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

will your statement here presents another fallacy unto itself. the argument from fallacy or as some people call it the fallacy fallacy.

This fallacy such as that because an argument contains a fallacy it is therefore untrue. Which is a fallacy in its own right.

no it doesn't it renders the logic to be fallacious it has nothing to do with proof or evidence. Someone having bad logic does not equate to proof or evidence evaporating.

This is why I don't have much respect for logic policing. People would just call fallacy on somebody and thinks that absolves them from any further discussion.

There is a few cases where you can say some things that fallacy in because it's a fallacy you're not going to address it. One of those instances is a straw man fallacy. no it behooves you to make the point that it's a straw man fallacy and explain why. and I would say the same thing applies to a loaded question.

and again if you're asked a loaded question it's a good thing to say " either way I answer that question I have to accept the premise that I reject"

And also circular reasoning is that another fallacy that you really can't have an argument with until it's corrected.

logic is not a mathematical equation.

 

this is true some atheists can be quite rude about it. I think that is a two-way street though. Think about the term apostasy. No it isn't such a bad thing in our culture now because we have the First Amendment. but there are places where this carries a death penalty.

And so but we need to recognize is that just because some people think you should be put to death for apostasy doesn't mean all religious people think that. and just because some of the easiest people think that you're an idiot for believing God doesn't mean all easiest people believe that.

I'm a fetus the I believe in God I worship Jesus but I'm arguing on the side of a theist in the threat because their position is logical. My position is not. I have nothing to show that God exists I just believe it and that's because I want to.

people can think this is stupid that's okay with me. It's just simply what I believe.

Well in regard to the claim that a mess atheism has been proven by science he is correct. science strictly relates to things that are observable tangible calculable measurable. God in supernatural which means he's none of that.

Now his opinion that everyone is stupid for not sharing his view is an opinion ends because everybody has one not unlike a certain part of anatomy, it's worth every bit of that certain part of anatomy as far as I'm concerned.

I take the position that faith is difficult it's much easier to say the world is only observable and only material. To say no I believe in something more that can't be proven first you're opening yourself up to ridicule as part of the burden. I assume you're Christian. Christ said you would suffer that burden and you would be blessed for doing it. So the persons who opinion should matter to you I just said essentially don't worry about that. He also said that something would happen to people that blaspheme.

So I would say may be applied the old adage sticks and stones. I've gotten to where I don't even acknowledge the petty ridicule because why who cares what some guy on the internet things or some guy on TV show? If you believe in your God and to you your God is real, looking at someone who has two ridicule people becomes sorrowful.

 

dictionary fallacy:
Dictionary meanings lack depth, therefore, terms found in dictionaries are often incomplete when it comes to helping people to gain a full understanding of the term.
You will need to argue that agnostics do in fact have a god for your statements to be true, otherwise they are false.

since you restrict yourself to dictionaries as your authoritative source
Atheist vs. agnostic
There is a key distinction.
An atheist doesn’t believe in a god or divine being.
an agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in a god
https://www.dictionary.com/e/atheism-agnosticism/

That and only that is an atheist

No one has produced that evidence in the history of man, please post it.

 

yes I know I went deeper than the dictionary. I went into the root of the word. In the case of agnostic the root word is Gnostic which does not mean God it means knowledge. theist which is the root word of atheist means god.

You can disagree with me. I'm okay with that. But I'm not going to agree with you, you are wrong.

well then I guess according to you the statement I made are false. I can live with you thinking they're false.

yes I agree with that.

Nobody's ever produced evidence of unicorns not existing so could unicorns exist how about leprechauns?

If there's no evidence of something existing not to be leaving it exist is perfectly acceptable it is not a religious belief. Not anymore than not believing that the sun is actually Apollo.

 

I agree that some atheists can be quite rude about theists, particularly Dawkins who can be almost evangelical in his dismissals. With people like Maher he is after all a comedian and the fact is most humour is at another's expense. So here is a joke at an atheists expense,
An atheist is walking through the countryside when he is ambushed by a huge grizzly bear. "Oh God!" he screams "Help me!" The bear stops in its tracks and a voice from the heavens rings out "All your life you've said you don't believe in me, slandered my name and now you want my help?" "I realise that my request is rather bold," replies the atheist "but would it be possible for you to make this bear a Christian?" "Of course it is!" replies God. The bear closes its eyes and clasps its paws in prayer and says "Thank you Father for this meal I am about to receive..."

Hope you took this in the spirit it was meant, I think being able to laugh at ourselves is a very important virtue.

