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

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Kokomojojo, Apr 25, 2019.

  1. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Morals and religion are not the same thing. And, world view is certainly not a religion.

    The definition of "climate change" can not be considered circular. These two words have clear definitions of their own. So, the definition of "climate change" is free to use those two words in defining what the word combination means.

    Climate change is NOT a single university thing. It is world wide. It involves physics, chemistry and biology. It involves studies of the sun, all levels of atmosphere, land and sea. It includes studies of ancient climate through geology, ice cores, paleontology, ancient writings, astronomy, etc. It has been studied for decades.

    Proposing a conspiracy of that breadth and depth would be total lunacy. There is NO WAY such coordination of scientific results would be possible.
     
  2. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Science says "I don't know" all the time. It's easy to come up with questions that are in the domain of science, but don't yet have answers.

    The domain of science includes all those questions that concern how our natural world works. The fact that science doesn't have answers to all the questions in its domain isn't a limitation of the domain. It's just a limitation of current progress that requires time and technology.

    The same goes for religion. The fact that religion doesn't have all the answers concerning religious topics doesn't mean that those topics aren't in the domain of religion. They are simply questions in the religious domain for which humans don't have answers.

    The divide between religion and science has to be based on characteristics of questions. The domain of science includes questions that concern how our natural world works. The domain of religion includes everything about the supernatural and questions concerning why we exist, our purpose, what's expected of us by higher powers, etc.

    Religion has no tools for addressing string theory and never will. Suggesting those questions are in the realm of religion is ridiculous. There is nothing religion could ever do about that.
    Yes, religion will always exist. I'm not opposed to that. What I'm interested in is correctly dividing between questions that should be answered by science and questions that should be answered by religion.

    Having the dividing line by a matter of whatever science has answeres for is not acceptable. It leaves to religion questions for which religion has absolutey no capacity to address.
    Again, that is a dividing point, but not for dividing between religiion and science. And, let's remember that science includes fundamental assumptions and methodologies for proceeding. And, these are absolutely nothing like what religion has. There are multiple major differences between religion and science that may be qualifying or disqualifying in addressing a specific question. Simply having science not answer the question does NOT qualify religion as a valid methodology for the question.
    This is an overstatement. Science depends on falsification. However, every theory could still be false even after passing significant testing. So, theories grow in importance throughout their lives as further evidence failst to falsify them and as those theories are found to be useful in furthering science. Scientists actually DO gain more confidence in a theory over time. And, that does have a lot to do with how an hypothesis becomes a trusted theory. The theory of relativity required more than a decade to gradually gain the confidence of physicists. The theory of evolution also gradually gained prominance, becoming a foundation of all modern biology not by some annointment at the outset, but by decades of successful use in biology.

    As far as I can tell, religion makes NO use of what science would consider to be evidence.
    Both of these theories absolutely are falsifiable. And, we don't need to have been there. There are multiple sources of evidence for each of these.
    You use the word theory, but your definition omits the core of the scientific definition for the term. Don't get confused by flipping word definitions.
    OK, so you have registered your total disrespect for an entire field of science and assumed you know better than the vast majority of climatologists who span pretty much all fields of scientific endeavor.
     
  3. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK, so you know FAR more than the vast majority of climatologists the world over.

    You know more than physicists about thermodynamics. You recognize that they can not define a term.

    With that kind of supreme understanding you should feel proud of your accomplishment!
     
  4. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh?
    Explain?
    Oh?
    Explain?
    Im not really in your climate change side discussion
    but I agree that the idea we cause global warming is a fraud.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2019
    gfm7175 likes this.
  5. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, you should explain. You're the one making the claim. What characteristics of "morals" and "world view" make them NECESSARILY religion.

    What is it that makes you claim religion when you see "morals"?

    And, everybody has a world view. With this one aren't you just making an assertion that all humans are religious totally regardless of what they think or do?
     
  6. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This bit of our discussion is you continually reverting back to your original argumentation instead of addressing my counterarguments, and I wish to stop going in circles. Argument By Repetition Fallacy.

    Once again, that line is the ability for a theory to be falsified in an accessible, available, practical, and specific way. If that is possible, then science can address the matter. If that is not possible, then science cannot address the manner. Plain and simple.

    Religion has the capacity to answer any question. However, if science has already answered it, then there isn't any need to also appeal to religion.

    Not an overstatement, but otherwise correct up to this point, as a theory of science is never proven. Any currently standing theory of science could be completely and utterly destroyed tomorrow... or the next day... etc.

    They don't "grow in importance", but they simply continue to survive null hypothesis testing.

    I'm not sure how any of this is relevant. All that is relevant is that a theory becomes a theory of science after it has survived and continues to survive internal and external consistency testing.

    Great, but that doesn't make the Theory of Evolution into science in any way. It remains a religion; it remains unfalsifiable. It makes use of the same logical framework that Atheism and Christianity make use of. It makes use of an initial circular argument [a "fundamental assumption"] and then has arguments stemming from that initial circular argument [ie, those arguments all ultimately depend upon the truth of the "fundamental assumption"].

