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

Honestly I didn't even read it.

The argument really stems mostly from a semantic position. Essentially it's no religion doesn't mean that.

Anytime I get into discussions like this where a word is a point of contention. even though I'm familiar with it in common parlance I will go look it up. words I've looked up our words like family and nature and so forth. but when you look up these words in the dictionary there are often several definitions. And it's really based on context.

Since the discussion is about atheists and theist and is that relates to religion I used the first definition.

Nobody presented me with a different definition nobody asked me what definition I was using. Koko wasted his time stating that religion sometimes means something other than the worship of a god. And I accepted his point. Because he's right sometimes religions don't necessarily involve worshipping of a god.

I appreciate you finding the source and presenting it. Thank you for doing that.

 

the term religion in compasses so much, so no I don't think it's supposed to create clones. I certainly think some organized in strict religions create a sense of authority over the people who subscribed to them. And thief use the threat of social stigma to keep people in line. this is absolutely characteristic of at least some religions but certainly not all of them.

this isn't true either. Quite a few religions are collective. Many religions focus on community, and concepts of virtue and the idea of keeping your neighbor on the straight and narrow. Sometimes it absolutely isn't the individual meaning it's sanctioned by the state. Think Saudi Arabia, or Ethiopia. Places where religion is law and not following it sometimes can lead to some pretty nasty consequences.

I don't think belief in the meaning to your life constitutes a religion. Any more than believe that someone who loves you constitutes a religion.

Atheism is not a belief. It is essentially without gods. Believing in some sort of meaning is not believing in God. It's not a worship ritual it's not a ritual of any kind it's just a thought.

and if you think all thoughts are beliefs and therefore religion then why are you posting in the thread debating whether or not something is a religion?

 

How can thought processes that arrive at the conclusion that religions are false be considered a religion?

 

The rest of the article kills that unsupported statement, there was no point in posting it, and because something is remotely and highly unlike to be possible it highly improbable.

But I am not atheist, I am without gods, (as far as it applies to the surface dwellers of this discussion), how therefore and by what authority do you justify calling me an atheist?

Yes it does thats why it seems so strange that atheists use the narrowest definition.

Of course thoughts that result in acceptance are beliefs, what else could they be?

That would be taking what I said out of context, of course not all beliefs constitute a religion and worldview is a well known and understood characteristic of religion. How can you deny it?

religion
noun
re·li·gion | \ ri-ˈli-jən

\
Definition of religion
1a : the state of a religious a nun in her 20th year of religion
b(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

A world view qualifies as a religious attitude, since it is a characteristic of religion and taking the position there are no gods is a religious position so are you saying that 2 and 4 do not apply to atheists and nontheists etc?

That religions are false? Havent seen anyone say that before, what are you talking about?

 

That's what atheist means.

I don't understand what you are asking here.

Atheism isn't a religion.

 

So you want to argue then that atheism is NOT a religious position?

 

No you want to argue that it is. I simply disagree.

 

Correct. It’s like claiming not playing baseball is a sport. It’s ****ing moronic.

 

Of course it isn’t. By definition, atheism isn’t a religion.

 

But now you are contradicting your very own offered definition of atheism, since you didn't include god(s) in your definition. You said atheism is "the lack of a belief", and defined belief as "acceptance that something is true"... Putting that together yields the conclusion that atheism is, according to you, "the lack of acceptance that something is true". I simply applied that definition accordingly, and now you don't like that I applied it to everything that I refuse to accept and showed the irrationality of such a definition... So, are you amending your proposed definition of atheism to "the lack of a belief in god(s)"? If so, that definition clears up the proof of identity issue, but it still leaves the self-refutation issue, since claiming "I lack belief" is ITSELF a belief. It also focuses on one half of the argument [rejecting the existence of god(s)] while ignoring the other half of the argument [accepting the non-existence of god(s)]. That second half of the argument is the belief that atheism holds [and the belief which theists "lack"].

