The Religion of Atheism

Ok, so I did loose you. I know your instinct when you start to get scared and confused is to kick over the chess board and retreat to pedantic examinations of dictionary pages, but let's try to stick with a line of reasoning and follow it through without that.

I realize that some of these concepts are a bit tough for you, but they aren't meant to obfuscate. If you stick with a line of reasoning, we might make some progress. IF you are arguing in good faith. Also, it isn't about a preponderance of evidence or anything legal, it is about reality, and more to the point, the complete absence of countering evidence.

So, you are confused and getting emotional. So, try to hang on and think clearly. I will try to explain. I did not argue that 'nothing is real.' What I am saying is that god is not real, however, we can never be sure that ANYthing is or isn't real to 100% confidence. So, we can't say we exist with 100% confidence, and we can't say that there is no god with 100% confidence, but in both cases, we can say we are confident within our ability to make any determination about reality.

It is valid within the context of reality as we know it. The fact that there is no god is also valid within the context of the reality as we know it. There is no reason to think that there is a god, and no reason to think we are a figment of something's imagination even if we can't say with 100% certainty.

So, cutting to the chase, my position is this: I believe I exist, I believe the laws of physics are real, the world I experience exists and is a reality, I believe my senses interpret it to a reasonable degree of accuracy, I believe logic holds and is consistent, I believe I am not a figment of an alien's imagination, I believe there is no god. These are things that require the least amount of faith, the fewest assumptions (occam's razor). Any deviation from that requires the assumption of something that exists only in our imagination and has no basis in the physical world we experience. So, as an atheist, what I do not have is those extra assumptions. I could strictly be called an agnostic since I don't 'know' that there is no god and I don't know I'm not an imaginary being, but my faith ends with the assumption that the reality I experience is real.

 

No but I clearly lost you!

Its unreasonable to fear that which I can squish like a bug.

Ok lets see if you can this time.

Nah I handle it with my brain cells tied behind my head.

I tried but you keep deferring.

i am but doesnt look like you are.

Didnt say it was 'legal' only that is the construct you are trying to use to justify the atheist belief system.

But you sad nothing is real.

Theists would argue that you have the wrong measuring stick, therefore cant see the evidence in front of your face.

Nah you are the one that used at least 5 personal attacks in this post not me. I'm surfer Joe ridin the wave all the way in.

See another ad hom

but it seems you did!

But you did.

neither are you according to your logic.

Yep thats the logic alrightee

Hell in using the alice in wonderland logic and reason you are selling out here you cant even say you are real, let alone God.

Thats highly questionable after what I just read.

maybe within the context you and your fellow neo atheists know it, not in the context I know it.

Ah so the 'No God' theory has been promoted to a fact now, and of course without any evidence or proof from you, why does that not surprise me?

There is no reason to think that there is no God, you are right back to the age old stale mate.
Just because you have not seen or touched a quark is that a reason to believe it does not exist?

Well I think its irrational but you used it to argue against "think therefore I am", so you clearly have a reason. Little switcheroo.... since you used that theory against me in argument it goes without saying that either you bought that wooden nickel too or you are severely confused since you thought it was reasonable to use that theory against me then pull a 180 and claim you dont believe your own theory (basis). Yeh lets argue in good faith ok.

Believe? Like a theist?

Believe? Like a theist?

Believe? Like a theist?

Believe? Like a theist?

Believe? Like a theist?

Believe? Like a theist?

Believe? Like a theist?

Least? You didnt provide us with any facts that its the least, seems like a hell of a lot of beliefs compared to someone who believes in one thing, God!

OR isnt a rule, only one possible guideline 'if' its applicable which its not in many cases.
It seems like theists only make one assumption and you have made what 5? 7? 10?

You said no god exists is a fact, and that truly is a conclusion grown out of your imagination since you provided no facts or evidence to support your alleged fact.

Neither is math, but you believe in math! Another one of your beliefs.

What extra assumptions, theists have one and you listed a truckload.

