same as no religion. But I hope you see how that fails to address the point that I am making. "religion" refers to specific characteristics. We could argue where those characteristics lie and what the strict limits to what is or isn't a religion, but this matter does not require nearly that much specificity. "no religion" as a concept and not the symbol to describe that concept share virtually none of the qualities that "religions" share, specifically the ones that they share which we interpret as being significant to their classification of religion.
All thats happening here is this. You are saying there is good and bad. If you say good can be bad then theres no point of using the english language.
Heres my problem I have certain criteria for what good is supposed to be to me but because you dont agree with it you are saying that it applies to bad and therefore does not make any sense.
Originally posted by inimalist
all types of christianity are a religion thus christianity is a religionnot all types of theism are religions, therefore theism is not a religion
not all types of atheism are religions, therefore atheism is not a religion
I dont know what thats supposed to be. Is that what you think im saying. Well this is what I think:
All types of Christianity are a religon thus christanity is a religon
Not all types of theism are a religons (for example if somebody believed in God but did not act upon it) therefore some examples of theism are not a religion.
Not all types of atheism are religions, therefore some examples of atheism are not a religion.
Originally posted by inimalist
ok, if it isn't manipulation of words it's a complete misunderstanding of the nature of language
Because I dont agree with you.
Originally posted by inimalist
you can't prove a negative, my argument is that atheism is not a religion.
According to you. I only believe Atheism is a religon under certain circumstances. For example if somebody is aware he is an athiest and this belief affects how he sees the universe and how he behaves then that can be his religon eg. A person is an athiest therefore:
He doesnt believe in the afterlife
He doesnt believe in miracles
You only live one life thats it, better enjoy it while you can
Obvoulsy beliefs will vary but in my opinion if an athiest believed that, that would make it his religion.
Originally posted by inimalist
What point have I made that you want me to show sources for?
Nevermind. I just dont like people telling me not to use the dictionary to say that athiesm is a religion when they are bringing no sources. I dont know what sources you use, I dunno knock yourself out. Not sure if it would make any difference because obvoulsy some sources will say different.
Originally posted by inimalist
ummm, thats human nature 😉
Im not human then.
Originally posted by inimalist
my less glib response would be that you have yet to show any credible reason for why I should change my opinion on this.
Yeah and I bet I couldnt convince muslimscholar that Islam isnt the best religion ins the world. 🙄
my point has been about the fact that definitions can mean anything, because language is subjective.
religion to me expresses certain behavioural, social and spiritual conventions which are common to the things we call religions.
Social gatherings, similar beliefs, rituals prayer/meditation
real tangible things that we can actually discuss rather than simply moving from one definitin to the next.
It really doesn't matter what symbol you think "religion" stands for. There are no characteristics that religions have, for which we classify them as religions, that atheism has.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What do you mean about that?😆 😆 🤣
lol
The meaning of words are based upon our previous experience with them.
When I say "orange" to communicate a piece of information, the object or "subjective experience of orange" that I know is incommunicable to you, and only because you likely have a similar experience with "orange" does it make any sense.
We don't have programmed English dictionaries in our brains.
Originally posted by inimalist
lolThe meaning of words are based upon our previous experience with them.
When I say "orange" to communicate a piece of information, the object or "subjective experience of orange" that I know is incommunicable to you, and only because you likely have a similar experience with "orange" does it make any sense.
We don't have programmed English dictionaries in our brains.
😱 🙄 I hate when people don't get my jokes and take my smart ass questions seriously, then give me an answer I already know.
Originally posted by inimalist
my point has been about the fact that definitions can mean anything, because language is subjective.religion to me expresses certain behavioural, social and spiritual conventions which are common to the things we call religions.
Social gatherings, similar beliefs, rituals prayer/meditation
real tangible things that we can actually discuss rather than simply moving from one definitin to the next.
It really doesn't matter what symbol you think "religion" stands for. There are no characteristics that religions have, for which we classify them as religions, that atheism has.
Well even without the dictionary I still dont see why atheism cant be a religion under certain circumstances , as fars as im concerned Satanism is an example of atheism and is a religion.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Satanism believes in a god, satan.
Thats the thing Anton Da levey satanist dont. They belive in Satan the same way you would believe in Star Trek, its a good series but you use the stories as inspiration and a code to live your life by, but its not real.
I know it sounds funny but they dont belive in God or any gods.
Originally posted by inimalist
satanism is an example of a religion that has atheism as a doctrinemuch in the same way that Christianity is an example of a religion that has theism as a doctrine
So your saying that theism isnt a religion either?
Ok I get it but I think you might understand why I got confused.
That sounds like a religion
Originally posted by leonheartmm
THEISM, is belief/dogma in ur version of god and his commandments/heaven/hell soul etc,
Theism isnt just the belief in God but heaven, hell commandments and such and then goes on to say this.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
theism on the other hand is the direct causitive factor for many many things which are mostly negetivr so theyr not on even ground.
leo also states that theism does not cause people to kill, but if it says the above statement he is saying that theism is not just a belief in god but this belief in god causes other negative factors. I intepreted this as more than just a belief. This is why I said that athiesm is not just a disbelief in God but a disbelief in after life and supernatural. To me since that was not just the lack of disbleief that to me was a religion.
Originally posted by Bardock42
the doctrine or belief that there is only one God.
Originally posted by inimalist"atheism" does not work this way, neither does "theism". Both are doctrines, however, neither of them are belief systems. a doctrine of their philosophy, if expressed in diferent words.
I intepret doctrine as a religon, I have also seen some defintions of doctrine as a belief system. I guess the video istself didnt help by saying Communism is an example of atheism.
I guess I assumed you didnt agree because you were arrogant wankers instead of having a valid point. Im quite disapointed with myself.
To summarise both athiesm and theism are beliefs and are doctrines. They cannot be religions themselves but can be part of religions.
To be fair if you were to look at some meaning of the words religion and doctrine atheism and theism could be a religion but this is not the common usage of the word.
I will say that athiesm and theism are not just beliefs but can lead to other beliefs for example belief in God can also mean but not neccesarily:
Belief in afterlife
Belief in supernatural
Can give you motivation to be more charitable (Death isnt the end).
disbelief in God can equal but not neccesarily:
disbelief in afterlife
disbelief in supernatural
can make you a cold pragmatic b****** (Only got one life).
I dunno man to me that that could be considered to be a belief system.
I simply thought that people were saying that atheism cant be a religion but theism can and theism sucks. So I actually did not get that point because I was on hot head mode, but I still inclined to think that theism and atheism can be considered to be belief systems.