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

I disagree. You can be presented a question you don’t know the answer to but still know (or believe) a particular option isn’t the answer. For example, you won’t know the answer to the sum “623 x 821” but if someone told you the answer was “Cape Town”, you’d have good reason not to believe them. If you had a basic understanding of maths, you’d at least have an idea of the scale of the right answer so would also disbelieve options of “-66” or “10 billion”. You could even make a mistake and disbelieve the correct answer by misapplying the same logic.

There is frankly too much word-play and attempts at tricky etymology in this debate (especially from certain individuals) but essentially the words don’t matter. Some people do believe in gods and some people don’t. Nobody really knows and even if you reach a conclusion on that high-level concept, it doesn’t really help you on the more practical “so what (if anything) do we do about it” questions that really matter.

 

That doesn't really disprove my point. If someone says the answer is "Cape Town" and you disbelieve him, you believe the answer is something else, even if you don't know the correct answer. Most serious atheists dismiss the "lack belief" argument as not holding water, as do most serious philosophers. Only lightweights on internet forums take it seriously.

 

Thanks for the logic lesson. NOT. If you don't know the difference between belief and knowledge you’re in big trouble.

 

I would recommend everyone simply agree with the troll vs. feeding it so it will bore and slink away to play in the Abortion forum section or Conspiracy theory. That is the only way to create a worthwhile debate in the presence of mythical beasts.

 

The difference is a lot smaller than you seem to think it is.

Plato famously defined knowledge as “justified true belief.”

https://philosophyterms.com/knowledge/

 

If your grasp of epistemology hasn’t advanced beyond Plato may I suggest you have some reading to catch up on?

 

I'm an Objectivist. I have read some Nietszche, Kant, and a few others, but they are all so full of ****, it's hard to get through. Plato was wrong, too, but at least he made sense.

 

Not believing a specific assertion as presented and “lack of belief” are two different things. I think “lack of belief” gets in to far too abstract a philosophy for this discussion.

The claim you appeared to be making is that nobody can say they don’t believe in a specifically defined god without having a belief in some specifically defined alternative first. It is that I am challenging. As per my example, I know the answer to the sum will be a large number of some sort but don’t know which one. I can therefore disbelieve a proposed answer that isn’t a large number without having any belief about what the specific actual answer to the calculation is.

I’m also not a fan of defining individuals as “atheists” (or “theists”, though that doesn’t happen anything like as often). I think that builds the misrepresentation that atheism could possibly define the entirety or even the core of any individual world view, leading to (often intentionally) a direct conflict with religion. That conflict is an entirely artificial construct which benefits nobody. Atheism isn’t something a person is, atheism is something a person has.

 

If you dont believe then you are an athsist, if you dont believe and dont know ie (dont disbelieve) then you are an agnostic, not an atheist. Otherwise you are committing the distinction with no difference fallacy. xSmith went through great lengths to teach everyone how it works by running through all the proofs.

Any conclusion you may conjure up about any subject matter you could dream up is a belief, your conclusion that you lack belief is a belief.

 

I remember it well, and despite being corrected it does not stop them from repeating those fallacies endlessly.

 

64 pages now and atheism remains, as it did on page 1, by definition not a religion.

 

You can’t keep trying to force me in to one your carefully defined pigeon holes so you can create stereotypical strawman rather than any real individual arguments but I’m still not playing that game. I’m an Honest Joe, defined as someone who believes everything I do.

 

wanna bet? I already did, and correctly I might add

Any conclusion you may conjure up about any subject matter you could dream up is a belief, your conclusion that you lack belief is a belief.

 

I don't know what "leave room for theism" means... Personally, I've never liked "supernatural" as a term (and only used it to advance discussion), since it seems to just be a murkily defined term that someone tacks onto something of which they don't understand. That doesn't mean that something isn't natural or isn't a result of some other entity.

I'm not really comprehending the point being made here...

Correct. It is typically non-believers who talk about this sort of thing.

Correct. --- I would even argue that even IF God could be "proven", people would still choose to reject that proof purely out of hate towards him.

