Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

rahl, your errors have been explained to you several times, by atheists, agnostics and theists alike:

I can see why so many legitimate atheists are pissed about the militant neoatheists, they are the gift that keeps on giving when it comes to destroying atheism. They lack alright but its not belief they lack.

100% contradiction in terms:

To know the evidence is insufficient you were presented with a proposition regarding the existence of God. Therefore you have knowledge of the proposition.

1) You have examined the evidence for the proposition 'God exists' and,

2) you concluded the evidence is insufficient to prove to you that God exists, therefore

3) you do not believe the proposition; "God exists" therefore

4) you have beliefs,

5) beliefs based upon your conclusion and belief that

6) there is insufficient evidence that God exists, therefore

7) you believe God does not exist.

As Magicat said you cant 'lack belief' unless you have never been presented with the proposition 'God Exists', its impossible to lack belief once presented with the proposition and clearly you know all about it, and have a bucket full of beliefs and are simply misrepresenting the matter!

Incontrovertible proof that atheism is in fact a belief and religion, just like water is wet.

 

it does not matter how many times you insist on being wrong. Atheism remains, by definition, not a religion. The same way not playing baseball, by definition, is not a sport.

 

Religion: An initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it.

You could also use the words "fundamental belief" instead of "circular argument", as that paints a clearer picture to those who might not have a deeper understanding of logic (ie, those who think that all circular arguments are logic errors).

 

And here is where we depart ways on our views. Religion is about worship and the following of a Deity. One can acknowledge the existence of a deity and yet not worship them. Thus they are theist, but not religious. Atheism is not a religion, even if it must be treated in the same manner as one for the purposes of law, the the protection of one's right to choose that path. It is belief, and I think you spelled out the logic better than I did. But without worship, it cannot be a religion.

 

Just like Methodists....some Quakers are believers and some are Godless.

 

Many atheists worship at the alter of abortion, some worship at the alter of is narcissism. There are many alters. What they believe is what gets them there.

 

ok kool, so there is your claim, what I am interested in is how you will make a case in support of your claim, that appears as if you are saying that is the requirement for something to be called a religion, so lets see how far we can go with it. And I agree that 'one variant' or 'one form' of religion is deity worship and all it encompasses, but since you are parting ways and offering no other I need to see why, what constitutes your belief that is the only legitimate construct to be a religion, bar all others?

 

I don't have time for more than a quick note right now, but in the meantime, since you made the first assertion, you also need to support your claim. Now your one post did a supreme job on the proof of atheism being a belief, and does well towards the concept of "all religion is belief but not all belief is religion". But I saw no support towards atheism, or even theism for that matter, being religions in and of themselves. I should be able to get back to this on Sunday. Maybe some short replies over the course of the workday.

 

Sure, its already been stated for previous members, however this is not about who went first. You posted a counter argument:

I have already engaged you in your counterargument when I agreed with you in part, the part which to me is obvious and makes sense to me, I need more input from you to take it further, so your counterargument is presently on the table for discussion.

No problem, I can wait for your return on Sunday.

 

Not so sure about the Methodist beef, but yes, some Quakers are Godless. Koko tried using that to claim that Quakerism is a godless worldview, which is false. The majority of Quakers believe in God.

 

Is NeoChristianity a rational religion?

 

Godless for God’s Sake: Nontheism in Contemporary Quakerism


Paperback: 142 pages
Publisher: Nontheist Friends (February 1, 2006)
Product Dimensions: 8.3 x 5.8 x 0.3 inches
Shipping Weight: 9.1 ounces
Price: $17.99

Synopsis
Quakers from 13 Yearly Meetings in four countries tell how they combine committed membership of the Religious Society of Friends with rejection of traditional belief in a transcendent, personal, and supernatural God. For some of these ‘nontheist’ Friends, God is no more (but no less) than a symbol of the wholly human values of ‘mercy, pity, peace and love’. For others, the idea of God and ‘God-language’ has become an archaism and a stumbling-block. Readers who seek a faith or world-view free of supernaturalism, whether they are Friends, members of other traditions or drop-outs from old-time religion, will find themselves in the company of a varied group whose search for an authentic 21st century understanding of religion and spirituality has led them to declare themselves ‘Godless – for God’s Sake.’

