Sstavix wrote:erhaps it's just my interpretation, but an adamant belief that "there is no god" seems to qualify, to me, to be a statement of faith that concerns "the cause, nature and purpose of the universe."
Most atheists do not subscribe to that, and even still, no.
Sstavix wrote: The sixth definition seems to apply as well, especially considering how some atheists are so adamant about their beliefs to the point that they immediately dismiss anything that might contradict it.
No, we're just pretty sure you're wrong. I'm not going to take a Flat Earth person seriously, but that doesn't mean I'm religious about my belief that the earth is spherical. Although, flat earthers do actually talk with that rhetoric.
Here's the thing, "religion" in the mind of people, has a very specific defining purpose. These involve the supernatural, a set of beliefs, and involve adherence to moral principles and practices, rituals and traditions. If you redefine it to be used more broadly, you lose the ability to communicate your points with others, but on top of that, even if we agreed to use your definition, it'd lose it' defining power. The more it encompasses, the less statement it makes. If you extend the definition to include any explanation that doesn't hasn't been demonstrated, it no longer holds it's meaning. If you want to say something about the power of religion to help people find spiritual balance: gone. Positive influence on people's life? Nope.
If I accept that atheism is a religion because it has a stance on a non-naturalistic claim, what possible thing could assert from that? The definition is just about meaningless. You certainly haven't addressed any atheist objections to religion. You make no statement on faith or spirituality.
And that's the commonly dishonest use of "atheism is a religion." I don't know your guy's points, but just as Bruce has seen, this sort of redefinition comes as a defense to criticisms of religion from atheists, as if somehow this new bizarre definition still works like the old one. I stand by atheism is not a religion not because I don't want to be associated with religion, or just because I'm pedantic, but because as soon as you do that, religion no longer starts to hold water as a definition. Words need to mean something and if a rejection of religious claims is a religion, what does that even mean anymore? Do we need to come up with another word, or will that eventually be redefined.
Also, if this wasn't complex enough, the danger of dictionary-citing for definitions (which, yes, I have done earlier), is that colloquial uses are added in, and those are intentionally broad as to incorporate their symbolic nature, aka "Racing is a religion in our home." Definition 6 is meant to incorporate this, but in a more specific use, is too broad to really mean something.
ArcticFox wrote:That's way different from positively asserting something. Just as I can't prove ghosts exist, neither can Arch prove that they don't. Therefore, if we're limiting our scope to scientific approaches only, the best any of us can say is "maybe."
Technically, yeah, I don't know for sure. You can't prove a negative. Does this mean anything you don't postiviely believe in is just a maybe?
Given that all claims I am aware of are preposterous, and I can give something much stronger than a "maybe." I don't believe they exist. The notion is not plausible. If someone comes with sufficiently compelling evidence, I'll revisit this position.