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

Yes, I am already aware that you are a fundamentalist of your various religions. That is your choice to make.

This is, however, a good display for other readers of this dialogue of how fundamentalism completely blinds a person from even considering opposing viewpoints.

 

Still dodging the truth in your pursuit of your own fantasy. Pity.

 

You define "belief" as to what it actually means, not what you claim it means.

 

Why not as the universe is very very odd from even our current understanding.

Still super beings that are outside the laws of nature is one hell of a large jump an would demand one hell of a lot of proof beyond fantasy stories written by priests down the ages.

 

Acceptance that something is true.

 

I take that as a "yes"
I'm done with this thread...

I pray you find Jesus the Christ.

 

I take that as a "yes" you do refuse to consider the evidence.
I'm done with this thread...

I pray you find Jesus the Christ.

 

Great, we agree on the definition of belief then.

So, do you believe in atheism?

 

No I'm a theist.

Atheism isn't a belief in anything it's the lack of a belief. In the Christian circles they used to be called heathens. They are simply godless. Godlessness isn't onto itself a god.

 

No, it's just a polite way of telling you you're wrong.

Well now you are just making up definitions that don't exist. My invention of an invisible horse named Charlie does not constitute a religion, using the widely accepted definition. Science fiction would be a more appropriate definition.

Your rejection of Charlie's existence (in the absence of evidence provided by me, the party of the affirmative) would make you a rational person.

Faith is not a rational basis for anything, it is in fact an irrational basis. Faith is the antithesis of reason.

You've just got it 180 degrees out of phase. You are positing that I can make any claim I want and as long as my claim is based on faith, your refutation of that claim would constitute a religion. Come on, dude. That is not how things work in the Age of Reason!

If I tell you golf balls can talk and you tell me I'm crazy, you'd be right. If I persist and you demand proof, such demand does not constitute an affirmative position. "But I have faith! I just know they can talk!" Nah, not the way logic and reason function in modern epistemology.

NO. I am disputing your definition of religion.

Again, making my point and actually refuting your own.

Bob: "God exists!"
John: "No."
Bob: "Prove he doesn't."
John: "You need to prove he does."
Bob: "See, I'm right. God exists because you can't prove he doesn't."​

There is no fallacy in asking a person to prove their religious beliefs scientifically. Both systems are subject to the same rules of logic.

 

LOL so not only do I need to look with a fair and an open mind at any evidence of there being events that could be label supernatural events but you wish me and others to go beyond that to accept the existence of a Jesus that is the son of a all powerful god base on unverified religion stories.

 

Do you believe in the Aztec gods? Why not? They did.

 

Okay, so you believe that god(s) exist. Splendid.

Atheism doesn't, according to your own provided definition of belief, "accept that something is true"?? It doesn't accept that "god(s) do not exist" is true??

I "lack belief" that you are telling the truth here. Therefore, I do not hold the belief that you are lying. I simply 'lack belief'. Correct??

If Atheism is "the lack of a belief", then according to your own definition of belief, Atheism is "the lack of acceptance that something is true". Under that definition, everything that I do not accept as true would be considered atheism, including my lack of acceptance that dinosaurs once existed on Earth is true. Is my lack of acceptance that the Big Bang is true also atheism?? Under your very own proposed definition of atheism, those things would all be considered atheism... Your proposed definition not only violates the proof of identity, but it is also self-refuting, since the assertion "atheism is a lack of belief" is ITSELF a belief, as you yourself have defined the word belief.

I kindly ask you to address these logical issues that I have presented just now instead of ignoring them and continuing on with your dogma that "atheism is a lack of belief"...

Godlessness isn't a god, but it IS religion. It is belief based on circular reasoning.

 

Again, logic appears to not be your thing.

Dictionaries provide the definition of words. The definition of atheism, is the lack of belief on a god or gods. They by definition precludes it from being a religion. The same way not playing baseball is not a sport, by definition.

 

Lol, no.

No contradiction.

False dichotomy. Logic really isn’t your thing.

 

Inversion Fallacy.

No, they don't. Rather, people provide them.

That, in and of itself, IS a belief, though... That definition is self-refuting...

You are using the terms "religion" and "theism" synonymously. They are not the same thing...

Non Sequitur Fallacy.
Equivocation Fallacy.

If you were to instead argue: "not believing in god(s) is not theism" the same way as "not playing a sport is not a sport", then you would have a valid argument. However, you are equivocating the definitions of 'theism' and 'religion' in order to make your above argument. That is fallacious reasoning, and thus is invalid.

 

You really don’t have to keep providing examples. We have established logic isn’t your thing.

And place them in dictionaries, so they can be referenced.

It is by definition not a belief, and definitions can not be self defeating. We have established this already.

Strawman

Yes, we know logic isn’t your thing.

I have no posted a single fallacy in our exchange. You mistake your ignorance of basic logic, with a fallacy on my part. You’ve been corrected enough times, so you have no excuse to continue being wrong.

