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

Yes, both sides can give evidence, but no they cannot give proof.

 

Okay, let's examine it, then.

I personally do not accept The Holy Bible as proof of God's existence, but for arguments' sake, I will do so.

Where, in The Holy Bible, does it ever mention that God obtains pleasure from inflicting pain?

Is this "wrong" of God to do, given how The Holy Bible describes the standard of morality?

It is not God that changes; it is people who change... Much like how if you ride "against the wind", then do a 180 and are now riding "with the wind"... It is not the wind that changed, it is YOU that changed.

Where, in The Holy Bible, is an example of God's "narcissism"?

 

Religion may or may not be "mystical".

Atheism has a religious basis, although it is not a theistic religion. It operates under the assumption that god(s) do NOT exist, akin to how Theism operates under the assumption that god(s) do exist. The logical framework is all the same.

Atheists have been provided with reason for 63 pages now... See my assertions concerning the logical framework behind how religion works, and why Atheism is indeed a religion under that framework...

 

Your "framework" is unique to you: a private language that isn't applicable to most of the rest of the English-speaking world.

 

Logic is not "mine"... It is not unique to me, as many people across the world regularly make use of it. Logic is objective, not subjective. Logic is not a private language. Heck, Logic is even applicable to non-English speaking people, as it can be applied no matter what language one is speaking in.

Logic is simply a "game". It is a closed functional system. It is defined by its foundational axioms. Foundational axioms are the "rules" by which the "game" is played. Proofs are extensions of those axioms.

 

The nice thing about liberty is if some wish to believe in witches and warlocks, leprechauns and goblins, fairies and elves, yeti's and sasquatches, ghosts and poltergeists, demons and angels, Satan and God, they are free to do so, and the same may be said of those who seek to rationalize faith in God by equating atheism with religion. Thankfully, for them, there is no law against self-delusion. Atheism is a secular view of the universe as being knowable; religion is a view of the world as unfathomable to any but the Almighty, and those for whom he provides divine inspiration.

Now you are free to call it any way you want to morally justify your faith in an unknowable, unprovable, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent force that can rewrite the laws of nature, but reason tells a different story. Me? I'll stick with reality; you keep the fantasy...because, you see: reason tells me faith will not move a mountain, but dynamite will do it in an instance.

 

Precisely! Freedom of religion is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

And here is where the train runs off the rails...

First, I am not "seeking to rationalize faith in God". That faith is already rationalized by logic. Heck, even faith in Atheism is rationalized by the same exact logical framework.

Second, I am not equating Atheism with religion. Atheism is the belief that god(s) do not exist. Religion is an initial circular argument with additional arguments stemming from it. Actually, what I have seen happening within this thread is the exact opposite, that Atheists are trying to equate Theism with religion. Theism and religion are not the same thing.

Okay.

Nope. See definitions I have provided above.

My faith is already justified by logic itself.

Define "reality"...

You might believe it to be a fantasy, but I do not share that belief.

Dynamite actually destroys mountains; it does not relocate them...

 

It is wise to remember: Freedom of religion's flipside on the coin of liberty is freedom from religion-- its proper name is "freedom of thought".

That's a nice thing about liberty, even defenders of delusions are free to speak. But, you know, there's no point in arguing with them, is there? So you keep the faith, baby, and go for it, and good luck.

 

By supernatural I mean to leave room for theism and other concepts of the supernatural - new age religions, occult, for example. I don't mean this to be disparaging of Christianity or any other specific religion. I just mean that they have a similar basis in believing there is an "outside" that has some form of physicality or ability to act as a fundamental assumption.

Well, people do talk about attempting to determine if there is or is not a God by using some form of test. A fundamental problem with that may be that God doesn't want to be tested. Testing for there being a god when that god doesn't want to be found in that way seems like a fool's errand. And, the Christian god sees faith as a fundamental element - not proof. It would be surprising for such a god to allow or cooperate in a method of proof.

So, the existence of god is going to remain a fundamental assumption of the religion, not something proven based on other assumptions.

The primary fundamental assumption of science is that we can meaningfully observe the universe. That's not circular and trying to work "faith" into that isn't constructive. From there, methodology focuses on rigorous testing and review in order to remove false ideas. That job is never considered done, because humans can't know all the factors that could be in effect. For example, Newton didn't know about Einstein's theories and thus his progress was a large step forward, but less than a complete model.

Those things outside our ability to observe can't be addressed by science - string theory, god, the portion of our universe that is too far away to see, the environment in which the "big bang" expanded, supernatural effects of crystals, etc. Scientists develop tools like telescopes, microscopes, particle accelerators, etc. in order to be able to observe more of our universe - thus allowing for science to answer more questions.