 

And? All you are doing is repeating the notion that SOME Quakers are non-theists. No one, anywhere on this thread has argued otherwise.

 

I'm not picking on Methodists but about every large denomination has it's progressive/unitarian wing. I came from a Quaker background in Richmond Indiana. Learned Trancendental meditation there in the Church when I was still in my teens.

 

I'm sure almost every large denomination does. The more Evangelical/Conservative ones have a habit of kicking out heretics, though.

 

and since I never argued otherwise your post is pointless badgering.

 

No one ever claimed or remotely suggested that YOU argued otherwise -- we all know you know there are non-theist Quakers . . . but you don't seem to know this about the rest of us. Every time I mention that MOST Quakers are theists, you (sometimes while claiming I'm wrong) post a link showing that SOME Quakers are not . . . meaning you apparently don't understand what you are responding to.

MOST =/= ALL. This is elementary logic.

 

bullshit, its your fake argument and if you scroll up a couple posts you will see that its YOU that brings it up, glad you finally figured out that most != all

 

I'd bet you aint even an atheist, but thats a cute jingo.

 

Per your definition theism is a religion.

 

Neoatheism is like someone forcefully tell you not to eat your burger because they think it`s bad for you, but it`s your burger and you`re the one buying, so better ignore them. They are not a rational religion if it comes opposing something human like believing.

 

The major reason I made this thread is that Neoatheism for all intents and purposes is irrational.

Neo Atheism
In the early 21st century, a group of authors and media personalities in Britain and the United States—often referred to as the "Neo Atheists"—have argued that religion must be proactively countered, criticized so as to reduce its influence on society. Prominent among these voices have been Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris.[164] Among those to critique their world view has been American-Iranian religious studies scholar Reza Aslan. Aslan argued that the Neo Atheists held an often comically simplistic view of religion which was giving atheism a bad name:[165] [Oh the irony of ironies, same thing I argue]

This is not the philosophical atheism of Schopenhauer or Marx or Freud or Feuerbach. This [Neoatheism] is a sort of unthinking, simplistic religious criticism. It is primarily being fostered by individuals — like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins — who have absolutely no background in the study of religion at all. Most of my intellectual heroes are atheists, but they were experts in religion, and so they were able to offer critiques of it that came from a place of knowledge, from a sophistication of education, of research.

What we’re seeing now instead is a sort of armchair atheism — people who are inundated by what they see on the news or in media, and who then draw these incredibly simplistic generalizations about religion in general based on these examples that they see. [Ah so Neoatheists are not academically very brite?]

— Reza Aslan, 2014.

Professor of anthropology and sociology Jack David Eller believes that the four principal Neo Atheist authors—Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett and Harris—were not offering anything new in terms of arguments to disprove the existence of gods. [166]

Professors of philosophy and religion Jeffrey Robbins and Christopher Rodkey take issue with "the evangelical nature of the neo atheism, which assumes that it has a Good News to share, at all cost, for the ultimate future of humanity by the conversion of as many people as possible". They find similarities between the neo atheism and evangelical Christianity and conclude that the all-consuming nature of both "encourages endless conflict without progress" between both extremities.[167]

Sociologist William Stahl notes: "What is striking about the current debate is the frequency with which the New Atheists are portrayed as mirror images of religious fundamentalists". He discusses where both have "structural and epistemological parallels" and argues that "both the New Atheism and fundamentalism are attempts to recreate authority in the face of crises of meaning in late modernity".[168]

The English philosopher Roger Scruton has said that saying that religion is damaging to mankind is just as ridiculous as saying that love is damaging to mankind. Like love, religion leads to conflict, cruelty, abuse and even wars, yet it also brings people joy, solitude, hope and redemption. He therefore states that Neo Atheists cherry-pick, ignoring the most crucial arguments in the favour of religion, whilst also reiterating the few arguments against religion. He has also stated that religion is an irrefutable part of the human condition, and that denying this is futile.[169]

 

They have also shortcomings and fallacies, like when they ask where is God,
then if a Theist would reply, have you tried to look on every corners of all the galaxies to see if God is there somewhere, big possibility the answer would be No, because they could not support their claim with the capabilities of technologies and science nowadays, if they could not prove by sensible means then it`s a hearsay.

 

Ok so you admit that lack of belief in God or gods means that atheists do not believe in God or gods. Fair enough.

 

yes