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

???

"Scientific method" IS a method. It includes fundamental assumptions (like, the universe may be meaningfully observed), and has rules for how one may proceed from that assumption.

Your argument from ignorance stuff here has little or no relation to anything I've said.

Your suggestion concerning what a religion entails is absurd. It certainly doesn't apply to any of the Abrahamic faiths.

I do NOT "believe" that no god exists in any way that is REMOTELY similar to the religious belief described by the Abrahamic faiths.

No.

I'm not attempting to "justify by belief". I don't have a belief about any god that is anyway similar to what religious people consider a belief to be.

First of all, I'm not making an argument against religion. Second, I also doubt the existence of ET's visiting Earth. That doesn't mean I'm arguing from ignorance - it means I don't see enough evidence for me to consider it likely that there are ET's visiting earth.

Suggesting that every instance of skepticism is an example of argument from ignorance is just ludicrous.

You just don't understand the fallacy.

I'm NOT suggesting there is proof. I'm suggesting there ISN'T proof - or even evidence.

That's two types of fallacy you've tried to pin on me, and neither makes any sense at all.

I responded to the portions that weren't indecipherable.

 

I don't consider Agnosticism to be a religion. Agnostics are not making an existence claim either way, so they have no initial circular argument to work off of.

See above.

 

No, many words have definitions that are specific to a context. "Belief" and "believe" are such words. When I say "I believe someone once said ..." it does not mean the same thing as when a Christian says "I believe Jesus died for my sins."

If a religion doesn't impact your life, then it isn't a religion. It's just some idea you have.

In specific, a belief in any of the Abrahamic faiths requires significant impact on one's daily life - a full dedication to a higher order. And, it requires worship.

Obviously there is no way that humans have for proving anything about the supernatural.

My reaction to a total lack of evidence appears to be different than yours. I'm OK with that. But, do NOT suggest I have a religion. And, don't try to support your idea that I have a religion by pointing out that YOU happen to have a religion.

My life is not a response to anything that exists in your life.

 

There are currently over 2,500 deities worshiped in the world. Which one is the correct one and how do you prove it? Many of these religions have a place of torment for non-believers so it is pretty important to pick the right one. What is the process one can use to select the right God?

For example, my father is an evangelical Christian who believes that Catholics are going to burn hotter than even non-believers, he considers the Catholic Church as the bride of Satan. This belief was derived from his church's interpretation of selected verses from the Book of Revelations. This seems to be a weak link; if another human tells you that they know the mind of God, how are you to know if they correct?

What is interesting to me is that many Islamic terrorists are positively ecstatic when they immolate themselves for their God. They have so much faith in their God that they happily blow themselves because of their absolute faith that their next moment will be in heaven to receive their reward. That is a level of faith that few Christians can match. Could this be evidence that they have found the one true God? Could this be the reason that Islam is taking over the world?

What evidence is there to indicate which God is the right one? How do you know that the right God has already been picked?

 

I suspect most atheists are actually agnostics.

An agnostic isn't actively worshipping or dedicating his life to a god believed to be living. So, one can't really watch someone and tell if they are agnostic or atheist.

So, someone may label themselves as atheist simply because the term is more understood.

 

Sure, it's a method, but science does not consist of methods, nor does a method make anything into science. Science consists of falsifiable theories.

The "scientific method" doesn't do this; Philosophy does this.

It is fully relevant to what you said.

No, it's not. It applies to every single religion.

Yes, it does. Take Christianity for example... Christianity makes the initial circular argument that "Jesus Christ exists and is who he says he is". Any argument that Christianity makes stems back to that initial circular argument. Therefore, Christianity is a religion.

Whether you do in a similar way or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Atheism is as much a religion as any Theistic religion is. There are many non-theistic religions out there too, ya know... Buddhism is one such religion... Shinto is another...

See above.

Correct. You aren't arguing against religion. You just don't realize that Atheism is also a religion, nor do you realize that your justification for believing in it is based on a logical fallacy.

Okay. That's perfectly fine.

No, it doesn't, you're correct about that... But then you argued from ignorance directly after saying that bit by claiming that your belief regarding ET's is based on "lack of evidence to the contrary". You need not justify your belief in any way. It leads to logical fallacies such as the argument from ignorance fallacy which you keep committing...

It's one thing to be skeptical. It's another thing to justify your belief based on lack of evidence to the contrary.

Inversion Fallacy. YOU don't understand it.

Good, because there isn't.