Yup... the existence of God is a circular argument; it is a fundamental assumption. Same goes (just vice versa) for Atheism. The logical framework behind both Theism and Atheism is identical; they just yield the opposite conclusion, since they started with the opposite initial predicate.

Correct. And there are other similar philosophical assumptions which need to be assumed true as well, but that is the primary one, I'd say.

We can meaningfully observe the universe, therefore we can meaningfully observe the universe. Seems pretty circular to me... Seems like one is concluding with their initial predicate...

Faith is involved, by definition. Faith IS circular reasoning, and circular reasoning IS faith.

Ahhhh, I see that the word "rigorous" makes science sound more "beyond the common person"... Nice touch!

If you're speaking of conflicting evidence, then this is correct. Theories get tested against their null hypothesis.

Yup, theories of science need to continually survive null hypothesis testing.

They might not necessarily be outside our ability to observe, but they ARE all outside of our ability to falsify them.

Okay, but just remember that observations through those tools are still subject to the problems of Phenomenology.

 

That's impossible, as man is an inherently religious animal.

Idk what you mean by "answer every question".

Idk what you mean by "equality"... We are all unique individuals; we are not "equal" in any way. Why treat people as if they all are the same when they simply are not the same? Some are more intelligent, some are taller, some are more athletic, some have more patience, some are more loving, etc. etc... Again, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "equality"...

Not possible. Man is an inherently religious animal. Not everything within our physical universe is falsifiable; much is outside the realm of science.

Each individual has MANY religions; mankind is an inherently religious animal. I mean, we validate our reasoning skills by use of our reasoning skills, do we not?

There is no "freedom FROM religion". It is not possible. Man is an inherently religious animal.

Public education is actually chocked full of religious teachings... Often times, they are masqueraded as "science", such as is the case with the Big Bang Theory, the Theory of Abiogenesis, Global Warming/Climate Change/AGW, etc. etc., and so on. Those are all religious beliefs; they all make use of the same logical framework that Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Atheism, etc. all make use of...

 

There isn't.

Nothing. Those attacks can't be stopped.

Nope. Your property rights don't free you from religion.

You're "free from it" (religion) in the sense that you can choose to reject Christianity, for example, since you have the inherent right to your own opinion and to express that opinion, but other people have that same inherent right. So long as you go into public and associate yourself with other human beings, or live in a house with other human beings, or turn on a TV to watch other human beings, or read a book that other human beings wrote, or do anything that involves other human beings in any way, you are not free from religion. You even accept the validity of your own reasoning skills on a faith basis...

 

Uh? Ok? I get it, I guess. The reason you can’t walk through walls is you don’t have enough faith. Got it.

 

Its fundamental assumption is quite specific.

People are self-motivated. Their desires may be influenced by outside forces, however.

Not necessarily.

People are self-motivated. Their desires may be influenced by outside forces, however.

I know that it is a belief that there are no god(s). That is what Atheism is. What I don't know, due to many non-believers' vagueness about their own beliefs, is whether they are actually Atheists or Agnostics.

I've already made a very good case for how the logical framework behind Theism and Atheism is identical, only differing in the initial predicate, which leads to a different conclusion, as is the case with circular reasoning.

 

Science and religion are two completely separate things... They don't attack each other...

 

You just threw free will with the atheist baby's bath water. That's fine by me.

I think the poster you replied to was talking about freedom to opt out of religion without having to hide the opt-out for fear of retaliation.

The last sentence in your post is odd. Did you really mean "reasoning skills", or rather "results of thought processes"?

 

Precisely. Those theories are not falsifiable. They are not accessible to science.

Precisely.

Precisely.

Not quite sure what you're asserting here so I can't really comment on it.

Fair enough.

Okay.

Fair enough.

 

Actually, it is primarily Engineering which does this.

What do you mean by "puts him on a cross"?

No, it is not. They are both separate things with their separate purposes. They are both useful.

 

And your case was completely refuted by the actual definition of atheism. Which precludes it from being a religion.

 

Yup, they have the freedom to accept or reject certain religions. They have the inherent right to their opinion (as well as making that opinion known). --- They do not have the right to avoid consequences from expressing their opinion, however...

Maybe "results of thought processes" would be a better way to phrase it...

 

DELETED DUPLICATE POST