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

So what would be my proper response if I were told leprechauns were real and then asked if I believed in them?

 

He is well known for his work with defining religion.

You cant reject it without hard evidence in logic, if you do its faith.

You will see a lot of that here.

Thats endless, its not an arguable statement as it stands.

Not to know means not to know in both directions.

You are walking, straight means not to know, veering left you are atheist and right you are theist.

You cannot do any 2 at the same time which is what you are doing when you say you are an agnostic who does not disbelieve (or believe) then in the same breath claim you disbelieve and claim you are atheist. its going left and straight at the same time. illogical.

This might help./

The English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the word agnostic in 1869, and said "It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe." You have no evidence to believe or disbelieve.

"human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist"[2]

Karl Popper would also describe himself as an agnostic. According to philosopher William L. Rowe, in this strict sense, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist.

Huxley discussed his views extensively:[55][56]

I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it. I have no a priori objections to the doctrine. No man who has to deal daily and hourly with nature can trouble himself about a priori difficulties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

 

Moses killed people and he spoke directly to the God critter.

 

He certainly is but your interpretation of his diagram bears no resemblance to anything he has ever suggested. So please back up your assertion and stop deflecting.

The burden of proof remains with those who make the claim. Faith has nothing to do with logic.

 

I can use wiki too.

Here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism "
Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.[1][2][3]

Robert Flint "If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist – an agnostic-atheist – an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other...[4

https://www.learnreligions.com/agnostic-atheist-dictionary-definition-247755

Definition
An agnostic atheist is defined as one who does not know for sure if any gods exist or not but who also does not believe in any gods. This definition makes it clear that being agnostic and being an atheist are not mutually exclusive. Knowledge and belief are related but separate issues: Not knowing if something is true or not doesn't exclude believing or disbelieving it.Agnostic atheist can often be treated as synonymous with weak atheist. Whereas weak atheist emphasizes one's lack of belief in gods, agnostic atheist emphasizes that one does not make any knowledge claims—and usually, the lack of knowledge is an important part of the foundation for the lack of belief. Agnostic atheist is arguably a label which applies to most atheists in the West today.

One more https://thisonevsthatone.com/agnostic-vs-atheist/
"
Agnostic vs Atheist a Spectrum
Atheism and agnosticism can coexist because they are both dealing with different modalities of thought and belief.

Here is a spectrum of agnostic vs atheist:

Gnostic Atheist: do not believe in a god and also believe that they know there are no gods. Also referred to as hard atheists, who are comfortable purporting conclusively that there are no gods.

Agnostic Atheist: doesn’t personally believe in a god but also claims no conclusive knowledge of whether a god or multiple gods exist.

Agnostic Theist: understands that they have no conclusive knowledge of any god’s existence but believe there could be a god.

Gnostic Theist: one who believes in a god and claims conclusive knowledge of that god or gods’ existence.

This spectrum illustrates that everyone comes to the question of the existence of a god from their own personal framework. Now let’s learn about atheism and agnosticism in more detail!


"The agnostic atheist maintains that any supernatural realm is inherently unknowable by the human mind, but this agnostic suspends his judgment one step further back. For the agnostic atheist, not only is the nature of any supernatural being unknowable, but the existence of any supernatural being is unknowable as well.

We cannot have knowledge of the unknowable; therefore, concludes this agnostic, we cannot have knowledge of god’s existence. Because this variety of agnostic does not subscribe to theistic belief, he qualifies as a kind of atheist." -George H. Smith, Atheism: the Case Against God.


You guys can decide to call yourselves whatever you please. I will continue to delineate between what I know, what is knowable, what I believe and to describe the underlying basis for my disbelief as I have above thread. , My application of these terms is entirely consistent with sufficient philosophers and thinkers that these citations employ them in a similar fashion.
Now I am done having to explain or justify my use of these terms to your satisfaction.

 

Here is a video for those who are struggling with understanding the burden of proof, which might help explain it.

The OP claims atheism is a religion, the burden of proof is his. Making bold statements such as

Then showing a diagram which he implies is evidence when it does not actually show what he claims is simple deflection.
Just as in the opening quote, the creationist website lies about its use of the source Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Atheism in its broadest sense makes no claims and requires no burden of proof, it simply and logically rejects the claim of those who make the claim "a god exists".

 

The logical response would be to reject the claim unless you believed that the claimant has met the burden of proof. You do not have to prove they do not exist.

 

false, to reject a claim means to deny it has truth value, to accept it means to accept it has truth value

You reject the claim that you were speeding. Burden of proof is on you to prove to the court you were not speeding.

None of that came from a university philosopher, not even dawkins is that far over the edge.

this guy explains it quite nicely though you have already proven you will settle for blind denial and label it logic.

now let's say we agree to the claim that Agnostics refers to knowledge claim, it's still an entirely illogical and contradictory construction.

if agnostic should mean "Does not know" then to make a judgment when asked if God exists is illogical, as we can see, the statement "I do not know if it's raining but I believe its not raining is absurd but dont forget many pseudo intellectuals claim agnostic atheist means " one does not know if there is a God but believe there is no God" so my question is if you don't know, why do u believe there isn't? why don't u just say " I don't know" ? remember, saying u don't believe still means u get Burden of proof like the Theists that says he believes in God/gods. just thought I should share this so one free thinker can become less ignorant.
https://www.nairaland.com/3559976/proof-there-no-such-thing

Now take me for instance, I'm a theist-agnostic-atheist because I dont know if there is a God and I disbelieve there is a God, and I also think its likely God really does exist.

 

Theism is simply the belief that at least one god exists, it is not a religion, Atheism is simply someone not convinced by the claims of theism. The burden of proof is entirely the theists. It is also not a religion.