 

It's a delusion--Geez, you got past Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, astrology and faith healing, but you can't get over God? Think. You are in the adult world now.

 

There is no "freedom from religion"... only freedom OF religion. "Freedom from religion" would infringe upon one's inherent right to have an opinion (and to voice that opinion).

Correct. Everyone has the inherent right to speak their opinion.

 

I suspect the inability to properly divide science and religion is more of a problem than the fact that there are people who believe all sorts of magic.

And, I think that problem is more tractable. There is no possibility that I'm going to change someone's religion. However, it may be possible to better see what problems should be addressed by science and to be less fearful that science is going to attack religion.

Unfortunately, our education system does a crap job of science - even to the point where students permanently leave education without knowing what science IS (and what it is not).

 

The thing is, there are times when religion has no business being involved in any way. Religion does NOT answer every question nor does it treat people with equality.

Anything related to how our physical universe works has to be answered without religion (or partisan politics) being injected.

While each individual may have a religion, it's not the case that government can hold that as an expectation on every individual - individuals have freedom FROM religion in such a case. Public education as just one of many examples.

 

If there is no freedom from religion, what’s stopping one religion from attacking another religion? Property Rights? There it is, my freedom from religion. Wasn't hard at all.

 

Impossible. Kant tried. Now this mess.

Science is an attack on religion because it chooses reason over faith.

 

But that assertion that atheism is a religion, was refuted on page 1. The definition of atheism precludes it from being a religion.

 

Well, there is no scientific reason related to the supernatural. Science has nothing to say about heaven, hell, etc.

So, I don't believe it's a good direction for us to see science as an attack on religion. We've always had scientists who were religious. The only problems with that are cases where the religion seeped into the science or where religious law came down on scientific discovery of how this physical universe works. Both those directions hit me as mistakes.

As for damage from this view, our future economy is rapidly moving toward fields that absolutely require higher education - high tech, clean energy, innovation, automation, etc. If we plan on maintaining our high standard of living we have to be competitive in those fields.

We are LESS than 1/20th of the world's population. We are NOT going to continue being on top if we continue having a subculture that disparages or can not pay for higher education. And, enhancing a notion of war between science&education and religion is an assault on America's future. We can't afford that kind of civil war.

 

No.

Theism is specific and motivates particular actions. Those believing in a god consult what that god prefers and act on that basis.

Atheism does not specify what motivates any action or decision. All you know is that it isn't a belief in a god. That is ALL you know - that there is one specific that isn't included.

Suggesting THAT is anything similar to religion is just plain silly.

 

Have you got his phone number?

 

LOL!

Christians claim to. I don't!

 

Science puts man in a spaceship to rise into the heavens; religion puts him on a cross. One is the antithesis of the other.

 

1-P-R-A-Y-E-R. For the true believers.

 

and your refutation proven wrong every page thereafter,

seems it does.

-ism

noun suffix

1a : act : practice : process criticism plagiarism
b : manner of action or behavior characteristic of a (specified) person or thing animalism
c : prejudice or discrimination on the basis of a (specified) attribute racism sexism
2a : state : condition : property barbarianism
b : abnormal state or condition resulting from excess of a (specified) thing alcoholism or marked by resemblance to (such) a person or thing giantism
3a : doctrine : theory : religion Buddhism
b : adherence to a system or a class of principles stoicism
4 : characteristic or peculiar feature or trait colloquialism
Examples of ism in a Sentence
Noun

Cubism, Impressionism, and other artistic isms. ageism, racism, sexism, and all the other familiar isms

 

Sometimes I wonder if there is a God why he/she/it failed to bless a high percentage of our species with the gift of rational thought. To suggest it was so as we’d be stupid enough to worship him/her/it is a contradiction in itself.

 

I've gone on about this at length in another one of Koko's posts, but in brief, 3a. is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the mind works. You cannot not believe one thing without believing something else. One can have no knowledge of something and therefore not have any beliefs regarding that something, but once one has knowledge of a topic, then one has a belief about that topic, either to believe in its falsity, to believe in its truth, or to be unsure one way or the other. One cannot have a non-belief. One cannot hold a non-belief in the mind. Do you have a non-belief that the world is flat? Why? Because you have a belief that the world is round. Without the belief that the world is round, you cannot have a non-belief that the world is flat. The mind does not work in terms of non-belief, only in terms of belief. If you doubt this, ask an atheist who claims to "not believe in God" if God exists. If he says no, then he has a belief that God does not exist. If he says he's not sure, he's an agnostic and not an atheist. If he tries to weasel out of the question as so many on here do, he lacks the courage of his convictions. The problem with the "lack belief" atheists is they are trying to shift the burden of proof entirely onto believers without having to offer any arguments in support of atheism. It's a logical fallacy, a misunderstanding of how the mind works, and a complete copout.