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

Again, religion is often an important facet of culture.

Again, just a little reading tells me that you're wrong. But I really don't want to get hung up on a discussion about Quakerism, so I'll make the following point: Any belief system which doesn't depend on divine revelation as a source of truth would fit into my definition of "non-religious," insofar as we're considering my epistemologically-minded definition of the word. I will state now that this will take many groups that might in other contexts be "religious" and make them non-religious in this consideration.

EDIT: I'll also admit that my use of the word "divine" might make my definition a little stricter than I'd like, but I want to see if this strain of conversation is important to you before expounding on this point.

 

as in you not acknowledging that I said some technology is good.....so you must go on a diatribe confusing me with "hippies".

 

good because I dont feel like rooting it all out, thanks.

so we have 2 groups of people that live according to:

1) G/god says:
you dont sass your parents,
you do not kill,
you do not steal,
you do not bang someone elses wife
etc

2) Your convictions says:
you dont sass your parents,
you do not kill,
you do not steal,
you do not bang someone elses wife
etc


If number 1 is a religion why isnt number 2 a religion since they have an identical moral structure?

 

Speaking epistemologically, I have no idea. You would have to explain what epistemological justification these "convictions" have.

 

again, it needs no further explantion, both parties live by the same rules, clearly you classify #1 as a religion, why not #2?

 

Because you haven't told me how ruleset 2 is justified epistemologically. Maybe it is religious in nature, maybe it isn't.

 

#2 is the not religion group, use whatever you want in there to come up with not religion convictions so 2 is nonreligious then explain the distinctions why #2 is not a religion while 1 is.

 

Okay. If ruleset 2 is arrived at by any justification other than revelation, it is non-religious. Say, by randomly drawing from a hat.

 

I see the evidence, I believe if there was a way to make you see it.....you would still deny Him.

 

You are equating values (ethics and morals) as the sole measure of religion, yet there isn't a religion in the world that agrees with you, since they all feature a supernatural creator as described thru ritualized practices of worship, ancient scriptures, religious law, and centralized doctrinal authority.

To not believe in a supernatural creator and yet share common human and societal values is evidence that god/religion is not required to be a decent righteous human being.

 

Belief in a God and adherence to it rules....period. That IS religion.

 

The judge did indeed note in his ruling that “[t]he court finds that Secular Humanism is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes.” ...

Why do people here simply turn a blind eye and ignore the fact that if the gubmint cant establish it, that its a religion?

but the task is to tell us the reasoning why #2 is not a religion since 1 is a religion and both 1 and 2 materially produce the same result.

Belief in your convictions in the example below is also a religion

so we have 2 groups of people that live according to:

1) G/god says:
you dont sass your parents,
you do not kill,
you do not steal,
you do not bang someone elses wife
etc

2) Your convictions says:
you dont sass your parents,
you do not kill,
you do not steal,
you do not bang someone elses wife
etc


If number 1 is a religion why isnt number 2 a religion since they have an identical moral structure?

 

That is the problem......why are there common societal values? Every single individual has there own values and they vary in a wide spectrum according to their own personal desires. Is life sacred? Can we abort a baby at 6 weeks? Can we do it at 8 months? How about after it is born? Fact is, "common societal values" do not exist. Perhaps for survival there are some we can BROADLY agree upon, but there are always renegades among us.We are all renegades to a degree.

Your evidence does not exist. Cultures always fail without God and there is historical evidence of that. A good analogy of that is that "we are like sheep that have gone astray, and each has returned to his own way."

I would submit that the Creator is a Lord of order. He has placed in our spirit a knowledge of "absolutes" or laws if you will. We were also given free will that most often over rides that knowledge. Choice is a bi=product of "love". We are given the option to fail, but if we obey what has been placed in our spirit, we prosper and that only comes about by acknowledging Him and allowing Him to be sovereign over our directions. It is a matter of the heart of human kind.

 

#2 is only a religion if it is adhered to. Problem is.....atheist do not nail it down. They say they do, but their convictions vary from atheist to atheist because they do not state "absolutes". There are as many absolutes as there are atheists. #2 ia merely a "cloak" to hide behind so every individual can pursue their own individual desires.

Admittedly many that call themselves "Christian" do it also. They use "faith" as a "Religion" or "cloak" to hide behind to do whatever they desire. In the end, we must acknowledge this is human nature and without submitting to a sovereign God, we are without hope. It is a matter of the heart. It is receiving Grace and learning to walk in His will. Nothing less. It is accomplished only by faith.

 

but those are not conditions of the task.
the task extends only to the conditions stated, how faithful anyone is, adherence is another topic outside the task they have at hand. The task stands on its own.

 

Then how is the "task" defined? Where is it stated? Who are it's authors?

 

All you have is belief, not the tools to prove there is a god.


If I claim there is a purple yeti in my yard, it is on ME to prove it if I want people to believe me.

To make something up and then claim others have to prove it exists is just plain silly.

Should I put a name, a label, on those who don't believe in purple yetis? Claim they are a cult, a religion because they don't believe in purple yetis?

Why?

 

apparently you quoted it without reading it?

 

Of course I read it. Who's idea was the #2? I am well versed in the Bible. I know what it says. I attempt to understand it's intent. I learn from it. Billions have for years. Sounds to me like #2 sounds like a private interpretation. How many atheists and humanists are in sound agreement there? Have they declared a creed?

As I said earlier, I agree humanism and atheism are religions.....but they are merely a loosely stated cloak under which they hide.

 

You demonstrate that you do not have the tools to disprove God.

I don't care what you believe or not, but I have no trouble pointing out the nonsensical remarks of atheists when they attack believing in deity.

 

Upset because others are taking your job from you?

 

Have you any comprehension at all?

You decide what another is saying all by yourself and then get enraged by what you decide. You never admit that you have no basis for what you claim yet insist that this claim is true.

You appear to even lack the basic ability to argue anything that does not conform to your little version of the world.

Diatribe? Would that be your middle name?

 

So you use fantasy and delusion as proof of your claim. Facts and evidence never enter into it. As expected.

 

that task was given to determine how jonsa, tecoya, and concord determined one was and one was not a religion. you may want to reread the posts between them and myself before jumping in and taking it in a direction not intended.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
All you have is belief, not the tools to prove there is a god.


If I claim there is a purple yeti in my yard, it is on ME to prove it if I want people to believe me.

To make something up and then claim others have to prove it exists is just plain silly.

Should I put a name, a label, on those who don't believe in purple yetis? Claim they are a cult, a religion because they don't believe in purple yetis?

Why?

All you have is belief, not the tools to prove there is a god

.

To make something up and then claim others have to prove it exists is just plain silly.