Why do NeoAtheists deny the practice of atheism is a religion?<<MOD WARNING>>

Nope; Atheists don't believe that there are "no Gods". They just don't consider that there could be any God.

Religious beliefs simply have no meaning for them. An atheist doesn't care if you believe in God or not.

If you start to argue with the existence of God, he will not accept that. If he is polite, he will point out the discrepancy. If not, he'll fight your faith.

 

You are complaining about muddying the waters . . . while muddying the waters. Of course you can have morals without religion. You are just inventing dogma now and demanding that others accept it despite the fact that your dogma is incongruent with reality and you are unable to offer any reasoning to support it. If you'll join us here in reality, people practice morality without religion every day. Many religious people acknowledge this. The only moral theory that requires theism is Divine Command Theory, which is itself morally bankrupt. Put please continue stating your dogma without addressing these facts. Par for the course at this point.

If you can't think of a reason to love without theism, then you aren't thinking that much. Nor can you identify any justification that theism has for love or compassion that uniquely belongs to it, otherwise you would have provided it. More logic failures.

 

Fantasy time again. Ethics and morals have nothing to do with each other, no matter how much you claim it to be.

Ethics are a constant standard, never varying.

Morals are situational.

It was once moral and correct to own slaves and practice cannibalism.

Ethically it has never been so. Religion is the force that has "muddied the waters" with its fantasy of life. Religion has stoned people for disobedience and tortured them. Not exactly a glowing representative of what they claim as moral or ethical behavior.

 

Still trying to use the terms atheist and neo-atheist without defining what they mean. Indicates that you don't know the difference or even if there is one. Makes your entire premise false.

 

If you are not a theist then you are, by definition, an atheist. That's what atheist means, by pure etymology.

You have, once again, dodged the question. Try again. I'm not going to repost it here again. It is already available.

Additional dodge.

Additional dodge. Going for a record here I guess.

Dodge and semantic scrambling. Also blatant hypocrisy since every thread you've created involves you trying to force people into your tortured definitions.

 

It is what he does when he is cornered and has no answer, except further dodges.

 

This is NOT a false dichotomy.

Science is a well defined process for investigating how our natural universe works. That definition allows for no possibility of addressing the supernatural in any way. Science can't prove or disprove anything about religion or address the religious issues of why we are here or what our "purpose" might be. There is no way for humans to test god.

Science was designed by people who were religious throughout their lives. Accusing atheists of creating science is absolutely ridiculous. While that might be a great credit, atheists simply can't claim that.

 

you should read more carefully, I didnt accuse atheists of 'creating' science.
science is not fact as atheists would advertise.
one of the most obvious is the bang 'theory' a belief based purely on faith

 

No matter how many identical threads you create koko, atheism will remain, by definition, not a religion. It will continue to mean lack of belief in a god or gods.

 

No, you said "science (which they claim must be naturalistic and secular) ". This is a clear statement that atheists have some sort of special influence on the definition of science. And, that is absolutely false.

Scientific method is well defined and the majority of those involved in its development have been Christians of some general sort.

As for the "big bang", there is clear evidence of several kinds that the universe went through a stupendously rapid expansion - which is the definition of the big bang. In fact, evidence of more than one kind shows that space is expanding today. If anyone comes up with a better explanation, supported by evidence, science will recognize that. This is not an issue of "belief" that is in ANY WAY comparable to the religious belief in the existence of a god. The belief in the existence of a god is not assailable by ANY argument of philosophy or physical evidence.

 

So you are continuing to provide your own personal definitions and insist that they represent what anyone should believe.

No matter how many times it is explained to you how wrong your are. You must be terribly insecure to put forth this kind of act.

 

If you have or do any of the following you are religious:


The Seven Dimensions of Religion

Ninian Smart

Hate to disappoint you but as you can see there are some really smart people out there and I happen to be one of them. Sorry. Thanks anyway for your massive contribution to the thread.

Ninian Smart
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ninian Smart
Roderick Ninian Smart (6 May 1927 – 29 January 2001)[1][2] was a Scottish writer and university educator. He was a pioneer in the field of secular religious studies. In 1967 he established the first department of religious studies in the United Kingdom at the new University of Lancaster where he was also Pro-Vice-Chancellor, having already chaired one of the largest and most prestigious departments of theology in Britain at the University of Birmingham. In 1976, he became the first J.F. Rowny Professor in the Comparative Study of Religions at University of California, Santa Barbara. Smart presented the Gifford Lectures in 1979–80. In 1996, he was named the Academic Senate's Research Professor, the highest professorial rank at UC Santa Barbara. In 2000, he was elected President of the American Academy of Religion, while simultaneously retaining his status as President of the Inter Religious Federation for World Peace. Smart held both titles at the time of his death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninian_Smart

Actually that was a quote from the source I gave you but you probably didnt read it? Yes atheists claim science is secular which means nonreligious (in theory anyway)

Big Bang?
So why describe the theory with such a misleading name? To mock it perhaps. Sir Fred Hoyle snidely referred to the theory as the “big bang” with the intention of reducing it to absurdity, and it stuck.