Yes, for the purposes of reasoned debate you are spot on with those definitions, most of us would probably agree. I do question the agenda of those who will not accept these common and widely agreed definitions.

Again yes, and it is important to note that I do not deny the existence of your God, I just cannot find justification for me to believe in your god. It is in my opinion an important distinction. My underlying way of looking at the world is as a sceptic and my atheism is born out of this rather than the other way around. I would still say that my scepticism is not a religion but it is far closer to being one than my atheism. The problem with scepticism is that you cannot ever be certain of anything if you are honest to your own conscience, so the closest I come to faith is that I do think that I exist and I live in a world where you exist. Hopefully there are others on this forum who like yourself are prepared to explain what they think rather than just tell others what the other person thinks and not just play games of semantics to try to prove how clever they are not!
As a side note, hopefully the deist will come back to the debate, I find deism fascinating.

 

that was pretty good. I've never heard that one before.

But you also make a very good point. Jokes are often made at the expense of others funny jokes are often made at the expense of others.

I don't know why people have such a hard time laughing at themselves.

it's a strange argument to me. I would consider agnostics to also be atheist because the terms don't seem mutually exclusive to me. but I've watched people carry on and on and on about some really poor semantics. and with the regards to the distinction between an atheist and an agnostic I agree with him. So it seems like the argument becomes about weather in gnosticism means god or not.

It's a strange Hill to die on, bend that I would rather not kill anybody on it, because it's not that big of a deal.

well I can respect that I understand. I don't find it easy to believe in God all the time. Especially if you tend to be a more rational person that rejects a lot of the dogma associated with religion and Christianity. It's not easy being a Christian who disagrees with the church. It's easier now because there's not people trying to kill me at least not in this country. But I get some pretty nasty stuff from Christians but think that I should absolutely believe every word of the Bible like it was spoken from God's lips. And then it even gets worse when they find out I'm gay.

So I understand your inability or unwillingness or whatever you want to call it to believe in a god.

I know this is going to sound contradictory with regard to me being a Christian but I do approach things generally with a skeptic view. in my opinion it's the only way to make a rational decision. But there are things that factor in to my theism that I personally experienced that I can't prove to other people I'm going to trust myself over others with regard to things of that nature. And here is some absolute honesty that I think when you get down to it every person who truly believes in God thinks. I believe in God because I want to. now I know there's a lot of people that are religious whether they want to be or not because they're either forced by Family or government.

Further I would say the belief that existence is a thing is not religious I would say it's more along the lines of axiomatic. The whole I think therefore I am thing.

yeah this is true I've run into some pretty interesting people had some pretty good conversations on this webpage. But I find those type of people tend to be more reluctant to get into discussions. It's understandable why but still frustrating.

that's interesting, I would like for such a person to return as well, it might make for a very interesting conversation. Deism is something I don't really understand.

 

False: No you did not:

atheism
noun
athe·ism | \ ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm

Definition of atheism
1a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
2 archaic : godlessness especially in conduct : ungodliness, wickedness
From the dictionary:
History and Etymology for atheism
Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

Clearly you do not understand what the word depth means in the context they used it.

None of which has anything to do with how the word is applied in common usage, then or now

agnostic
noun
ag·nos·tic | \ ag-ˈnä-stik

, əg-\
Definition of agnostic

1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god <- how unknowable is used in real life practice
2 : a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something political agnostics
agnostic


I call myself an agnostic. I do not really have any faith, any coherent religious faith, and yet the one thing in my life that I feel passionate and evangelical about is poetry. — Maxine Kumin, "An Interview at Interlochen," 1977, in To Make a Prairie, 1979
Now as an agnostic, since I am NOT in denial, I can tell you agnostics DO have religious faith.
First Known Use of agnostic
Noun

1861, in the meaning defined at sense 1

Adjective

1870, in the meaning defined at sense 1

History and Etymology for agnostic
Noun

Greek ágnōstos "unknown, unknowable" (from a- a- entry 2 + gnōstós "known," variant of gnōtós, verbal adjective of gignṓskein "to know entry 1") + -ic entry 2 (after gnostic)

Adjective

derivative of agnostic entry 1

Agnostic is a good example how words take on a character as meanings/distinctions are fleshed out by philosophy.

You are wrong in that you fail to convey an accurate meaning in terms of the way I use it which is the way it is used today, in fact even ignoring the very source (dictionary) that you consider the authority.

According to your source, if you enjoy being incorrect and constantly corrected I suppose thats your gig.

So then why did you falsely argue the point stating that you had evidence?

 

That's a lot of typing to essentially say Nuh uh.

