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

Yes, atheism isn't religion. It is a position on the question of whether there is a god. The definition says nothing about religion. For you to guess otherwise makes no sense. We have the complete and full definition. You don't get to make up your own definitions.

You might be able to argue that someone who is an atheist might also be religious in some way. But, that is OUTSIDE the deinition of atheism. Atheism is simply a position on the existence of a god.

Some nontheists certainly may do whatever they want, but their actions don't define the word "atheist".

There isn't great agreement on the definition of "religion". Perhaps reading the entry at wiki is a start.

 

you cannot draw that conclusion from the definition of atheism.
rahl is using a definist fallacy to build a false dillema fallacy and it appeared t hat you seen that but now it appears as if you do not?

yes and that is a 'religious' position.

correct, proving my point that rahl can not legitimately conclude that atheism is not a religion by definition.

Not me tell rahl its his not baseball game, not mine lol

Care to post it so we can both see your complete and full definition?

Sure I do, I posted my 'comprehensive' definition of religion and in fact made a thread about my definition of religion where the conclusion was partly a subject and product of debate

Everyone with the functioning faculties of thought has religion regardless what ism it falls under.

again which is a position based in religion.

There is comprehensively.

 

I asked you to provide your definition, since this is your thread. What are the "key attributes"? As for the explanation that I "forgot," it is hard to believe this miss is accidental. I've covered exactly this fact in every thread you and I have discussed this. No, this has been covered already, despite what you are pretending now.

 

Just because you uttered the word 'religion' somewhere in history is not by any stretch of rational imagination 'covering' anything.

The hard fact is that you 'covered' nothing and its clear you are using a word that your understanding of its depth is highly suspect, since you found it necessary to reverse my question to you back on me. To properly identify and analyses the problem people need to know what you think religion 'is' before we can move the discussion further. Mine has been posted countless times in this thread and others.

As we can see I already answered your question now you answer mine, bring it if you got the goods.

 

If you would actually take the time to look over the past few times I covered this, and in fact when I was often the one to bring it up in the first place, then you would know that there being godless religions is not the same thing as godlessness being a religion. We've talked about this at least half a dozen times or so. Not sure why you are shifting gears now.

And, no, you haven't answered my question. Or even tried to. Care to change that any time in the near future?

"people need to know what you think religion 'is' before we can move the discussion further"

Gee, as the one who actually started a thread about this, I wonder why you refuse to provide your answer for the above when asked. Funny, that. By your own admission, your thread contains no capacity for further discussion. Let me know when that changes.

 

68 pages now, and atheism remains, as it did on page 1, by definition not a religion. Just like not playing baseball is not a sport.

 

Only the OP is becoming more and more unwilling to even engage in the discussion he purported to start.

 

That's just a misstatement of the question - more of your word games.

Your argument is that atheism IS a religion. But, atheism is ONLY an opinion on the existence of a god. That opinion is clearly not a religion and it certainly does not imply that the atheist is religious.

 

There is no practice of atheism.

 

Nor is there a religion of atheism. Atheism by definition is not a religion.

 

Atheism is an action noun, your statement is as ridiculous as saying there is no physical movement in the 'action' of running.

Your neoatheist team have demolished that rubbish, yet you carry on evangelizing your dogma, while claiming its not a religion.

Neoatheists claiming lack of belief is not a belief is the creme dela creme of irrational word games that are endlessly played by the neoatheists here, and my sorting it out for them is not a word game, its a free education.

yep, without any doubt.

More ridiculous, its also an action noun, a religious position, ideology, principle, religion, belief system. It should be clear to you that you are wrong.

maybe if you can invent a sufficient argument, but right now you have provided nothing substantial

Sure when I get 15 hits on a search for my definition that you claim I never posted I get a bit bored with the nonsense.

When you change your debate tactics most likely.

Sure just like the neo atheist lack of belief is not a belief mantra, when I see a viable argument from you, all that can be obtained from your above statement is another 'distinction with no difference'

 

There is no such thing as “neoatheist”. Atheism continues to remain, by definition, not a religion. That is not going to change.

 

Atheism isn't a practice.

 

Argument By Repetition Fallacies.

 

You have no idea what this means. Stop using words and concepts you don’t know the meaning to. It’s silly.

 

I think you mean ad nauseum. Restating facts is a logical fallacy? Boy science class must have been a nightmare with you.

