What does THAT mean to you? If you are talking about scinece, there is ONE main article of faith in science - and that is that we may meaningfully observe nature.
I have not sen an atheist yet who does! You will be looking at a long train of cognitive dissonance all the way to totally delusional. false the word atheist is polysemous and has several possible meanings. and theists lack disbelief in God(s), that is theism. good luck trying to convince anyone that 'no God exists' is a proven fact, which is a minimum requirement to claim not faith, otherwise suck it up buttercup, its faith. Sure they can and do all the time. and you just admitted they can in line 2 bravo! Thats known as cognitive dissonance! thats right so they do it by proxy lol
One thing is for sure and that is they are still lying about the number of people who are dying from the virus.
ah too complicated for ya huh? You know as you admit, that to be a legitimate 'religion' an attached action is a necessary ingredient, otherwise it is merely ones philosophy, opinion, (iow not religion). You admitted action was part earlier in the thread. In the second part of your post you made it perfectly clear that the gubmint can make laws based on a persons 'actions', hence the gubmint regulates and totally infringes upon and establishes a religion.
No, I just don't accept YOUR faith. And, all you are doing is trying to downgrade the very meaning of religion to the point where it applies to everyone.
of course not that you can up with a single shred of a rational explanation much less a real reason in support of such nonsense. I suppose you think its got to start with a prayer! Seriously this is getting close to the top rung of absurd. (Again) Stalin would be laughing so hard hed **** himself LOL Dont worry I am not asking you to post an explanation, you already sunk your boat and Im really not in the mood for 10 more rounds of your dodging.
Nope atheism Pronunciation /ˈāTHēˌizəm/ /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ NOUN Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/atheism
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/is-neo-atheism-a-rational-religion.564784/page-36 the definition of atheism is polysemous, and its 'root' meaning must be a negation or rejection of theism, no other variant is applicable. These constructs have been explained to you several times by several people. Likewise the definition of religion is polysemous, and its root means to securely bind ones self to some concept construct or thing or object of thought which is perfectly clear in the definition of religion: re·li·gion noun: religion 1) As it applies to Theism: 1.) the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2) As it applies to Atheism: 2.) a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. "consumerism [lackerism] is the new religion" and since rahl spams every thread with his bogus interpretation of religion the rest of us can clearly see that his use of 'by definition' referring to religion and atheism is nothing more than political spin since 'a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.' is a perfect match to the atheist lack of belief jingo. So perfect in fact that the supreme court has determined that atheist secular humanists are religious. FALSE It means disbelief in God. it is your opinion, I can argue it means disbelief. When used in a sense 'what it means' that carries the requirement of a core definition which standford explained where LOB fails. FALSE Only if you have PROOF that no God exists, otherwise just more of your usual bs spin. anyone can argue that atheism means disbelief, which carries several magnitudes more weight than your LOB does thats just another post thats purely a lie. As I have said in the thread you are referencing; to legitimately hold the label of atheist, where it is 'defensible' and the only way it can be defensible is through philosophy. STANFORD: "Therefore, in philosophy, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods)." Nope no lack of belief there! As far as stanford is concerned you are limited to: God does not exist There are no gods, You are not only up against me but also stanford u since I am in agreement with them lock step, now there are those of course who cant defend there way out of an open door, where they use the gomer pyle approach, opinion+blind-denial+repition.
this has already been, repeatedly, proven false. The definition of atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. it is, by definition, not a religion and is the opposite of faith. that will not stop being true no matter how many moronic posts you make to the contrary.
only in your spinning imagination! It never occurred to you why every new poster to this topic disagrees with you. Feel free to quote it, and the definition of atheism as shown above does not refute anything, and your use of by definition is ridiculous as proven in my thread (several times), as you know full well there are several applicable choices, so please spare everyone that nonsense again
No, in the preserved written record of this forum. You’ve been shown repeatedly the definition of atheism. You’ve had your argument repeatedly proven false.
Disbelieving in something for which no evidence has ever been found is hardly an act of faith Try the Unicorn analogy which so defeats Koko.
Atheists even have their own churches https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/10/atheist-mega-churches/3489967/ https://seattleatheist.church https://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe/beliefs/atheist-agnostic