We are at an impasse I suggest we agree to disagree and part ways.

 

we can agree to disagree, but we wont be parting ways anytime soon as long as you continue to post nonsense in my thread. I will continue to correct your incorrect interpretations, logical fallacies, and false statements as long as you continue to make them

 

Fair enough, correct anything you want, I won't address you on it in the future.

 

The difference I support my positions with references, good luck with that.

 

Sure you do, and I'm sure nobody ever argued with your impeccable position.

 

Interesting blog here that made me laugh, some might recognise certain posters in this.

Militant Fundamentalist Agnostics and the meaning of atheism

Religious literalists and creationists can be annoying, and liberal believers whose theology is entirely apophatic can also be annoying; however anyone who espouses atheism on the internet will soon encounter an even more annoying group: the Militant Fundamentalist Agnostics.

The what? Surely that’s a contradiction in terms?! Sadly not, the Militant Fundamentalist Agnostic, while pretending to complete ignorance of gods, will confidently assert the central dogma of the agnostic faith, and cling to it tenaciously. Their one dogma is the claim that atheists make dogmatic assertions about the non-existence of gods. And hence, by declaring themselves to be free of such unwarranted, beyond-the-evidence assertions, they feel themselves superior, not only to the believers, who have no proof of their deities, but also to the atheists, who have no proof to back up their supposed claims of certain non-existence.

It is pointless trying to argue with the Fundamentalist Agnostics, telling them that, no, atheists usually do not make dogmatic assertions of non-existence. Such a correction undermines the very core of the agnostic identity, and will be rejected with fervour. If an agnostic once accepted that atheism is not about making categorical non-existence assertions, then they’d have no good reason to call themselves agnostics. They might — oh the horror! — have to consider whether they themselves might be (I shudder to write the word) atheists!

And so the Fundamentalist Agnostic Covens meet every full moon at midnight, dancing round ancient stones, chanting their One Article of Dogma: “Atheists make dogmatic assertions and we are superior because we do not!”.

How can an atheist also be an agnostic? The answer is simple. It is the simple acknowledgment that it is possible to be mistaken. An agnostic atheist recognizes that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of deities (agnostic), while also finding arguments for their existence utterly unconvincing (atheist).

Likewise, if you are a Christian who finds arguments for God convincing but recognizes that his existence is impossible to prove and that it is at least possible you could be mistaken, then you are an agnostic theist. I strongly suspect that the Archbishop of Canterbury himself would be the first to acknowledge there can be no absolute certainty either way and, if I am right, this would make him an agnostic to precisely the same degree as Richard — yet I doubt anyone would claim this means he is no longer a Christian!

https://coelsblog.wordpress.com/201...ntalist-agnostics-and-the-meaning-of-atheism/

Bolded emphasis is mine.

 

I'm laughing about agnostic theist. You have no knowledge of what you believe? Why in the hell do you believe it? How do you believe it?

The strange pretzels people twist themselves into...

 

For the rest of this post I shall only be using cut and paste from the article you have claimed kills that unsupported statement.

This is one of the most commonly encountered examples of this trend. Critics of atheism, usually conservative Christians, assert that atheism itself is a religious belief. It is somewhat bizarre that people who cherish so strongly the sanctity of their own beliefs should characterize something so alien to them as being a religion. One possibility is that they are so entrenched in their own religious mindset that they are unable to comprehend the idea of a non-religious belief. More likely, though, is that they believe they are pointing out some deep hypocrisy, in that atheists claim to reject religion while actually practicing it.

For atheism to be considered a religion involves stretching the definition of religion to its loosest possible meaning - something like "a belief based on faith", in this case faith that there is no God. Even this is tenuous, for while some atheists have a strong conviction (arguably equivalent to religious faith) that God does not exist, an atheistic (or at least agnostic) viewpoint can also be achieved from taking the scientific (and therefore irreligious) attitude of only accepting as real things that are observable based on evidence.

In fact, of the secular philosophies which are inaccurately described as religions, atheism is the least like a religion of all, since it does not dictate a specific worldview. Contrary to the assumptions of many creationists, atheism does not necessarily require an acceptance of the big bang theory or the evolution of the species; it predated both of these. All atheism requires is a single belief, that God does not exist, or, to view it another way, a lack of any belief that God does exist. Unlike religions, atheism does not require any specific activities or observances. Assessed against the criteria which make up most definitions of religion (belief in supernatural beings, worship, ritual, etc.), viewing atheism as a religion just doesn't stand up to scrutiny

Evolution as a religion
This is a favourite argument of creationists, who like to claim that the issue of evolution (or, as they call it, "evolutionism" or "Darwinism") versus creationism "is not science versus religion, but religion versus religion (the science of one religion versus the science of another religion)". An example comes from The Lie: Evolution by Ken Ham,[7] but betrays a profound misunderstanding of both religion, which it defines only as a "cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" (quotemined from Webster's Dictionary), and evolution. Ham's ridiculous argument seems to be that nothing can be scientifically concluded from fossils/evidence since we can study them only in the present and have no direct access to their role in the past, unlike "the irrefutable evidence of the Scriptures", which were clearly written in the time of Ken Ham.