Good, because there isn't.

Continued ignorance. Evidence is "any statement which supports an argument". Evidence is, essentially, a predicate. Evidence is all around you...

Don't commit fallacies and I won't call them out.

Okay.

 

Yup. Gay is one of those words. Depending on context, it could mean "happy", "stupid", or "homosexual person", for example.

No, it isn't. It means the same thing in both sentences ("acceptance of a statement as a truth").

Seems like a pretty specific definition of "impact your life" to me... I think life can be impacted outside of 'a full dedication to a higher order'. A simple decision can have quite an impact on someone's life. Deciding to go to the bathroom before leaving to go to a relative's house could save you from being involved in a fatal car accident on the way there. I'd say that's pretty impactful on one's life.

Correct.

Yup, you reject logic while I accept it.

You have a religion. It is called Atheism. You might even subscribe to other religions, such as the Theory of Abiogenesis, the Theory of Creation, the Theory of Evolution, the Big Bang Theory, or you might even be a member of the Church of Global Warming. That wouldn't surprise me if you were, as you already have shown your rejection of both logic and science. It wouldn't surprise me if you reject mathematics as well.

Your having a religion has nothing to do with my having a religion. It has to do with you accepting, as a true, the initial circular argument that god(s) do not exist.

Okay.

 

Correct. There might even be more than that. Point being, there are an awful lot of them...

That's the million dollar question, isn't it?! I personally believe that the Christian God of The Holy Bible is the correct one. Other people believe differently.

You can't. There is no way to prove or disprove any god or any religion.

Assuming that those religions are true, then yes, it would be important to pick the right one. But maybe those religions aren't even true, or maybe those religions are mistaken about the place of torment. One could easily make themselves prey to the Pascal's Wager fallacy here...

Faith, and faith alone. That's the only way that one can logically believe or reject any particular religion or god.

Okay. Seems like he believes that Jesus Christ exists and is who he says he is, and stemming from that belief, he believes that The Bible makes reference to the Catholic Church as being the bride of Satan. Those are his religious beliefs.

It depends upon whether one has proper understanding of the scriptures or not. That gets into epistemology, which can be tricky stuff.

Correct.

Debatable. I can see arguments for either way being convincing.

Yes, it could be argued as such.

Yes, it could be argued as such.

Any statement which supports an argument for a particular god...

Through faith, and faith alone.

 

There's definitely some "atheists" who are actually agnostics. I refer to them as "closet agnostics".

Correct. It is a non-issue to the agnostic. They simply don't care either way; they don't believe either way.

Correct. One can't tell simply from watching someone; they need to talk to them for a bit and see what they believe. If one believes that god(s) do not exist, then they are an Atheist. If one doesn't believe either way, then they are an Agnostic.

Possibly.

 

The emboldened is correct. Everything falls apart thereafter. 1. I am not rejecting a God that I have read about. I do not believe there is a god to reject. 2. I do know that stories and myths exist with Gods or deities as the subject. I do not reject the existence of those stories and myths.

I do not know anything about 'God' except that there tends to be some attributes and powers that Gods are described as having by people as a broad definitional matter, that I have seen no evidence for and do not believe in. I do not know that they do not exist either.

In other words I do not mistake a knowledge that a story/ myth exists, with any knowledge about the actual subject on which those myths and stories are theoretically based. I have a tendency not to believe in that which I have seen no evidence, in this case that means the supernatural powers, immortality, and omnipotence of most deities.

 

No, since there has never ever been evidence of the fantastic, the magical it would be logical to disbelieve your imagined thing is real.

 

[1] I guess my point is that you've gained at least some knowledge about said God and you're rejecting the actual existence of said God based on that knowledge. I'd say it's akin to how I have gained some knowledge about Hercules and unicorns, yet I reject the actual existence of said things based on that knowledge.

[2] Yup, the stories/myths exist. You've at least experienced a few of them. You just don't believe that those stories ever happened in actuality (that they are myths rather than history). That's akin to how I have experienced some stories/myths about Hercules and unicorns, but I don't believe that those stories ever happened in actuality (ie, that they are myths rather than history).

However, I don't reject the existence of Hercules and unicorns based on "lack of evidence to the contrary", as that would be ignorant of me (since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). I, instead, reject them on a faith basis. I have faith that those things do not exist in actuality, and I realize that I don't have to justify my faith in any way.

In essence, you show skepticism and don't instantaneously believe everything that you hear? I'd say that's generally a good thing. The last part of your last sentence made me curious about something. Do you believe in miracles?