You dont even understand what an agnostic is ffs, you cant take a position on the left and claim you are neutral, (agnostic is neutral) any more than you can take a position as a theist and claim you are neutral. (agnostic).

The resultant 'position' of an agnostics lack of knowledge about the existence of God, is 'neutral'....and you cant be neutral and atheist or neutral and theist at the same time.

Doesnt get much more ILLogical than the abortion neo atheists have made out of it. Really simple stuff here!
If the abortion agnostic-atheist, or agnostic-theist is the package you want to sell as ''reason and 'logic' I have better things to do!

Only in your imagination, a passing thought of aliens LOL

Atheists private reality apparently

Thats what theists say too!

Believe? Like a theist?

Your faith has nothing to do with disproving anything about theists, or the existence of God, or lack, but you did a bang up job proving that atheists are equally or more religious than theists!

Thats quite the belief 'system' atheists have! - I believe -

The religion of atheism!

 

Ok, look it over a few more times. I absolutely did not say that. All I said was that we can't know 100% that anything is real. Very very different statements.

You can argue that, but then you need the additional assumption that things exist outside of the things we experience. And all the measuring sticks you would use could be equally well used to argue that you are just a dream.

There is just nothing in our experience of reality that requires anything beyond the things we actually experience.

Do you have proof that you aren't a dream?

There are the same reasons we have to believe we are not a dream. Or any other possible reality outside of the one we experience. There simply isn't any reason to think those things ARE true. I have a very good reason to think I exist, I don't have any reason to think a god exists, or an alien dreaming me exists.

So... is your argument that a theist doesn't believe they exist? That they ARE a figment of an alien imagination? That logic doesn't hold... etc

I agree

Except, there is an experience of the natural world, and the things that we experience outside of our imagination, whereas all experiences of a god happen within the imagination, there is nothing in the real world to add any credence to the existence of a god.

Again, I'm pretty sure you guys believe in math as well. That being said, math is absolutely based in the real world. While it consists of abstract concepts, it relies on real world things, and logic. And, logic seems to hold in all of our experiences in the real world.

Theists have all of those assumptions, plus the existence of a supernatural superpower that has never been experienced.

So, fine, if you don't want me to be an agnostic, then I won't argue, because who cares? Being agnostic doesn't mean neutral, and isn't in and of itself a virtue. All I am saying is that I know there is a possibility (albeit so infinitesimal that it might as well be zero) that a god exists. I am not 'neutral' about the existence of god anymore than I am neutral about my own existence.

Which reminds me that you have yet to answer my questions. Do you have hard evidence that that alien that is dreaming you doesn't exist?

 

Guess you couldn't actually post a link. My definition actually came from your source. Have no idea where you got yours. Oh wait I got it now you used the Oxford for dummies otherwise known as the compact version. Try the real dictionary and get back to us.

Here is the definition from Merriam Webster:
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
2archaic : godlessness especially in conduct : ungodliness, wickedness

 

The problem is he used that once but misunderstood "Religious Position" to mean a position WITH religion rather than a position ON religion.

 

Oxford for dummies? Warn me next time before you crack a joke like that, now I have to clean my keyboard off I laughed so hard. So then you agree to their conclusion that atheists are wicked? Heres my websters definiiton.

Webster's Dictionary - Online Edition

American Dictionary of the English Language

Atheism
A'THEISM, noun The disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.

Atheism is a ferocious system

Wow what a deceitful change of what they said.

"a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any"

The way that is understood is:

"a philosophical [position] or [a] religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any"

They just used what is called the distributive principle to reduce the unnecessary words and retain the same meaning.

No depths are too deep for Neoatheists to go to muddy the waters with bullshit.

[ 'a' religious position is not [with religion] and it is not [on religion].]

'a' religious position is a position that 'is' religious!

ruins a discussion when everything has to be explained in crayola.

Is there one neoatheist on the planet that reads for comprehension?

 

you look it over you most certainly did!

So in one sentence you deny it then the next you admit you argued it.