 

Thats like asking me to prove ice is frozen because someone did not use the word 'frozen', which is absurd. If you believe its something else make your argument what that something else is, you have said nothing to engage.

 

You wrote all that just to ask me that?
Of course I could leave it at 'I don't know', and not tell you anything about what I do or do not believe. I choose to because a lot of folks actually ask what I believe . The preference to disclose one's belief or disbelief is an entirely personal matter. If I were required to choose only one, I probably would forego the gnostic/ agnostic label. But I gather that there are some 'hard' gnostic atheists who insist that they do know for a fact that God does not or cannot exist. I prefer to distinguish myself from them.

There is no 'burden of proof' either way, because there is no duty imposed, before expressing of personal belief.

You get awful riled up about this decision of mine to express both what I believe and what I know. That's too bad for you. I will do so anyway. I don't want to be mistaken for a gnostic atheist.

 

Another case where you attempt to shift the burden of proof and deflect. You made the assertion, Ninian Smart never said it, I never said it, even the creationist site in your first post never said it, either provide evidence for your assertion or we can dismiss it since you have not satisfied a burden of proof.

 

How humorous, the onus is entirely on the court of law to prove you were speeding, surely you understand that? Thankfully courts of law do not make claims that someone is speeding unless they have sufficient evidence to make the claim.
Can you imagine a court where the prosecution offers no evidence but simply says "Prove you were not speeding".
I thought you might understand basic logic.

 

No, I'm not shifting it. I'm not even asking anyone to prove anything, since religion doesn't make use of proofs.

Correct. I have already explained how they can be.

WRONG. Atheism is faith based in the same logical manner that Theism is faith based.

I wouldn't attempt to provide proof, since that would be a logical fallacy on my part (circular argument fallacy). Religion does not make use of proofs. It only makes use of supporting evidence. Evidence is not a proof.

Yes, you CAN logically reject it. You are correct here.

WRONG. Yes it does. I have explained why.

 

Atheism is a simple rejection of theists claims based on lack of evidence. Theism is not a religion any more than atheism is. It is a statement that at least one god exists, that is not a religion!

You are confused between religions and theism.

Again it does not require faith to reject a statement that does not satisfy the burden of proof, it is simple logic. We do so all the time!

 

Kettle, meet pot.

 

What an enormous ego on display by you. You admit that you have no proof yet go on interminably about how right you are. Your support, just because you claim to believe what you claim.

It has been explained to you many times how wrong you are yet you cannot accept that actual fact.

Tell you what, just have FAITH in the fact that you are wrong.

 

Yes, the "my religion is true" claim is a truth statement. It is also a belief. But how did the religion form in the first place (ie, what was the logical/philosophical process of forming that religion)?

A 'theory' is "an explanatory argument". That definition for 'theory' comes from logic itself. Inspiration for a theory can come from anywhere. Christianity theorizes that "Jesus Christ exists and is who he says he is". That theory attempts to explain why we are here in the first place as well as our purpose in life. That theory makes use of circular reasoning (faith based reasoning), as all theories begin as circular arguments, and since there is no accessible null hypothesis test to falsify that particular theory, it doesn't move beyond being a circular argument (ie, an "argument of faith"). It can only be accepted/rejected on a faith basis.

It is illogical to ask someone to prove their religion, since it is asking them to commit a logical fallacy. Religion does not make use of proofs. You could ask for supporting evidence, however. Ultimately, religion can only logically be accepted or rejected on a faith basis. One is choosing where they place their trust...

You could either accept or reject a religious claim on a logical basis. You could also do so on a logically fallacious basis (although that would be rejecting logic). Faith IS involved, though. I have shown how it is involved already...

 

No "I believe my religion is true" is a belief, unfortunately because you make this error the rest of your post makes no sense. But I think we have found where our disagreement comes from. When someone says "I believe that a god exists" just wish them a happy belief and walk on by.

 

I answered that question within the very post that you responded to... I will put the relevant language here again:

"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")."

So, in the case you present above, a proper response would be either: "Yes, I also believe they exist", "No, I do not believe they exist", or "Idk whether or not they exist". If asked to justify your disbelief, don't take the bait. It will lead you into logical fallacies. In fact, the believer who is asking you to justify your disbelief is committing a logical fallacy themselves, called the "attempted force of a negative proof" fallacy because they, in that case, are attempting to force you into committing the "argument from ignorance" fallacy.

To put it concisely, you need not justify your faith to anyone.

 

Precisely this!! This is the part that many people (typically atheists, in my experiences) like to conveniently push aside...

Spot on, once again.

For a third time, spot on!!

Agreed with Huxley for the most part.

This quote is correct. That's why I tell people that they need not justify their belief. Attempting to justify such a belief as "God exists" or "God doesn't exist" leads to numerous logical fallacies, such as the circular argument fallacy [attempting to prove a circular argument] and the argument from ignorance fallacy [basing (dis)belief on "there's no evidence to the contrary"].

Generally agreed.

 

Yes, that IS what The Bible claims...

Your point?

 

... that Christianity is the "correct" theistic religion...

... about what religion is and how religion logically works, NOT about the correctness of Christianity.

This is a Contextomy Fallacy on your part...

My support is logic and philosophy.

You still have no clue what a 'fact' is... It is NOT a universal truth, nor is it a proof.

 

Sorry you have misunderstood the basis of logic, that a counter claim is not required to dismiss a claim. This is a problem that many supporters of theists cannot understand.

 

You have in fact no idea of what "logic and philosophy" are in truth. Additionally, I don't believe that you actually know their definition, just try to change it to fit your desire.

BTW, there is no logic in religion as there is no proof to produce this logic. See, I told you that you don't know the definition of the words you use.