 

Telling me that I am wrong is quite polite enough.

They do exist, though.

The "widely accepted definition" falsely equates 'religion' with 'theism'. It doesn't properly distinguish the two. Either they are different terms or they are not... I've argued that they are different terms with different meanings...

No, it wouldn't. While I could rationally reject Charlie's existence on a faith basis, rejecting it on a "lack of evidence" basis is quite irrational, committing the argument from ignorance fallacy (since absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence).

Dead wrong... completely dead wrong. Faith is synonymous with circular reasoning. It is, in other words, arguing "X, therefore X". The conclusion of that argument follows from the predicate. It passes internal consistency testing. It is a logically valid argument, per the axioms of logic. It is VERY rational. It is the very way that you validate your own reasoning skills (by use of your reasoning skills).

Sort of, if given my added bolded text... Your claim would constitute a religion if it also had additional arguments stemming from its initial circular argument, as would my rejection of that claim of yours, since I am effectively asserting the opposite belief that you are asserting.

And I am disputing yours.

​

Wrong. Re-read my argument here.

Science does not make use of proofs, nor does it make use of supporting evidence. Science only makes use of conflicting evidence, since that is what falsifies theories. Religion is what makes use of supporting evidence, since that is what strengthens faith.

 

No I don't.

Because I don't have faith in them. I don't need to justify my faith.

Good for them.

 

No atheism doesn't.

Correct.

correct

that is incorrect. Atheism contains a prefix of "a" which means without is in asexual and amoral. And theism which is relating to theos which is Greek meaning God. So no not everything you refuse to accept as true is atheism. If you refuse to accept the morality is true that is amoral.

I'm sorry your proposition with regard to the meaning of the word atheist was incorrect. So none of this is correct either.

I'm not so sure they were logical issues you were presenting because atheism specifically mentioning theism which has to do with believing in God.

I'm sorry religion is specifically characterized by the worship of a supernatural entity or a god. I think the only religion that isn't is satanism but then again it's a form of mockery. Maybe pastafarianism but again that's a form of mockery.

 

what about these?

None worship a diety

Atheistic Religions

Nontheist Friends are Quakers
Theravada Buddhists
Carvaka
Mimamsa
Samkhya
LaVeyan Satanists
Unitarian Universalists
Secular Judaism
Cultural Judaism
Jewish atheism
Dudeism
Raelism
Personality cults

The market
"neoliberalism" have been characterized as "market-worship" or "market fundamentalism

Transhumanism
a techno-utopian political ideology and a secular religion

Personality cults
Ann Coulter's book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism (2006)

Marxism
Primitive communism is Eden; the invention of private property is the Fall; the stages of society thereafter are the different dispensations of sacred history; Marx is Jesus, the First International his apostles and disciples, the international Communist movement the Church, proletarian revolution the Second Coming, socialism the Millennium, and communism the New Jerusalem which descends from heaven...

Environmentalism and 'nature worship'
Among the more persuasive variants of the 'secular religion' theory is an anthropological explanation proposed, for example, by Michael Crichton in his criticism of environmentalism. [12]

Christian-originated secular religions
Unitarian Universalism is probably the closest thing to an organized religion that deliberately makes room for secularism. Unitarian Universalists are free to (in fact they must) create their own approach to religious belief and practice; for many of them, that means a religion with no concept of God/gods or the supernatural.

Atheism
Atheism itself is a religious belief.

Buddhism has no Gods or God and this is sometimes held to in Theravada Buddhist schools (largely in Sri Lanka)

Communism with its belief in the inevitable direction of history and its future paradise. It has no god.

Nationalists believe that people come in different types (Nations) and that these must have their own area, the Nation State. The believe this despite many countries, like the USA, showing that multi-national states work well (American Irish, American Spanish etc).


Environmentalism
Certain human social structures always reappear.
You cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious. Michael Crichton, "Environmentalism as Religion".

Dictionaryism as a religion

 

How can anyone find Jesus? Even his own posse didn't know him from a tree stump.

 

What about them?

If they don't actively worship a god send it is atheist by definition. religion can mean many things but in the context we were using it here it was specific to the worship of a god. What can be rituals. So I agree there can be atheist religions. but just because there are some atheist religions does it mean that all atheists are religious.

There can be areligious theists.

Religion and theism are not always congruent. Does that answer your question?

 

It seems atheists believe religion is somehow supposed to create clones, it doesnt. Religion is wholly individual despite some believe its a corporate affair.

Crichton nailed it perfectly:

Certain human social structures always reappear.
You cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.

 

If you are interested in the what was left out of Koko's largely cut and paste post from Rational Wiki you can find it here,
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Secular_religions
Somehow he also forgot to include,
"Although atheism alone is not a religion, it is possible for an atheist to hold religious beliefs, and some religious sects or groups are largely nontheistic"

Pretty much exactly what you said I think.