Not a shred of 'proof', no proof = no facts, no facts = beliefs, cosmological beliefs = religion

 

Still making claims witho9ut evidence to back them up. You claim to be one of the intelligent people yet continually fail to be able to make any point without quoting your betters. Than confirms that you are inferior and nothing but a wannbe intellectual, which you are lacking the capacity to be.

 

So, if I look at the night sky and am in awe, or if I don't know the answer to some question (mystery) I am religious???

Please! Let's be serious.

No, you missed the point, which is that science IS secular and was created to be that way by Christians.

Science is NOT anti religion or pro religion. Science cannot address religion in any way.

Yes, the name was coined for the intent to be derisive, and the name stuck.

As for your proof thing, you have it really mixed up.

Science starts with the fundamental assumption that we may meaningfully observe the universe. Facts are individual well documented observations. Scientific method provides no mechanism for proving anything to be true in the sense that mathematical systems do prove truth. The difference is that mathematical systems can be well defined while we are a LONG ways from having our natural universe well defined. Newton thought he had it right. It took Einstein to show that Newton's considerations were limited to a special case. Newton couldn't have known that.

Besides, all you did was play around with the definition of "belief". And, I suspect you are well aware of that.

 

10 pages into koko’s latest identical thread and atheism remains by definition, not a religion

 

So the best you can do is to come up with a totally absurd example that has nothing to do with the context being used?

No one said science addresses religion, whats that about?

scientific method? why are you moving the goal posts again? the word is science not the method they arrive at a nontheist religious belief.

Not at all, its well understood that you do not need a deity to have a religion, if you bothered to read much less study any of the material I post you would notice that Smart as well as gubmint acknowledge that the result of atheistic belief IS a religion.

Some people on this board simply close their eyes to the facts and try to sweep them under the table rather than laying everything out on the table for honest discussion.

Take a moment to look carefully:



See where he gets into atheistic thought and other 'religious' traditions? Do you notice that they include the word philosophy, world view, beliefs, and attitudes, especially those shared by a group and so forth and so on

 

So, you are suggesting that your fabulous diagram has holes?

I pointed out that there is a divide. Science was defined to be secular. You can't use science as an excuse for suggesting that those who accept science are religious.

Scientific method is how science is conducted. It's not moving the goalposts - it's a matter of ensuring we're talking about the same thing.

You are suggesting that "thought" and "religion" are equivalent (outside of grammar). It may seem justified for someone of religion to suggest ways of co opting all thought!

I prefer that we continue to have the word "religion" have a discrete definition - as we have had throughout the centuries.

 

I asked the atheist apologists the question above, which is considered secular by atheists for themselves and religious for theists, want to take a shot at answering it for us?

How do you intend to do that? Where do you see a discrete definition?


religion
noun
re·li·gion | \ ri-ˈli-jən

Definition of religion

1a : the state of a religious a nun in her 20th year of religion

b(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural

(2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


So which discrete are you referring to?

 

The shear stupidity of claiming that " god says" is equivalent to " your conviction says" almost defys belief. I bet even you can find reasons what that equivalency is absurd. But to help you god is imaginary and philosophical and an individual with convictions is a physical being.

 

All those definitions other than the archaic refer to a relationship with the supernatural, not with a relationship with science.

 

The idea that I "practice" atheism when I'm reading science and accepting the clear evidence and logic concerning how our universe works is unbelievably silly.

 

I dont know that and atheist apologists have not demonstrated that statement to be true. I would have thought you understood that its a simplified means of stating that God commands his followers. I really expected more than this kind of goofiness frankly

 

Has nothing to do with athiesm. It has to do with your flawed reasoning. And if you really can"t understand the difference between " God command his followers" and people come to their own conclusions the goofiness is clearly in your own mind and I use that term pretty loosly in your case.

 

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
QUOTE="WillReadmore, post: 1070528364, member: 64140"]All those definitions other than the archaic refer to a relationship with the supernatural, not with a relationship with science.[/QUOTE]
you cant be serious can you? Nothing in 4 says anything about a deity requirement.

There is no clear evidence for the big bang, it is purely hypothetical which requires belief with no material facts in support of the belief, it is accepted on faith like any other other religion.

Why are you avoiding telling us the distinction between the alleged religious versus secular morals?

 

So then believers all came to their own conclusions, without the help of God despite they were told and taught the origin is God? How did you come to that conclusion?