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

So, criticism, plagiarism, barbarianism, stoicism, ageism, racism, sexism THESE ARE RELIGIONS???

Come on - let's be serious.

 

The point here is that being outside our current ability to observe (thus not addressable by science) does NOT mean that religion is the correct tool to use. For example, string theory is outside our current ability to observe and is thus not addressable by science (scientific method). However, that does NOT suggest that religion takes over to determine the answers addressed by string theory.

The dividing line has more to do with the nature of the problem. If the problem relates to how our physical universe works, science is the better tool, as religion has no way to figure out how our physical universe works.

There is no theory of abiogenesis. The big bang theory and climate change are testable and thus fully within science - NOT religion. Plus, they are questions concerning how this physical universe works and are thus best addressable by science. For example, abiogenesis is a case of science not having a complete answer, but science is still the correct tool for answering the question.

I have no idea what you mean by a religious "logical framework".

 

No. What you DON'T know is how an atheist makes ANY decision. All you know is that it doesn't involve a god.

And, that's the whole point right there.

An atheist could be consulting the Bible, as there is a philosophy being described. You just don't have a clue about how an atheist makes decisions or evaluates philosophical questions.

"Atheist" does NOT describe how a person takes action. Religion DOES describe how a person takes action. If you claim to be a Christian you claim to be worshipping a god and evaluating your actions based on the god of the bible. You claim that there is a supernatural - heaven, hell (maybe), miracles, answered prayer, etc.

 

Religion is the ONLY tool to use, in that case... It is the only tool which addresses the unfalsifiable...

If it is not addressable by science, then religion is the only other way (at least at this point) that it can be addressed... There needs to be an accessible, practical, and specific null hypothesis test available for the theory in order for it to fall within the realm of science. As long as there isn't one, the theory remains within the realm of religion.

Yes, there is. It states that life arrived on Earth through a set of random naturally occurring events.

The BBT is not falsifiable. There is no way to go back in time to see what actually happened. The null hypothesis test for it is not accessible. It remains a religion.

Climate Change is a circularly defined buzzword. It is meaningless. Any argument based on "Climate Change" is thus a void argument, per Logic, unless the term can be defined in a way which makes reference to something outside of itself. Climate Change also remains a religion.

Yes, they are about the physical universe, but they are not falsifiable, thus they are not within the realm of science.

Abiogenesis is not falsifiable, thus it is outside the realm of science. There is no way to go back in time to see what actually happened. There is no accessible, practical, specific null hypotheses test for the theory...

See my post #1548 on page 62 (in response to Bear), where I walk through it.

 

It's not a matter of whether there is another tool. The nature of the problem puts it in the range of questions that must be addressed by science.

When humans don't have the technology to gather the required evidence (such as strings from string theory being too small to detect) it does not mean that religion is the appropriate tool.

No, that is NOT a theory. It has no characteristics of being a theory.

This is a problem with understanding the theory. The theory does NOT say that the universe came from nothing. It says that there was an enormously rapid expansion from the first moment of detectability. Science has incredibly limited ability to observe what happened "before" that or what the "environment" of that expansion was. So, that's not part of the theory.

You don't like the name so you call it a religion?? Please!

 

The problem here comes from the notions that science can address the supernatural and that religion can explore the mechanisms of our physical universe.

Neither is true.

You point to one of the central differences in noting that a fundamental assumption of religion is that a supernatural/god/whatever exists. But, the primary fundamental assumption of science is that our universe may be meaningfully observed.

These differing fundamental assumptions create a divide that simply can not be crossed. As the Pope says, science and religion are different realms.

 

There is nothing circular about climate change. Climatology includes the study of how climate changes using all sorts of methods of gathering evidence from the past and present.

 

Ok. I'm bored. I'll ask: And just what is compatible between blind belief in the unknowable and rational acceptance of the reasonable? Because it sounds unreasonable to me.

 

Most Americans have a religious belief that includes the supernatural. That doesn't mean that they are doomed to rejecting Einstein or gravity, or evolution or other rational analysis of the world around us.

The key to compatibility is that we keep a focus on where the edges are - whether a particular question must be answered by religious faith or by science.

There are large numbers of scientists who are Christians or have other beliefs in the supernatural. Yet, when investigating problems appropriate to science they use science exclusively. And, when they consider questions of why we're here, what comes after death, and other such questions about the supernatural, they use religion.

 

The last sentence sounds creepy. Are you talking about legal and moral consequences, or about an eternity in hell kind of consequence?

Why would you think assessment of validity must be based on faith? Wouldn't that exclude empirical evidence?

 

Religion postulates the unfalsifiable, it doesn't address it.

That doesn't make religion a legitimate method of research.

Falsifiability is the capacity for some proposition, statement, theory or hypothesis to be proven wrong. How's the Big Bang Theory not falsifiable?

We don't need time machines to prove a theory wrong. The 6000 years old Earth theory was proven wrong without time machines.

Big Bang is actually a group of theories, presumably each with its own null hypothesis. I suggest you try a science forum for answers.

How's abiogenesis not falsifiable? It was proven wrong, which is the definition of falsifiability.

 

its a bit of a stretch but they certainly could be a standalone religion, though you would find them typically as one of several other elements of a religion with a broader scope.