 

I guess some people can't differentiate between a belief and a religion. I guess that means that belief in Making America Great Again is a religion. It has a deity, it has dogma, it has irrational leaps of faith, it has rejection of science, it has an existential enemy.

So if atheism is a religion, then MAGA is a religion according to the theists who think that atheism is the same kind of thing as their faith.

As my latest favorite scientist Dr. R. Sopolsky says - "you can't reason a person out of a belief they didn't reason themselves into in the first place".

 

That's another way of stating it.

Facts are not universal truths nor are they proofs. Facts are 'shorthand predicate'. Facts may or may not be truth. When a predicate is accepted by all conversing parties, it is a 'fact' between those conversing parties. If a predicate is rejected by someone, then it is no longer a fact, but returns to being an argument. That's how 'facts' work.

Yes, it is. It is a fallacy to assert argument A, receive a counterargument B in response to it, and then repeat argument A as a supposed response to B.

To elaborate on this: An argument is defined as 'a set of predicates and a conclusion'. The form of any argument is A->B, where A is the predicate(s) and B is the conclusion. An Argument By Repetition Fallacy takes the form A->A->A->A... This is how you and rahl are arguing. You two keep repeating "A" over and over again.

Logic is not science. Logic is defined by its foundational axioms. Proofs extend from those axioms.

 

Correct. I'll gladly differentiate them for anyone who is confused.

A "belief" is simply 'the acceptance of an argument as a truth'.
A "religion" is simply 'an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it'. Another way of phrasing that definition, if it helps, would be 'a fundamental assumption with other arguments that are dependent upon the truth of that assumption'.
An "argument" is simply a set of predicates and a conclusion.

MAGA is a political slogan, not a religion.

No, it doesn't. It is merely a political slogan.

No, it doesn't. It is merely a political slogan.

No, it doesn't. It is merely a political slogan.

No, it doesn't. It is merely a political slogan.

No, it doesn't. It is merely a political slogan.

It is. Atheism makes the argument "god(s) do not exist". That argument concludes with its initial predicate, thus making it a circular argument. Atheism also makes other arguments which all ultimately stem from and are dependent upon the truth of that initial circular argument, thus Atheism IS a religion by definition. Anything that makes use of this same logical framework is also a religion.

MAGA is not a religion. It is a political slogan.

Atheism makes use of the same exact logical framework that Theism makes use of. The only thing differentiating the two is the different initial circular argument being made. A circular argument IS an "argument of faith".

My beliefs being presented here WERE reasoned into, though. I have provided that reasoning here, tying that reasoning into logic itself.

 

Your definition of religion is sure as hell not.

re·li·gion
/rəˈlijən/

noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
   synonyms: faith, belief, divinity, worship, creed, teaching, doctrine, theology; More
   
   • a particular system of faith and worship.
     plural noun: religions
     "the world's great religions"
   • a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
     "consumerism is the new religion"

But I do get your need to craft a definition that enables you to continue your argument.

Sorry but it more than a political slogan, it has a belief system behind it, it has a charasmatic leader who apparently can do no wrong, it has dogma, it has defined enemies, it has ritualistic practices "lock her up" amongst others, and science is irrelevant to those beliefs.

It seems you want it both ways. Atheism which merely says - there is no god, is a religion, but MAGA which has all the bells and whistles of one is merely a political slogan.

But by all means keep running around in circles.

There is no god is not a circular argument. Atheism doesn't make any other arguments, but atheists sure as hell do. A nuance beyond some, I'll admit.

Can't keep it outta your head it seems.

Nope. Lack of faith isn't remotely an argument of faith. Atheism does not requires an iota of "faith", but theists require it or they'd be agnostic at best and atheists (god forbid) at worst.

I believe it would be more accurate to claim that you have used reason to defend your faith which in part consists of particular "beliefs" not to mention leaps of logic. You don't reason into religious faith, you reason in defense of what you personally and emotionally accepted as truth.

 

okay I invite you to please show me how someone practices atheism.

and you can't really say they practice something by not believing in something or saying they're not believing in something. because to believe is an act to not believe his to not act.

Not acting isn't a practice.

if argument to be doesn't show me what atheists practice it is not an argument to argument a it is extraneous non argumentative opinion.

the only argument that would make sense against argument A which is that atheism is not a practice, would be to show that it is indeed a practice to be atheist. I submit that atheism is inaction. Considering to believe is an act. If you believe in a god you are actively saying there is a God if you aren't then you're not.

Non-action is not action.