It was correct as YOU YOURSELF defined atheism for me; I just took your definition to its logical conclusion. Now, you are denying your own argument since you didn't like how it ended up when extended logically...

That's not how you defined atheism to me, though... I simply went by the definition which you provided me and showed why it didn't work. Now, you want to include God into the definition. That inclusion clears up the proof of identity issue, but still leaves the self-refutation issue as well as the issue of ignoring half of the argument that atheism makes.

Here, you argue a paradox.

[1] Religion involves the worship of a supernatural entity or god.
[2] Satanism/Pastafarianism do not involve such worship, yet are still religions.

I will also add that Buddhism and Shinto do not involve such worship either, yet they are still considered to be religions. You are not applying your definition of religion consistently, thus rendering it irrational...

 

Astute observation!! He wants religion to require worship of "supernatural entities" or "gods", but yet he wants some religions which don't worship such things to still be considered religions (except for atheism, of course)... He's simply switching between definitions whenever it suits him to do so... That's fallacious argumentation... He needs to make his definitions clear and needs to stick with his definitions...

That's why I've been very clear about my definitions of particular words (such as atheism, theism, religion, belief, faith/circular reasoning, circular argument, etc...), so that the consistency of my application of those definitions is on full display for all to see.

 

False Equivalence Fallacy.

You are attempting to equate theism and religion; they are not the same thing.

Theism is the belief that god(s) exist.
Religion is an initial circular argument with additional arguments stemming from it.

Theism happens to be a religion, but religion is NOT theism.


For how it applies to your example, you argue the following:

Claiming that not believing in god is a religion is like claiming not playing baseball is a sport.

If you were to use the word "theism" instead of "religion", then your argument would logically follow, since theism is the belief that god(s) exist.

 

Yes, we are all well aware you don’t know what that means.

Strawman

Nope

 

Because, akin to how those religions have faith that their beliefs are true, atheism has faith that those religious beliefs are not true.

They both make use of a faith basis for their beliefs.

 

That's simply not true. Atheists realise that there is no proof for the existence of any god and accordingly reject it, as any rational person would.

 

"Faith" is not religion.

 

There is no faith in atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. By definition, it is not is religion.

 

How is that rational?? Remember, there is no proof AGAINST the existence of any god either...

Your rejection of god(s) on the basis of "lack of evidence to the contrary" is the Argument From Ignorance Fallacy. That is not rational.

If you would instead reject god(s) on a faith basis, that would be rational.

 

Argument By Repetition Fallacy.

I have already addressed all of those arguments, yet you keep making the same arguments instead of addressing my counterarguments.

Discussion can go nowhere if you keep repeating your original arguments over and over again...

 

The burden of proof lies with the person making a positive assertion.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Repeat until you understand.

 

Argument By Repetition Fallacy... Those arguments have already been addressed...

 

Some people seam to be under the impression that learning a list of informal fallacies is a legitimate way to debate. It is not, indeed if your only answer is to quote an informal fallacy you may well just be acknowledging a well constructed argument. Not all informal fallacies are the knee to the bollocks some think they are. Especially when application and understanding of them is so tenuous.

 

By whom..because it was certainly not YOU.

 

All of this BS effort and yhou still have not defined what an atheist is, let alone what your created term "neo-atheist" is. Facts are not syour strong point, nor is truth.

 

Fallacies (whether informal or formal) are errors of logic. They render the logical proof for an argument to be invalid, much like how a math error renders a mathematical proof to be invalid.

If you don't want me to call out the logical fallacies you are committing, then stop committing them in your argumentation. Make use of logically valid argumentation instead...

Yes, they are, actually. A fallacy (whether informal or formal) is an error of logic. It renders the logical proof to be invalid, much like a math error renders the mathematical proof to be invalid. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusion of an argument is incorrect, but it does mean that the logical proof for that conclusion is invalid (ie, the conclusion is not logically supported).

Then tell me precisely where my application and understanding of them is "tenuous"... Until then, you are merely "throwing stones"...