25 Most Bizarre Religions That Actually Exist

Raelism
Scientology
Nation of Yahweh
Church of All Worlds
Subud
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
Prince Phillip Movement
Aghori
Pana Wave
Universe People
Church of the SubGenius
Nuwaubian Nation
Discordianism
Aetherius Society
Church of Euthanasia
Happy Science
Temple of the True Inner Light
Jediism
Zoroastrianism
Haitian Vodou
Neo-Druidism
Rastafari
Church of Maradona
Aum Shinrikyo
Frisbeetarianism
https://list25.com/25-most-bizarre-religions-that-actually-exist/5/

I am serious, your turn!

Hmm, I wonder if NeoDruids need to ask what a NeoDruid is, like the NeoAtheists do?

 

presumption not fact?

religion is more the expression of the unfalsifiable, theology addresses it.

 

What you are doing here is confusing philosophy with brain function. What I am telling you is that the brain doesn't function in the way that you think it does. In order to not believe one thing, it has to believe something else. There's no brain function called "not belief". Shrinks say the subconscious doesn't even have a way of processing "not", that if you tell the subconscious "not a pink elephant", the subconscious can only process "a pink elephant". You can't process "not belief" because there's nothing there to process. It's like trying to trade places with empty space. You can't hold "not belief" in your mind, you can only hold "belief".

No. What I am saying is that you can say you don't believe in any and all gods, but what you can't do is say that that isn't a belief. The "lack belief" atheists want to avoid saying they have a belief, but that doesn't work because the mind doesn't work that way.

A distinction without a difference, I think. If someone thinks your entire life is built around atheism, that's their problem, not yours. I can say I'm an atheist, that the belief that I hold is atheism, and still support Christianity as being good for society. I'm not in conflict with religion, or at least not THAT religion.

 

Ah, those of the missed contradictions, ”partly truth, partly fiction” (Kris Kristofferson ) Hmmm. Bad psychology inevitably leads to a bad reality.

For example: climate change fanatics, and the DDT ban.

 

I'm not sure two theories can't have the same null hypothesis, hence "presumably each with its own null hypothesis". I can't assume something to be true just because it seems right to me.

No. A non-falsifiable hypothesis is the fundamental premise of every religion. Theology doesn't address the premise, only inferences that can be made based on the accepted premise.

 

I don't think I'm confusing anything, we're just hitting some verbal semantic issues. I'm not claiming anyone doesn't believe anything, only that what a person does believe in a specific context isn't necessary definitive or clear. It can be a "maybe something like this but I'm not sure". Within the context of that general fuzzy idea that they believe though, there will be some specific proposals that contradict it. As per my example again, believing the answer to the maths problem must be a number of some sort so being able to dismiss a proposed answer that is a word.

There are also a vast range of interconnects. If someone proposes the existence of a god who created the world 6000 years ago, I might not be clear on whether any gods exist but I could be very clear that the world is much more than 6000 years old. So, I will not believe that specifically defined god exists on that basis, even without having any definitive idea on whether any other type of god exists.

The statement that no gods exist would indeed be a belief in itself. The response to a specifically proposed god hypothesis that it isn't convincing doesn't require a specific alternative belief about the existence of gods in general.

I doesn't matter how you define atheism if someone else defines it to mean something entirely different (and maybe much more negative) because when you say "I'm atheist", they will attribute their definition to you. In places like this, a lot of people will do that intentionally and maliciously. That's why I don't like using these highly debated and much-redefined labels in the first place. If you need to describe what you believe, just describe it and avoid the confusion and potential conflict.

 

The real question is: Why do theists did atheism to be a religion?

 

and those beliefs may or may not be a religion, Scientology.

 

Not really, while we could examine several religions and at some point find something that is nonfalsifiable the main focus could be based in hard reality. Take atheism for instance, the premise no-God is not falsifiable. All premises have inferences, or a point, not sure what you are driving at?

True, our brains interact on some level with everything thrown its way. That is in part how a lie detector works, it will go bonkers at the mere mention of something that some people find disturbing without any vocalization what so ever, hence the brain processes hence people process responses yes-no-idk automatically.

as you can see however the neoatheists handwave everything away as trolling that disagrees with their religion.

but it really does get comical when one of your neoatheist friends said the dictionary doesnt define anything that does not exist, and there it is the definition of God.

Then there is the more difficult question, why do agnostics and other atheists classify atheism as a religion? It gets really rough for some people to wrap their minds around secular religions where no G/gods (deities) are required.

 

A "neo-atheist" is someone who dares to defend reason.

 

65 pages now, and atheism remains, by definition, not a religion. Just like not playing baseball isn’t a sport.

 

The main focus of all religions is salvation, primarily the afterlife. Not quite hard reality.

Atheism is not a religion, nor a system of beliefs.

The no-God hypothesis is falsifiable, by the way. From a scientific point of view, all hypotheses and theories are true only for the observable universe and only until - if - disproved by new empirical evidence. Non-falsifiability implies complete knowledge, an impossible feat.

 

There is nothing fanatical about climatology. And, I have no idea why you're upset about banning DDT.

 

Yes, some atheist might be religious.

But, that's not the issue here, is it.

The issue here is whether ATHEISM is a religion. And, it very clearly is not.