MoreCoffee
Repentance works.
- Jan 8, 2011
- 29,860
- 2,841
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
It's a dictionary definition so don't complain to me.
Religion = a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It's a dictionary definition so don't complain to me.The main problem is that your definition is so vague and all-encompassing to become meaningless.
If I train over the course of months for a marathon, is that a religion?
If sit down and read a book cover to cover, is that a religion?
If I spend a lot of time and money collecting 19th century teapots, is that a religion?
And you are still only addressing half of the challenge. It is dishonest to try to change the argument after you join it. One more time not only do you have to show that atheism can be said to be a religion, though I disagree that the definition that you cited includes atheism it still fails since Christianity would also be a religion by that definition.It's a dictionary definition so don't complain to me.
Religion = a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.
Here is the post where I first challenged MoreCoffee to defend AV's claim. Please note the "it failed utterly" referred to AV's definition and I challenged you to defend his claim. Instead of doing that you have merely been trying to prove that you could find a definition that could possibly be applied to atheism calling it a religion. You erred by not understanding the challenge, even though I repeatedly explained to MoreCoffee how he was not responding to the correct question.No, it failed utterly. If you want to try again have at it.
Not scientific "dating" methods, but the unquestionable faith (held by all evolutionary mystics) that the earth is extremely ancient in a way that facilitates the mysterious evolution of all life on earth from a common seed. (i.e. millions and billions of years) This is a sacrosanct creed never, ever, to be questioned.
Well AV, I'm still waiting for you explanation of why you discredit speleomeths. Or, perhaps you are realized that you are in way over your head with a baseless supported claim? Or is it that when you said deep time doesn't work, you realized that you were contradicting your own idea of embedded age?
It's a dictionary definition so don't complain to me.
Religion = a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.
Atheism = "lack of belief in God" =a belief that God is unnecessary to explain the universe.
In that sense Atheism is a religious position in that it is a set of beliefs about the ultimate cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Saying you "lack belief in God" is simultaneously a positive metaphysical claim whether you like it or not.
This "lack of belief" thing is just a trick used in order to cowardly avoid defending one's metaphysical worldview.
It is essentially no different than saying Theism is the "lack of belief in a universe in which God is unnecessary". Anyone can flip their position into a "lack of belief" of the opposite.
As far as I know, modern atheists were the first ideological sect that began running away from the prospect of actually defending their beliefs like this.
And not only that. The challenge was not to just show that atheism can be defined as a religion, though his answer was very poor there was one huge problem with it, Christianity was a religion too by that definition, therefore it failed. The challenge was to find a definition that included atheism, but excluded Christianity. He knows that that is hopeless.Done.
The rest of your post is irrelevant and wrong.
No, because amphibians and fish also have articular bones in the jaw. The situation you imagine would be a violation of Dollo's Law. Dollo's Law may not be as unbreakable as the laws of physics, but it strains credulity to have jaw bones evolve into earbones and back again in just the same arrangement. In this case it is clear which are the derived forms. And they appear after the original forms. And continued fossil discoveries will either reinforce, or contradict, this conclusion. So far, the conclusions have been reinforced.
Sure, I can explain it further. Simply put, mutations that impact actual traits are less common than ones which do absolutely nothing. Considering that something such as a jawbone's morphology can be the result of thousands of mutations if not millions of them, some being mutations so rare that the now prevalent trait could have originated in less than a dozen organisms, the chances of it all happening again in reverse order are practically nonexistent, especially considering the fact that in order for it to occur, we would have had to have an environmental change in which all those previous mutations were not an advantage, time for evolution, and to have the traits later be at a disadvantage in the original environment to a significant extent. This just doesn't happen in nature, most mutations can be beneficial in a wide enough range of environments that the chances of this all working to occur naturally is just plain impossible. But this is considering a complex structure such as a jawbone.
Done.
The rest of your post is irrelevant and wrong.
Uh huh. It was so "wrong" that you were incapable of pointing out why. What a great way to debate, just cross out the arguments you can't respond to.
You went off on a flawed basis. Your argument failed before it began. You'd be just mistaken by arguing atheism demands an extreme love of shrimp. You lack fundamental knowledge, why waste my time dismantling a fundamentally flawed argument? Everything I crossed out was flawed because it didn't fit the description of atheism.
Sorry but everything you wrote is wrong. You are so wrong that I don't need to explain how. Why waste my time dismantling a fundamentally flawed argument?
See how far the discussion goes playing those games?
Run these things, whatever they are, through my Boolean standards and see what comes out.Still waiting AV.
Your so called "Boolean standards" are incorrectly applied.Run these things, whatever they are, through my Boolean standards and see what comes out.
You're welcome to think that.Your so called "Boolean standards" are incorrectly applied.
You're welcome to think that.
But then, I'm not the one scratching my head.
Rick is.
I'm curious to see if he can run them through my standards, misapplied or not, and come up with the answer.
Hmmmm? Okay! Ching...chang...bong...Boolean...AVstandards......bounce...trounce... beep beep.Run these things, whatever they are, through my Boolean standards and see what comes out.
My Boolean Standards:Allow me to see these boolean standards or wise one
My Boolean Standards:
- Science says it, Bible says otherwise = say otherwise
- Science says it, Bible is silent = agree with science
I'm totally lost here.Hmmmm? Okay! Ching...chang...bong...Boolean...AVstandards......bounce...trounce... beep beep.
Ah! Yes, I see now. A complete lack of knowledge applied to a topic (Speleothems), yet feels justified in trashing it, even though he has no idea what the scientific use for it is. Why am I not surprised? Reminds me of the poster yesterday that tried to pass of Amino Acid Chronology as a radiocarbon dating method. Good Grief!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?