I agree that logic is axiomatic, keeping that in mind nobody has argued against argument A.

I'm not restating argument A as a rebuttal to argument B. Argument B does not address argument A.

 

same dogma as theism different face.

The realistic (or atheistic) view is just as much the bearer of a myth (or a merely conceptual interpretation of the "world") as is the conventional "religious" (or theistic) view.

Atheism (or conventional realism) is a state of mind which is based in the phenomenal "self" and which seeks the ultimate protection, nourishment, pleasure, and preservation of the phenomenal "self" (at least in this "world" and, if there should be an after-life, then also in any other "world").


Therefore, atheism (or conventional realism) is simply a philosophical alternative to theism (or conventional "God-religion"), based on the same principle and consciousness (which is the phenomenal ego), and seeking (by alternative means) to fulfill the conditionally manifested "self" and relieve it of its suffering.
https://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/dogma-atheism

Thinking about no God is an action, and I see text so I know neoatheists think on some level.

As you can see building a nest for the phenomenal ego is not inaction

It most certainly is.

Atheism is based in faith unless you can provide incontrovertible proof that there is no God, in which case you will go down in history larger than JC.

Everything you accept as true is reasoned, the depth however is entirely another subject

 

Western civilisation was built on a Christian foundation and even the Englightenment, parliamentarism and other - seemingly - secular ideas are, fundamentally, to be traced back to Christianity.

Judeo-Christian values and thinking is so deeply ingrained in Western souls and consciousness that even the most hardfaced Atheist actually is Christian without even knowing it.

Many Westerners of today are pseudo-sophisticated overintellectuals who frown upon the concept of God and instead seek answers in religions they are not even capable of understanding such as Buddhism, infantilising it into some sort of hippie bs that it is not. Other modern delusions such as Environmentalism and Feminism are, at their core, highly religious in their mythos too.

Atheism is basically just Lutheran Protestantism on steroids - Salvation is subjective and each individual can therefore find God in which way best suits him.

 

I have to disagree with this. Those who subscribe to the theory of evolution will dismiss anything that doesn't fit the theory by saying we just haven't found it yet. Otherwise, archaeopteryx would disprove evolution. Archaeopteryx appears in the fossil record millions of years before any of the creatures it supposedly must have evolved from. And it is just the most famous and notable example. Another is the existence of cartilaginous fishes, which don't appear in the fossil record until millions of years after the existence of bony fishes, but evolutionary biologists will insist the cartilaginous fishes must have come first. And then there are multiple gaps in the record between stages of evolution, but those are ignored or hand-waved away. One of the more interesting is there are no examples of creatures that are three cells deep. A single celled life form exchanges nutrients and waste directly with the outside world. A series of them next to each other can survive by doing the same. A series of them next to each other with another series directly behind them is limited to exchanging nutrients and waste in one direction only. But when you get to three cells deep, the interior cells have to get their nutrients and get rid of their waste by exchanging with other cells. There are no known examples of something like this, but evolutionarily speaking, this must have happened before complicated multi-cellular species emerged. So where are they? Why doesn't the lack of such entities disprove the theory of evolution? Because evolutionary biologists accept it on faith that there must have been such entities at some time in the past, without proof and disregarding the lack of proof. Another problem is DNA. There are no living creatures without DNA, but DNA is so extraordinarily complicated that it could not possibly have occurred first. There must have been millions of living things before DNA, but there is no evidence of such things. Does that disprove evolution? Not to evolutionary biologists. No, evolution is definitely not falsifiable because no one will accept anything as proof of its falsity.

 

An interesting theory, but I can't quite get behind it 100%. I'm an atheist who is a former believer, and still maintain my religiously motivated conservative views, but I don't think I would characterize myself as a Christian still, despite the similarity. I do like your third paragraph description of liberals, though.

I wonder if you're familiar with the father theory of religion and government. Psychologically speaking, people see the government as their own father writ large, so if your father was a loving, generous, devoted, permissive type, you will grow up seeing the government as good; if your father was a stern, authoritarian, restrictive type, you will grow up seeing the government as a threat. On the flip side, people see God as the father they wish they had had, so if your father was lacking in the discipline department, you will see God as being a strict disciplinarian. If your father was lacking in the mercy department, you will see God as being a very merciful God. You can follow this strand pretty deep, like do wiccans and Gaia worshippers wish their father had been a woman? Do atheists wish their father didn't exist? Do those without fathers grow up to be anarchists?