I believe it was the other way 'round; botanically tomatoes are a fruit (specifically a berry) . . . ahh yes,
CMC fnord!
Which you can show us by revealing what common definition of “religion” you were referring to in your previous statement, and what atheists could be considered religious according to that definition. Otherwise, all you have just said is “Nuh uh!”.
Richard Dawkins is a fundamentalist.
I said that atheism is not a religion, and you replied:
What definition of “religion” are you using when you say this?
Thank you berry much.
At best, maybe, he falls under category #3 of the definition…but category #3 is definitely non-religious in nature. Sorry.
- a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, *especially *when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and *often *containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Note the use of *especially *and often. That means that they are not always present in a religion. A set of beliefs without belief in God can be a religion, by the dictionary definition.
Or there again,
- something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
Another definition that fits Dawkins.
Dawkins has an atheistic set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe?
Is the ‘Big Bang Theory’ (the theory, not the show) a “belief” in your definition?
Is ‘Evolution’ ?
how do either of these equate to a ‘purpose’ ?
Well, I certainly believe in them.
The mis-use of definitions and the word games are cute, but how about some direct answers for a change?
You understand how a ‘belief’ can be either based on fact or based on ‘faith’ - and that (as a rule) an atheist will prefer the former over the latter -
Thats why ‘atheistic beliefs’ (as such) are not ‘religious’ in nature.
Atheism may or may not be a religion; that’s not particularly interesting.
But *dogmatism *certainly exists among atheists, and it’s just as annoying in them as theists.
I should also state that “atheist” only strictly applies to a single statement - does not believe in god(s) - and not to what we’ve suddenly began talking about.
I’ve given you a direct answer. You don’t like my answer. The dictionary doesn’t agree with your definition, so you reject it. That doesn’t change the fact that you’ve been answered.
Your reality is…interesting.
I believe evolution to be a valid explanation for the diversity of species.
I believe in evolution.
There is a difference in those two statements. Agree?
yours isn’t.
Do you acknowledge that the definition of “fundamental” that Dawkins may fall under is not religious in nature, according to the dictionary? I’d like to get that small bugaboo out of the way.
Yeah. I have no particular love for Dawkins, and if by “fundamentalist” the intent is to say that his particular philosophical viewpoints are extremely certain for him, or that he is intolerant of alternatives*, or that he denies even the possibility of anything else, or that he is utterly devoted to it, or purely that he’s kind of a jerk, sure, fundamentalist. I don’t see a religious or belief-based manner in which he could be called that, though.
*To an extent. I personally would consider a “fundamentalist” to be actively violent and aggressive in their ends, but language has evolved on that one I guess.