 

I'm afraid this is still an argument from ignorance... Remember, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. For all you know, god(s) COULD exist. It would be logical for you to simply reject said god(s) on a faith basis, rather than attempting to justify your faith (in this case, by means of ignorance, ie, "no evidence to the contrary").

Are you able to see the whole universe (visible AND invisible) at any particular point in time?

 

The vast amount of ignorance on display in this thread comes from you. Refusal to accept other arguments or statements of non belief, claiming to know what a real belief is and what the other poster really means. Impossible.

BTW, for what it's worth, I don't care what you believe, state, or claim. I don't care if there is or is not a god. What I do care about is claims by those such as you as to knowing and having the only true answer, which is obviously not possible. That and trying to push your fantasies onto others. Just wrong.

 

Incorrect.

Any arguments I have not accepted are due to fallacious reasoning. I have accepted statements of belief that god(s) do not exist. I have provided what I have found to be the most sound definition of belief, and have responded to posts according to what the other poster asserted.

Fine by me.

Fine by me.

I've never said that I have the only true answer regarding the actual existence of god(s), so I'm not sure what you're on about here...

Logic is not a fantasy, Arjay... I'm not trying to push my faith onto others; I am trying to push proper reasoning and usage of logic onto others... I'm getting people to think about WHY they believe what they believe, and how they arrived at their belief. It shows that religion, when accepted/rejected on a faith basis alone, is perfectly reasonable. It also shows that attempting to justify a religious belief leads to numerous logical fallacies...

 

You just put on display for all to see exactly what I accused you of. You don't even have the grace to be embarrassed about it, just double down on your lack of facts and false statements.

Further, your pitiful attempts only display your logical fallacy in thinking what you are doing is beneficial to anyone other than yourself. Worthless.

 

Ninian Smart never said if you have any of the following you are religious, if you intend to back up your assumption then do not do so by pretending that Smarts diagram indicates such an assumption.

 

I reject the claim of the existence of Hercules and unicorns because in logic the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, in this case that claim is for the existence of Hercules and Unicorns. Your attempt to use the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a classic case of attempting to shift the burden of proof. Just as it is when someone makes the claim that a god exists, the burden of proof in logic lies with the person making the claim.

 

I'm not shifting any burden. My example shows somebody making the positive assertion that Hercules and unicorns both exist in actuality. Then, it focuses on a couple of my options of responding to that claim. If I were to respond to it with, "[insert claim here] is false because you cannot prove that [insert claim here] is true", then that would be an argument from ignorance on my part. If I were instead to respond with "I believe on a faith basis that [insert claim here] is false", then that would be a logically valid response.

The overarching point is the religion can only be accepted/rejected on a faith basis. Trying to justify it just leads to logical fallacies...

 

You are shifting the burden of proof, but I understand why you think you are not, you did not understand the difference between rejecting a claim and making a positive assertion about the content of the claim.
As I have just shown claims about the existence of gods can be rejected logically and are not faith based. If you make a claim about the existence of a god without the proof I can reject your claim logically, faith has nothing to do with my rejection of your claim.

 

And thus, do those who require repeatable experimentation/Data dismiss theological arguments out of hand or question those who claim opinion as proof.

 

If they require repeatable experimentation/data on a theory which does not have an accessibly testable null hypothesis, then they are attempting to conflate religion and science. They don't understand how the two things are defined nor how they work.

 

Actually they (I) do understand quite well. However, this being a platform designed for debate and discussion the use of opinion being claimed as fact will inherently lead to disagreement and dispute.

 

If you make the claim "my religion is true" you are not giving a theory you are making a truth statement, the burden of proof lies with you. I can reject your claim if you do not provide a sufficient proof. I reject your claim on the basis of logic, no faith involved.

 

. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That's why I cannot affirm that God does not exist. I remain an agnostic who does not know and does not think this is something people are able to know. It is my practice not believe in the existence of anything for which I see no evidence, so I disbelieve in ghosts, leprechauns, dieties, and werewolves . Consistent with that pattern, I am an atheist. I do not believe in miracles per se. I do believe that phenomena fall onto a scale ranging from very common, to very rare, to extraordinarily rare. And that phenomena fall onto another scale ranging from easily explained by today's understanding science and physics to impossible to explain by todays understanding of science and physics. What we call 'miracles' may include the very rare phenomena or events that fall on the farthest extremes of both scales.