@Matheist,

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that atheism could be classified as a religion.

What happens then? Do you somehow magically have evidence for your chosen god? Do you somehow suddenly prove God's existence, or convert all atheists to believers? What do you feel is accomplished in classifying atheism as a religion? Does it somehow discredit atheism? Do you REALLY want to go there? If something being a "religion" discredits it, then your religion also takes that same hit. Do you feel it somehow "levels the playing field?" Again, you still have no sufficient evidence for your claims, and atheism is still denying those claims.

This is nothing more than a distraction tactic. A card played because the rest of the cards in your hand that are actually produced from your theism are known to be absolutely shite.

Oh dear, someone has resurrected this nonsense. I'll start by expounding an elementary concept that the original poster manifestly does not understand, namely, that dictionaries are primarily sources of information on everyday and colloquial uses of language, with the exception of those dictionaries compiled as a glossary of specialist terms in a specialist discipline. As a corollary, replying upon a colloquial or everyday definition of a term, when rigorous versions exist elsewhere, is an exercise in failure when one attempts to apply this to concepts with rigorous definitions.

Second, I'll repeat here the concept that I've been expounding for some time, namely, that atheism in its rigorous formulation, consists of nothing more than suspicion of unsupported supernaturalist assertions. That is IT. It does NOT mean for one moment, presenting assertions contrary to those subject to the requisite suspicion, because it is perfectly possible to be suspicious of both an assertion and its negation simultaneously.

Indeed, in the world of properly constituted rigorous discourse, all assertions possess the status "truth value unknown". The whole purpose of proper discourse is to subject assertions to test, to remedy that epistemological deficit, and confer upon those assertions a known truth-value. Part of the problem with supernaturalist assertions, is that they are either formulated without proper regard for rigour, and are untestable as a result of said formulation, or are formulated deliberately to avoid such test, which means that the discoursive position of whoever presents an assertion in the latter category is dishonest from the outset.

Now, since I'm familiar with attempts by supernaturalists to try and tell people like myself what we purportedly think, without bothering to ask us this, or attempts to try and force-fit our deliberations into their own agenda-laden pigeonholes, I present the above specifically to kill off such duplicity at source. Supernaturalists who fail to pay attention to both the above exposition and the implicit warning against duplicitous misrepresentation I've just delivered, will find that their output will be treated with well-deserved contempt.

Now, since religions all exhibit, as practically a defining characteristic, the treatment of mythological assertions uncritically as fact (a defining characteristic that can, with robust justification, also be used as a definition of "belief" or "faith" as practised by supernaturalists), then the moment one expresses suspicion of those assertions, then said suspicion is the antithesis of "belief", "faith" or "religion" by definition. So let's flush the requisite canards down the toilet once and for all, shall we, and as a corollary of doing so, kill off dishonest misrepresentations of atheism as peddled so often by mendacious apologetics merchants?

In the meantime, I'll state my own position clearly and explicitly, so that there is no doubt whatsoever on the matter, just in case anyone wishes to play sleazy apologetic games with my thinking on the matter. I regard the general proposition "there exists a god type entity" the same way I regard any other assertion bereft of test, as expounded above, namely, as having the status "truth value unknown". However, with respect to specific candidates for the role, asserted to be thus by various mythologies, I dismiss these on the grounds that they are fatuously constructed, replete with contradiction, paradox and absurdity, and that the mythologies in question also contain assertions about the observable universe and its contents that have been demonstrated to be plain, flat, wrong. I therefore regard mythologies as incompetent to answer the question, and indeed incompetent with respect to the matter of providing us with genuine, substantive knowledge about our surroundings, with the exception of providing knowledge about the weird imaginings of the authors thereof.

Quite simply, a mythology that contains assertions known to be wrong after appropriate test, cannot be considered reliable with respect to its untested assertions either.

So, anyone who wants to claim that my dismissal of mythological candidates for the role is a "religion", has to address not only the above exposition, but also has to address the fact that mythologies are demonstrably unreliable. The Abrahamic mythologies, for example, underestimated the size of the observable universe by fully nine orders of magnitude, a level of error that would be considered pathetically laughable in the realm of physics, but which never seems to be a source of embarrassment for adherents of those mythologies. Likewise, those mythologies (and they are not alone in this) were manifestly written by people who were incapable of even fantasising about vast classes of entities and phenomena, which were subsequently alighted upon by scientists, and placed by said scientists within usefully predictive, quantitative frameworks of genuine, substantive knowledge. The authors of the Abrahamic mythologies were completely ignorant of the existence of three major continental land masses on this planet, a fact which should be a source of serious embarrassment to any adherents of those mythologies residing on those land masses. Other absurdities I can point to with ease in this case, which again render those mythologies unreliable as sources of genuine, substantive knowledge.

Recognising these demonstrable facts isn't a "religion", and any attempt to misrepresent this as such, will be treated with the scorn and derision it deserves.

Because you believe in Allahha ha ha, you fail at reason. Too bad for you.

Meanwhile, in answer to Matheist's continued attempts to try and tell us all what we think, ignoring completely any replies on our part that tell us what we actually think ...

Quite simply, your entire approach here is an exercise in rampant discoursive dishonesty. When others provide you with substantive reasons why your assertions are wrong, your summary dismissal thereof is nothing more than than duplicitous stonewalling.

Now, is there any chance you might address my previous posts above on the matter of the proper, rigorous nature of atheism and anti-theism, or are you simply going to pretend that your assertions override observable fact?

Oh, and by the way, I keep observing assorted assertionists peddling the notion that repeated parroting of their assertions constitutes "logic". It doesn't. Genuine logic consists of analysing propositions to determine their truth-value in accordance with a well-defined set of rules from the appropriate formal system. I see no such derivation in the repeated parroting of assertions.