    The meaning of "evidence" doesn't change due to science or religion. Evidence is evidence, regardless. Evidence is simply "any statement which supports an argument".

    No they aren't. Yes, we need to have been there. Otherwise, without having been there at the time, we can only make assumptions about what actually happened at that time, and then base further argumentation on the assumed truth of those fundamental assumptions.

    Kinda sounds like how I have openly and consistently defined the word "religion", doesn't it?? Kinda sounds contradictory to how I have openly and consistently defined the word "science", doesn't it?? I find my position on this matter to be quite solid.

    The definition of the word "theory" doesn't change due to science, or religion, or whatever else. A theory is a theory, regardless. A theory is "an explanatory argument".

    Yup, and yup. I DO know better than them, since I am not choosing to reject logic science and mathematics like they have chosen to do.
     
  7. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My argument becmes FALLACY if I repeat it when asked the same question???

    Hilarious! Why doesn't your question become nonsese when it gets aswered over and over again?
    Religion has no capacity to investigate how this universe works. Religion can't address physics or chemistry or biology, for example. Religion provides no mechanism for identifying whether a proposition on how something works is true or false.
    Yes - this has to be true, because we are humans. We can't guess what factors may affect our experiments. For example, Newton could not have guessed that speed was an issue.

    Theories absoluely do grow in importance, because surviving continued testing is significant and because successful experience in using the theory to do further investigation is significant.
    The theory of evolution absolutely IS falsifiable. We make discoveries all the time. Evolution makes incredibly strong statements about what will be found. EVERY find of previously living matter is a test of evolution.

    There is absolutely NOTHING circular about the theory of evolution.
    Science and religion do NOT have the same idea concerning what is evidence. Your quoted phrase above is a case in point.
    It is YOU who is proposing making assumptions. Do not make assumptions when looking at facts (which are recorded observations, such as a temperature measured by a certain methodology and taken at a specific date and time).

    Your idea of science isn't consistent with how science is practiced through the modern era.
    No, scientific method starts with hypotheses, which explain how smething works. A theory is a collection of one or more hypotheses that have previously undergone independent testing and review.

    A theory is the best truth science can produce. An explanation doesn't become a thorey by simply being an "explanaory argument" - like is the case outside of science.
    Your arrogance is impressive. To think that you who can't say what a theory is can suggest physicists, chemists and biologists from around the world are so uniformly ignorant!!
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2019
  8. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What is "my question"?? Idk what you're referring to here.

    Yes, it does. It investigates theories through use of supporting evidence.

    There's no need for it to do so. All of those things are branches of science... They all involve theories which are falsifiable. Like I've said, it is falsifiability which is the dividing line between what gets addressed by science and what gets addressed by religion... NOT any particular object, such as the universe, or nature, or whatever...

    Those objects could be addressed by either or, depending upon whether or not the theory about those objects is falsifiable or not... Take a look at the philosophy of Karl Popper; he has it right when it comes to science (he separates religion from science). Francis Bacon has it wrong (he blends religion and science, like many people do today).

    What do you mean by "identifying whether..."?? Are you looking for proof?

    Discoveries are not attempted falsifications. And no, that's not attempting to falsify evolution. That's not addressing the question of whether or not current life is the result of mutations of more primitive life. The mere existence of previously living matter does not mean that we somehow resulted from that matter. We would need a time machine to go back in time to see what actually happened. Since we can't do that, Evolution is not falsifiable.

    The Theory of Evolution concludes with its initial predicate that current life is the result of mutations of more primitive life. That's the very definition of a circular argument.

    Tying this back into the thread topic, Christianity concludes with its initial predicate that Jesus Christ exists and is who he says he is. Atheism concludes with its initial predicate that god(s) do not exist. They all make use of this same logical framework; they are all religions.

    Yes they do. The difference is that science makes use of conflicting evidence, not supporting evidence.

    No. I am simply being open about the assumptions that I am making, while you are masquerading the assumptions that you are making as "science" in this particular side dialogue, and masquerading them as "lack of belief" in the main dialogue of this thread. You seem to not be admitting that your assumptions are in fact assumptions; you seem to want them to be something more than assumptions.

    That's not what facts are nor how they work. Facts are assumed predicates. They are useful for speeding up conversations. Anything may or may not be a fact, depending upon who is involved in the dialogue.

    That is because the "modern era", as you call it, is making use of Francis Bacon's philosophy instead of Karl Popper's philosophy.

    A theory is an explanatory argument. I have already said that. And yes, I would say that many of them ARE ignorant.
     
  9. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'll say that the second half of my post #1548 pretty much wraps this whole thread into a nutshell, and that logical framework is what I feel hasn't been addressed by the Atheists who have participated in this thread.
     
    Kokomojojo likes this.
  10. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    morals are the substance of religion.
    world views are the substance of religion
    I didnt make the definition, you are countering the definition itself, therefore you owe us an explanation if you are to be taken seriously.
     
  11. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It appears they arent capable of defending atheism, like Jake predicted in the beginning of the thread.
     
    gfm7175 likes this.
  12. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    your arguments become fallacy when you state your original argument over and over after gfm has quashed it with a counter argument.