From a more rational perspective, it is clear that the evolution of species is a scientific theory, predicated on scientific foundations and with scientific applications. Even if its acceptance is considered to be a matter of personal faith, it does not meet any of the defining criteria to be considered a religion.

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.

“”I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can't be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people---the best people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion. But I think that 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.


Crichton controversially suggests that environmentalists look back to a fabled paradise state of Eden in which man lived in unity with nature, before deconstructing this idyllic view of nature which, in fact, few if any environmentalists have ever professed. Crichton points to a few similarities with religion, such as environmentalists' fear of 'apocalyptic' doom if humankind doesn't redress its 'sins' of pollution and destruction, before telling us that DDT and second-hand smoke are harmless. His argument that sustainability is put forward as a form of religious salvation makes little sense, since sustainability is a system for managing resources, having more in common with economics than with religion.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Secular_religions

Bolded emphasis is mine.
The article deals with the suggestion atheism is a religion and concludes it is not, debunking all the suggestions otherwise and criticising Crichton with his suggestion that Environmentalism is a religion, not atheism.

 

I asked you to define your words, then you did, then I applied those definitions as you defined them...

Indirect insult ignored on sight.

Correct. Theism is the belief that god(s) exist.

Correct.

And yet another paradox on your part... Boy are they racking up quickly now...

[1] Satanism and Pastafarianism are religions. [post #795]
[2] Satanism and Pastafarianism are NOT religions. (Rather, they are effigies) [post #847]

Which one is it?

They are not polytheistic. They don't involve god(s) at all. Shinto involves rituals and worship of kami (of which the term applies to a wide variety of things, including forces of nature, spirits, natural objects, etc.)... Buddhism itself does not involve the worship of any god(s), but rather, following the teachings of Buddha. Most Buddhists do not believe in any god(s), nor do they claim Buddha to be a god. They are both atheistic, yet they are both religions. This creates an issue for you (as you want those to be religions, yet you don't want atheism to be a religion), so it leads to your switching between various definitions, as detailed below...

Yup, I am fully aware. You seem to be unaware of how that applies to the discussion we are having, though.

Yes, I did notice your subtle change that you made to your original assertion here... Your original assertion was "religion includes worship of a supernatural entity or god", while here you changed it to "religion includes worship" and left out the "god" part. So no, you are NOT applying the same definition consistently... This is because you want Buddhism and Shinto to be considered religions, while simultaneously wanting atheism to NOT be considered a religion. But under your very own offered definition of religion (which you purposely defined that way in order to avoid atheism being a religion), Buddhism and Shinto similarly do not qualify as religions. You are locked in paradox...

Under my definition, they are all considered religions and they all make use of identical reasoning to explain why they are religions (because they all are based on initial circular arguments). Your definition (well, definitionS, since you are switching between multiple ones depending upon whichever one yields the desired result for your latest argument), rather, is quite irrational, as I just pointed out above.

 

Sorry, atheism isn't a religious belief.

 

Atheism means the lack of belief in a god or gods. Don’t make **** up. You’ve been caught doing it enough times to know better.<Mod Edit>

 

agnostic means without knowledge, not without God.

 

I call what you are talking about the "argument from fallacy" fallacy, as I refer to the "fallacy fallacy" as "making an error of logic about an error of logic", since fallacy is quite literally defined as an error of logic. But anyway, I'm aware of the "argument from fallacy" fallacy.

Re-read my assertion again... I will provide it in bold text here, and underline the important parts that you missed. 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.

Notice that I did not say that fallacies automatically render the conclusion of an argument to be incorrect, likewise with how a math error does not necessarily render the sum/product/etc. of a math problem to be incorrect. What it DOES, however, is render the logical proof for an argument to be invalid, much like how a math error renders the mathematical proof for the math problem to be invalid.