You did not say it to your self, you posted it in text as an argument and counterpoint to my saying "I think therefore I am".
Now you are trying to sell that not real is real?
Its difficult to imagine the level of lame you are taking this to, crayolas as usual.

Dont need to argue it, its a fact you said it, its in text, now you want to deny you said it. that insults everyones intelligence.

I wasnt aware you could 'experience' the speed of light?

I dont have any proof either way and it doesnt apply anyway.

We dont have to belief it, you expressed it (and continue to express it) as a valid argument for the purposes of dismissing mine.
Ironically at the same time you argue you did not use it that way, that is called cognitive dissonance, and doublespeak, which are some commonly known logic disorders.

Your argument once again is that nothing can be proven to exist, you brought that into this discussion, so you are the one that first needs to prove any of it exists in your nonexistent reality, not me, dont put proving your imagination on me.

But you just said we need to consider that your experiences of what you believe is the 'real' world is a dream, or are you now admitting that angle of debate is purely trying to sell bullshit on a stick?

No math is purely abstract and has been since its conception.

Theists dont need any of those assumptions to believe in God, however you do need those assumptions not to believe in God. Seems you are burning your candle on both sides at the same time when only one is allowable.

I dont care what foolish argument you want to spin out here, anyone who comprehends the english language understands the distinctions as I have laid them out.
atheists use disbelieve to conclude God does not exist
agnostics use insufficient evidence (no knowledge) to abstain from believing or disbelieving either way.
so simple yet zings right on over the neoatheists heads
the method is not the conclusion its the 'process' used to derive a conclusion, seriously english is not that hard to understand.

abstention is neutral because it takes neither position. why do neoatheists have such a hard time getting these ridiculously simple concepts right?

But you used your composition fallacy and absurd argument to argue against and attempt to dismiss my point, and now you want to retract it when its applied to your argument?

and you no sooner beg to retract it and in the same sentence continue to use it to argue what you just admitted was a frivolous point.

 

CourtJester:

I've been over that with several atheist religionists already who, like you, cannot cope with the fact that they are indeed members of a religion. Your denials will not change reality.

A religion is "something of overwhelming importance to a person." And of overwhelming importance to all atheists is the idea that there is no Jehovah. You are part of a religion. Deal with that.



Alter2Ego

 

I'm an atheist, and it certainly isn't overwhelming importance to me that there is no God.
In fact, I never even think about it, until someone online posts otherwise.

 

Honestly....I simply do not care or think about "God" at all until people like you tell me I do, then I need to tell YOU I don't.

I Don't.

 

Well sorry but the non existance of god is not of overwhelming importance to me. Therfore I guess we have just demonstrated it isn't a religion.

And just to be clear the non existance of the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus or any of the other fictions invented by man are not of overwhelming importance to me either.

 

And now you are equating disbelief with belief? Seems your two definitions contradict eachnother.

 

Only if we adopt that flimsy definition of "religion" that frankly bears little resemblance to the way the English word is used. The definition seems to serve little purpose aside from artistic license or shoehorning.

 

False you are here arguing God does not exist proves its overwhelmingly important to you.

False you are here arguing God does not exist proves its overwhelmingly important to you.

False you are here arguing God does not exist proves its overwhelmingly important to you.

when you see all the neo atheists disappear from these arguments then we will know for a fact it is not important to you. People only argue about what is very important and you have thousands of posts.

Thats well known folklore entertainment for the holidays for children, and not a myth at all.

huh? neither makes any sense, and its clear you cant offer any rational construct behind your claims.

FLIMSY? SHOEHORNING?
You cant be serious!
Neoatheists are reinventing all the words in the dictionary required to define everything (sentience not required) and everyone as atheist that does not declare themselves a 100% theist! Like using lack in stead of disbelief, its a linguistic and grammatical joke and a red faced embarrassment fr htem in the academic community but they dont really seem to care.

Yeh thats what I am seeing as well. cognitive dissonance, double speak and finally denial since its not possible to rationally, logically, and reasonably resolve their arguments.