    The way a debate works is that once your argument is quashed with a counter argument you are required to quash his counter argument if you want to stay in the game, otherwise you are committing the repetitiion fallacy as gfm pointed out.
     
    gfm7175 likes this.
  13. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    beliefs and conclusions and acting on those beliefs and conclusions are the product of that is the result of something, are you saying religion when most likely you really mean the 'supernatural'?

    Scientology Religion

    The Scientology religion was founded by American author and humanitarian L. Ron Hubbard. The first Church of Scientology was formed by Scientologists in Los Angeles in 1954. Today the religion spans the globe with more than 11,000 Churches, Missions and affiliated groups across 167 nations.

    Scientology holds that Man is an immortal spiritual being. His experience extends well beyond a single lifetime. His capabilities are unlimited, even if not presently realized. He is basically good, and his spiritual salvation depends upon himself and his fellows and his attainment of brotherhood with the universe. https://www.scientologynews.org/quick-facts/scientology.html


    Religions/cultures are created, everybody has one.
    Believers in supernatural +God create religions based in the supernatural,
    Believers in the natural -God create religions based in the natural
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2019
  14. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Scientology is just one belief system.

    As you point out, religions may or may not include a god.

    But, the question is about what is atheism. And, all atheism means is that one doesn't accept the assumption that there is a god.

    From there, your argument breaks down. To include all atheists (and their many philosophies that may or may not include the supernatural) you have to suggest that EVERY HU:MAN BEING is religious - that however any human being bases their actions is covered by the one word "religion".

    I don't accept that as a rational definition of "religion". Religion loses it's meaning if it refers to absolutely every way anyone lives their lives.
     
  15. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The definition of atheism precludes it from being a religion. This was established in page 1.
     
  16. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,164
    Likes Received:
    30,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    According to the "logic" you've provided, pretty much everything is a religion. "Baseball is a worthwhile pursuit" is a religion. When you have to stretch the definition wide enough to accommodate such absurdities, you've stretched it to the point of absurdity.
     
    tecoyah and WillReadmore like this.
  17. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    but rahl, as everyone has pointed out to you, that is a fantasy, there is nothing whatsoever in the definition of atheism that says its not a religion.
    :deadhorse:
    FALSE
    That is not the logic 'I' provided.
    Its a neoatheist strawman.


    They have no counterargument which is most likely why you had to correct them on so many of their responses have been strawman fallacies.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2019
  18. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The definition of atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. The definition of atheism precudesnit from being a religion. Just like not playing baseball is not a sport.
     
    WillReadmore and BillRM like this.
  19. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    huh? theists lack disbelief in God and they are a religion, are neoatheists demanding special treatment again? it goes without saying that if the theists lack of disbelief is a religion then neoatheists lack of belief is also a religion. There are so many ways to prove that point I could write a book.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2019
  20. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The definition of atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. The definition of atheism precludes it from being a religion. Just like not playing baseball is not a sport.
     
  21. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    so you did not comprehend what I posted?
    read it slowly this time for comprehension. your posts are a stuck on repeat, try moving this forward with a counter argument IF you have one.
     
  22. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The definition of atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. The definition of atheism precudesnit from being a religion. Just like not playing baseball is not a sport.
     
  23. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ???

    Definitions rarely if ever explain all the things a word DOESN'T mean.

    "Atheism" has a good solid definition that you should be able to understand without additional prompts concerning what it ISN'T.
     
    Kokomojojo likes this.
  24. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,164
    Likes Received:
    30,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, according to the logic you've provided, as has been pointed out at least half a dozen times by now. That's the distinction between a counterargument and a strawman. If you would like to change tracks and provide a definition of religion that includes atheism but not baseball fandom, have fun with that. But I'll go ahead and save you some time: I'm going to ask for such a definition and you will likely provide a definition that includes NEITHER baseball fandom NOR atheism. You'll try to twist that definition to something involving the idea that someone could start with atheism (by which you actually mean naturalism) as a basis, one could draw conclusions that could eventually add up to enough to reach your definition of a religion, but then I'll go back to pointing out that this standard is so broad that it once again includes baseball fandom. I can start with baseball fandom and draw enough conclusions to meet whatever definition you provide. So either neither atheism nor baseball fandom are a religion or they both are.

    That and/or you'll butcher a definition, like you did with "worldview" and even ignore what your own source has to say about what the word or phrase means. Likely both at this point.
     
  25. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks for the agreement, rahl constantly posts that nonsense that by definition atheism ISNT religion, and of course when we look at the definition of atheism it not possible to draw that conclusion and neither can he defend it in argument because its purely imaginary, he made it up.
    You want to argue a false premise with me. I can successfully argue that both or either can be structured to be a legitimate religion that the gubmint would be forced to recognize. You seem to be like most others out here skipping past the key attributes of what religion is.

    That said what do you think religion is?

    (and do not forget in your explanation that nontheists also have officially recognized religions, and atheists are nontheists)
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2019

Share This Page