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

your problem is that you have to prove they made something up, see the circle you are going in yet?

some things are obvious and easily provable and can be said to be made up, like I am holding the sun in my hand, other things cant be proven, like G/god.

Look at science to find things that were thought to be made up and really were true.

 

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

NO, the onus is on those who claim something exists/is true.

 

Atheism has nothing to do with science, actually. The only thing atheism and science have in common is that neither assumes that any kind of deity exists.

Of course there is nothing religious about either, which is something the two have in common. Your cartoon is more anti-theist than atheist, and sure, there are plenty of atheists who are also anti-theist. Then again, there are plenty of others who are far less concerned about religion one way or another. I think you will also find that anti-theism, like theism, is often a temporary thing, a phase that many go through as part of maturing and learning and growing as a person.

 

No, no one has to prove that theists made something up. The onus is on them to back their claims up when they make them and expect others to believe them. Also, saying that God or any god(s) can't be proven, as you're doing here, begs the question of why that is and how you know it. On what authority do you speak? What is your evidence and/or reasoning to back this assertion?

 

I have noted that virtually EVERY "Anti-Theist" comment is in reply to one Christian or another attacking the concept of Atheism or disputing something claimed as fact from their Bible(s). Basically few people attack religion outright, they respond to Christians which kicks in the persecution complex. This unfortunately perpetuates the quagmire they create for them selves and makes them appear like this:

 

If proving your direction is a false one, no need to wait.

BTW, still waiting for you to answer my statement about whether atheists only deny the old god and neo-atheists only deny the new gods. You should be able to defend your own false statements on the subject.

 

Every argument put forward in this thread to prove establish that atheism is a religion has been pathetically weak. The most consistent argument has been that atheism is a belief, and to believe is to have faith, and to have faith is religious. This, of course, makes any and all beliefs religious. Terribly unconvincing.

I think that a plausible argument can be made that atheism is a metaphysical belief, and therefore is religious in nature, but I also think that if we explore this avenue we'll eventually come to the question: Why does it matter? Why does a certain contingent on the religious care so much about categorizing atheism as a religion?

 

but I have seen some really ridiculous totally illogical things said by atheists that had me laughing so hard I nearly choked on my coffee, no Christians required.

I have noted not one atheist is any more capable of proving their position than than any thiest yet they believe they hold the reasonable ground.

simple be my guest prove it either way
no one has done so to the opponents satisfaction, however
they have proved is sufficiently to those who share like understanding.

Sure it does in that atheists depend on science intimately to attempt to prove their points when arguing religion.

how concerned with religion someone is has no bearing on a religious discussion.

I never saw that

the onus is on the claim maker, hence if they claim there is a god and you counter with anything that is an opposition you now bought into the argument and you have to prove your opposition stands.

 

Not so, you have not been able to demonstrate a material distinction as asked by the task given to you to prove your point, seems you are proving my point instead.

 

I already did. The distinction, if there is one, lays in the realm of epistemological justification.

 

This however leans more accurate:

Should I assume that you see the writing on the wall where I will take this argument next? Is that why you concede that the atheists arguments are in fact metaphysical, not 'physical', (naturalist)?

Its a question, a question that deserves an answer, why the question is asked is purely irrelevant.

If you want to claim epistemology as the reason then you need also to lay out your argument in support of that position. I have not seen that as of yet.

 

Baloney....

 

I would be interested to see what these comments are that I to may be humored.

And there is nothing for ant Atheist to "Prove"...how do you prove an opinion?

 

Indeed.

Indeed.

It's not irrelevant at all, it's the core of the matter. Why they think it matters points to their own latent materialism. Ironic, ain't it?

It's implied in the definition of "religion" that I gave.

 

And what exactly do you claim your proof of god to be? Actual fact, please. Not your usual wishful thinking.

 

Do you mean things like creating people out of mud, populating a planet with only two creatures, making snakes speak, flooding an entire planet and then making all the water disappear, reanimating dead people...etc....those thing are easily disproven as remotely possible. There may indeed be something we would call God, but the thing in Christian books definitely isn't it.

 

not at all, in fact its standard court room procedure to hear counterclaims first.

sure atheists think a theist is an atheist to all gods but one. pretty comical.

epistemology is a tool that helps prove the point not the point in itself as you are claiming.

I'm agnostic and did not live in those times so I have no personal knowledge.

 

No, it's a branch of philosophy. The definition of "religion" that I gave hinges on epistemological justification.

I don't know why you asked for my definition of "religion" if you're simply going to disregard it.

 

Christians seem to think they DO.

 

This isn't a courtroom. am not being sued nor suing anyone.

If someone invents something it is up to them to prove it exists.

You just can't wriggle logically out of that.

 

You find common human behaviors and values in virtually very society. And the majority of humanity doesn't believe in your version of god the Creator and are therefore condemned to eternal damnation.

OTOH, every society has some version of the golden rule. They have certain values in mating behavior, competition, cooperation, altruism and all sorts of other behaviors required for a complex society to function.

If that explanation provides you with comfort and regulation over your ungodly primitive impulses , then who am I to say you are wrong in that belief.

I have spent four decades in my own personal spiritual quest to understand the deep meaning of me and my reality. I have arrived at a set of beliefs that I am completely comfortable with. I have answered my deep meaning questions to my emotional and intellectual satisfaction with god and religion having no role to play. And who are you to say that I am wrong?

A chacun son gout.

 

thats my point, saying its epistemological is no different than saying its philosophical which is saying nothing of substance.

What you said before was that you felt 1 was religious because it was divine and 2 not because it was secular then later you shifted to both being religious because 2 is metaphysical.

you miss the point entirely. courts set up procedures through out the centuries to be fair to both parties, hence they hear counterarguments first, your saying its fake has to be proven first.

 

Uh, what didn't you understand about :
FoxHastings said: ↑
This isn't a courtroom. am not being sued nor suing anyone""


It's in clear English....what's the problem???

 

It is saying something of substance if that's what the categorization depends on.

And, in case you missed it, this entire conversation is about categorization.

A few points. First, I didn't say that 2 was non-religious because it was secular, that would be circular logic, I said that it was non-religious if it's epistemological justification is something other than divine revelation.

Further, I didn't say that 2 was "metaphysical" at all, that would be very sloppy.