 

Of course I can be. It is difficult to imagine a more flimsy, shoehorning definition of religion than "something of overwhelming importance to a person." It is reducing the word "religion" into near meaninglessness just to try to desperately apply the label to atheists out of some misplaced sense of embracement over the actual meaning of the term. According to this definition, anyone who loves their spouse has their spouse as a religion. Which is insane. Anyone particularly serious about their hobbies has their hobbies as a religion. Marriage is not a religion. Knitting is not a religion. Any definition stretched so broad as to include those things is stretched to the point of breaking.

 

Interesting pov.

So riddle me this batman......

how do you justify neoatheists using the word lack (instead of disbelief) to shoehorn in everything in existence that is not 100% theist, even things nonliving, to be classified as 'atheist' which does precisely the same thing only on megasteroids and stretched to the point of 'broken'.

Yet another unfathomable conundrum for the neoatheists to sort out.

 

If your only response is "what about them" then you can't defend your position on its own grounds. Deflection is not a real argument. Either this definition of religion is valid or it isn't. It isn't. For the reasons provided, which you failed to even remotely address.

 

Nope your response is ill-constructed.

Her definition is valid to the same extent lack is valid, while its true, just like lack is true, its a composition fallacy just like lack, because like lack taken strictly at its face value it broad brushes so much into the picture that it becomes useless, just like lack.

My post inserts and uses your precise logic and argument style in reverse to emphasize how ludicrous it is to use overly broad completely ambiguous language.

If neoatheists want to run that course you have just been shown that theists can run the same course and use precisely your logic and reasoning and apply theism using the same broad stroke black hole to drag everything under theism as neoatheists are doing to drag everything under atheism.

It should have been obvious, that if you cant justify that style of reasoning and definition for theists then the same styles are not justifiable for atheists neo or otherwise.

Claiming I didnt address it when in fact I drove a truck down its throat is laughable.

I enjoy the hypocrisy show, the neo atheists double standards on 'everything'.

As usual its ok for neo atheists to illegitimately broad brush their theories but not for theists follow in lock step.

 

It doesn't matter how many paragraphs you devote to dodging. It is still desperate dodging. Marriage isn't a religion. Obsessing about hobbies isn't a religion. Try again. See if you can actually address the argument this time instead of "But they" dodges.

 

But marriage can be a religion, it all depends on its belief structure and how its practiced.

The take away point in what she quoted was not hobbies, here we ****ing go again.

neoatheists are living inside of a very small box it seems.

you are handwaving away my counter arguments that completely contradict yours and you refuse therefore fail to address them.

you are the one dodging the point that lack is ludicrous broad and useless,

see if you can address the counter argument this time, and the way to do that is who it does not contradict yours.(good luck with htat)

Maybe you dont understand the argument even though I laid it out short of using crayolas?

 

I understand the argument: construct a meanglessly broad definition of religion that has no actual relation to the English language. You've devoted more paragraphs to the same but haven't actually offered and argument for why this new definition, that no one besides you and the OP uses except artistically, should be adopted by other English speakers

 

Well teaching the obtuse is a big project, religion simply means 'to bind', its the proper application that is beyond the atheists comprehension.


“Recently, I read in my dictionary that the origin of the word ‘religion’ lies in the Latin word ligare, to bind. I found this interesting, not only because of the tradition of laying tefillin, but also because of the story of the binding of Isaac. Could it be, I reasoned, that Abraham is the founder of biblical faith because he sets a model that is binding for our own conduct, i.e., being willing to sacrifice our own ambitions for what is ordained by God? However, I then found on the Internet that this origin of the word ‘religion’ is in dispute. Does that mean that all my fine sentiments about the word’s significance are worthless?”

Nothing is worthless if something can be learned from it. Let’s see what can be learned from Rappaport’s speculations.

The etymology of “religion” is indeed disputed. This is not, of course, the case when it comes to English, which clearly inherited the word from Latin religio. Rather it applies to Latin itself, in which it is not clear what the component parts of the noun religio are or mean. The ancient Romans disagreed about this. Cicero, for example, thought that religio derived from the verb relegere in its sense of “to re-read or go over a text,” religion being a body of custom and law that demands study and transmission.