These are both closed functional systems, meaning that they are defined by their foundational axioms, and that extensions of those foundational axioms can be made (called "proofs"). When one commits a logical fallacy, they are making use of faulty reasoning to arrive at their conclusion. Their argument is thus rendered invalid. Now, their conclusion might still be correct, but if it indeed IS correct, then they should be able to form a different argument, one which makes use of proper logic (ie, is "valid"), to arrive at that conclusion.

Correct, and that is what renders the logical proof to be invalid. Proofs are extensions of foundational axioms. If an error is made in the process of this extension, then there is no 'logical proof' present in the argumentation.

See above.

I'm not talking about evidence (or your redefinition of proof as "holy evidence"). I am talking about formal proofs (extensions of foundational axioms). So, yes, bad logic does equate to proof evaporating. It renders the particular argument to be invalid.

Those people are, themselves, arguing fallaciously then, since they'd be committing the 'argument from fallacy' fallacy. I'm not saying that your faulty logic renders your conclusion incorrect. I am instead saying that your faulty logic renders your particular argumentation to be invalid. You need to try again to come up with a valid argument.

You don't have to counter-argue ANY argument that is fallacious, as that particular argument has already been rendered invalid by its logic error(s).

Correct. I didn't say that it was, though. I said that they both work in the same way. They are both closed functional systems. Both logic and mathematics are defined by their foundational axioms. Both logic and mathematics make use of proofs, which are extensions of those foundational axioms.

 

Argument By Repetition Fallacy.
Argument of the Stone Fallacy.

My argumentation in post #871 still stands strong.

 

Precisely! Especially the bolded parts, but even the unbolded parts.

I'm sure you have noticed by now that the typical responses from the atheists here have been stones and repetition, all while ignoring the counter-argumentation being provided towards them. They do so due to the fundamentalism that is fueling their religious beliefs. People such as those need to first set aside their fundamentalism before they can even consider arguments such as the ones that I am making.

 

Yup. I am a theist (specifically a Christian). I am making a conscious calculated acceptance of the argument "god(s) exist" (specifically, the argument that "Jesus Christ exists and is who he says he is"). I am doing so on a faith basis. I am not a fundamentalist, since I recognize the circular nature of my religion.

You are an agnostic. You are not making a conscious calculated acceptance of either argument of existence. You are walking straight down the hallway (neither veering through the doors on the left nor the right).

The other posters responding within this thread are atheists (this also applies to the posters who are theist/agnostic who are incorrect about what atheism is). They are making a conscious calculated acceptance of the argument "god(s) do not exist". While they ought to be doing this on a faith basis (if they wish to remain adherent to logic), they are instead doing so on a fallacious basis, involving numerous logical fallacies, typically ignorance and the circular argument fallacy. This is due to their fundamentalism (ie, they do not recognize the circular nature of their religion). (or that they are even being religious in the first place, for that matter).

 

Okay, then I will form an argument by making use of the very same reasoning that you are making use of here:

If you ask a theist does God exist they will say yes. That is not a religious belief it's based on evidence. It's not practicing anything. It's just formulating an opinion.

 

Yup. What you will also notice these types of people do is that they will appeal to whatever random dictionary supports the belief they are currently discussing, and use different random dictionaries for other beliefs of theirs. This is because no one dictionary is the same. They all offer different definitions, sometimes just a slight altercation of a particular word, but sometimes even a straight up contradiction or even a completely different definition of a particular word. They attempt to place a random dictionary of their choosing upon a holy pedestal as if it were authoritative over the definition of a particular word at a particular point in time. It's, once again, fallacious argumentation. People define words. They do so through various means, such as logic, engineering, and sports. Sometimes, philosophy is the only thing that can be used to define certain words. Science is one such word. Religion is another such word.

Oh, but what you will notice here is that dictionary.com won't be the "authoritative" dictionary; it won't be the "holy pedestal" dictionary in this particular case... Some different dictionary will be for this case, but dictionary.com might be acceptable for another case. Yet, you will hear these types of people also argue that "all dictionaries are authoritative", but just not your dictionary apparently... Very irrational reasoning if I must say...

Evidence [as I would define it] as in, "any statement that supports an argument") has been presented for all religions. Said evidence can either be accepted, rejected, or left as "idk".

Evidence (as in, "holy evidence", "holy information", "settled science" (there is actually no such thing), "scientific evidence" (it is actually no different than evidence), or whatever other similar definition some religious fundamentalist wishes to make use of) has only been presented for whatever religions one adheres to themselves, NOT for the religions which they do not adhere to themselves. See how that works??

Evidence (as in, "formal proof") [which is actually 'proof'] has indeed never been produced, nor CAN it be, since religion cannot be proven nor disproven.