...you'll be accused of "dodging", and the Mods will be talking to you about it.
Ironic that the thread being closed has nothing to do with dodging.
It looks like it was closed due to being "beat to death".
I could say, again, why I missed quite a few posts. What I've been doing is picking one or two and replying to them.... that can come across as being ignored when 7-8 people reply.
Agamemnon at least labeled it properly.
Start of #100
No, because in that context (ie the question is referring to atheism/theism) "belief" is obviously being used in its religious sense.
People here have said so themselves that Atheism is not a firm religious faith. They've also said Atheism is not about accepting something as true, genuine or real - as it is about rejection. Would the religious/truth definitions really be in context to Atheism?
I don't think so.
Atheism is an opinion held, therefor a belief.
Not-having-an-opinion-about-X is a form of opinion-about-X. .....
Absence of an opinion is not a form of opinion - it is the antithesis of an opinion.
The believe definition included "to hold an opinion; think". Lets rephrase that....Not thinking about X is a form of thinking about X.
I can see why you say that makes no sense - and it doesn't.... That is a correct general statement, and I agree with you in the way you put it.
.....but there's one small problem.
When someone says "I'm not thinking about X", in effect, they are. Its impossible to mention X without it being somewhere in the brain.
How about, "I hold no opinion of X"? That can ONLY be a true statement in ignorance, or being absent from the brain. It might be a phrase used to replace "No Comment", but it's not actually a true statement.
"I have no opinion of Twangdillo" can only be true if:
- I don't know what Twangdillo is
- I've never heard of Twangdillo. (though, if its mentioned, you've now heard of it, but still may not know what it is)
It is IMPOSSIBLE to not have an opinion on Twangdillo if you
- know (of) Twangdillo.
- have thought (of) Twangdillo
Opinions are stronger than impressions, but weaker than positive knowledge.
You can believe Twangdillo. It's defined as a quick slap, thought its not a common term. You might lack empirical evidence, but what evidence you have, you can either accept it or deny it....
....but you still have an opinion associated with Twangdillo.
Now, you can disbelieve Twangdillo's existence as a term, concept, etc... to do so blindly would be silly. You're educated and have probably put a lot of thought into it. Your conclusion (in the agnostic sense)
"As far as I know, Twangdillo does not exist."
Now, it's not positive knowledge - but it's more than impression. You in fact do have the belief that Twangdillo does not exist.
No belief/opinion = no thought
Do I believe in unicorns?
Do I believe the animal exists? No. That's my opinion. I'm open to proof if someone has it, but until then, I'll continue to associate it as a mythical animal in my brain. I believe the word "unicorn" exists. I believe there are drawings, paintings, movies, stories, etc. of unicorns.
Someone would argue that unicorns to exist in those manners. Does that mean I'm a unicorn theist? Absolutely not. For one, a unicorn is not a "God" (and I find it ludicrous when people try to throw this association in) and for two, it may not be a "belief-system" or a faith style belief.....
but it is a belief. It's an opinion.
It's almost like asking, "Is fiction true?".
It's not fact, but its true that a fiction story is a story, and it does exist.
Agamemnon has answered your religion argument adequately (thanks, Aga), so I have nothing to add to his response.
No he hasn't. He's said little more than the court being wrong in saying its religion.
He overlooked my post saying that according to the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, it's "equivalent to religion". Which means its not this "antithesis" its described as here.
You seem to be asserting that atheism is a philosophical perspective which encompasses a particular worldview, as religions tend to do. If so, then please describe it briefly.There are no gods.
....your answer will need to encompass the worldviews of such atheists as....
or We deny the existence of gods
Is that brief enough?
I realized pretty quick that my own definitions, while adequate for my day-to-day life, were inadequate on this Forum; so I learned the language.
What I didn't do, and which you seem to be doing, was insist that my definitions were correct and attempt to get everyone else to accept and use them.
That's one of the trademarks of a cult - a group of people who define and redefine their own words. Chances are, like you, a lot of people here were willing to be pointed in the right direction, you might not question something you find easy to agree with, as its what you're looking for.
Since I'm not hear to find what I'm looking for, my bullshit detector is going off. (old burden of proof pun there)
And as I said before, don't use ordinary dictionaries for this stuff, they're not nuanced enough; most people here are happy with the Wiki definitions of all these concepts.
Don't you see what's seriously wrong with that statement? Anyone can redefine WIKI for one.... for another, it just looks like brainwashing or a super inflated ego to throw in statements like,
"Dictionaries aren't good enough for definitions." (we use our own)
"The supreme court doesn't know what they're talking about." (we know more than the law)
Please think about this. You're an intelligent chap, Hguols, you can learn; but only if you first admit that there's something to learn.
Thank you for the compliment. ....and believe it or not, I am learning. However, it's just not going in accordance to your plans, perhaps.