On the other hand, the Christian writer Lactantius, writing in the early fourth century, opted for religare, a verb meaning “to fasten or bind.” “We are,” he said in his book “Divinae Institutiones,” “tied to God and bound to him [religati] by the bond of piety, and it is from this, and not, as Cicero holds, from careful study [relegendo], that religion has received its name.” Lactantius’s greater contemporary, Augustine, preferred this etymology to Cicero’s while suggesting yet another possibility: re-eligere, “to choose again,” religion being the recovery of the link with God that sin has sundered.

It may be that Lactantius and Augustine rejected Cicero’s etymology because it made religio seem too close to such Jewish terms as torah, mishnah and talmud, all Hebrew words having to do with teaching and studying. Since unlike the practice of Judaism, the Christian religion, as they saw it, was a matter of binding faith and commitment rather than of accumulated knowledge, the religare etymology may have appealed to them for the opposite reason than that proposed by Rappaport: as a way of distancing Christianity from Jewish concepts rather than of adopting them.

In any case, however, the “binding” of tefillin on an observant Jew’s arm and the “binding” of Isaac in Abraham’s aborted sacrifice of his son on Mount Moriah have never been, to the best of my knowledge, closely associated with each other in Judaism. Nor do they share the same word. To put on tefillin in rabbinic Hebrew is, as Rappaport refers to it, le’haniah. tefillin, to “lay” them on one’s arm, a term that does not in itself imply submission to God’s will, although the biblical verb for the same act, kashar, “tie,” might seem more suggestive of this. The verb for what Abraham did to Isaac, on the other hand, is akad, which generally refers to the trussing of an animal prior to its being slaughtered, sheared, neutered, etc. Although the Akedah, as Isaac’s binding is known in Judaism, has always functioned there as a powerful symbol of the Jewish willingness to sacrifice all for God (as well as functioning in Christian theology as a prefiguration of the Crucifixion), it has never served as a symbol of the overall Jewish relationship to God, which was certainly not pictured as one of being trussed upon His altar.

To return to the word “religion,” it is a curious fact that, although all the ancestors of today’s Europeans had (like the ancestors of all the world’s inhabitants) what we would call religions, no ancient Indo-European language had a specific word for religion, Latin having been the first — which is why the great majority of modern European languages have some version of religio as their term for it. Probably this was because, precisely since religion was everywhere in the ancient world and no activity was divorced from it, it never struck anyone as a distinct aspect of life calling for a name of its own. There were names for specific gods, ceremonies, rituals, forms of worship, cults, sects, etc., because all these were discrete things; religion itself was the unnamed totality of them all, the forest that couldn’t be seen for all its trees.

It took the Romans, who in conquering the world were forced to become its first anthropologists, to realize that behind all this multifariousness was something about which it was possible to generalize. From its original meaning of “punctilious respect for the sacred,” religio came to denote any comprehensive human system of organizing and expressing such respect. Religio was, Cicero wrote, cultus deorum, “the worship of the gods.” Whether he was also right about where the word came from would appear to be anyone’s guess.

Questions for Philologos can be sent to philologos@forward.com.

Read more: https://forward.com/articles/10776/roots-of-religion/

The only way to use the word religion in todays world is 'to bind', if you dont have respect for and are not bound to your beliefs why are you here in the first place typing?

So the neoatheists are wallowing around on a theist playground lacking the necessary understanding to even argue the points intelligently

 

You have already established, in your mind, anything can be a religion.
I suggest you "Run' not 'walk" to the nearest shrink.
You have a serious problem.

 

Nope sorry wrong again, that is your interpretation, what you think I have established, because you do not comprehend how it applies, obtuse has a downside.

 

Not one word of that addresses the definition in question. You can keep throwing distractions, but it isn't going to work. Thanks for adding petty personal attacks to your other non-topical distractions, though. Cool stuff.