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

thats like religion 101 isnt it?


some atheistic philosophers may argue that the problem of evil is a problem for the theologian, who holds a belief in a certain kind of god. Atheist philosophers usually take a naturalistic approach when faced with the fact of the existence of evil; they note that evil in the world arises out of the world’s complexity. The nature of the world is such that there are many states of affairs which generate numerous evils. Thus, from a non-theist perspective, it may be said that evil is an unfortunate and inevitable aspect of existence. But then, how can an atheist speak of something being evil in the first place? How can he be in a position to say that something like the Holocaust is objectively evil and, say, tearing up a sheet of paper is not? At face value, the Holocaust, one may say, is objectively evil, while tearing up a sheet of paper involves no evil act whatsoever. Yet, on a naturalistic account, it would seem that the two events have no moral difference. Theologians slap the hand of the atheist when he declares something to be objectively right or wrong. They say that on a naturalistic account, human beings have no intrinsic moral worth. On naturalism, morality is merely a socio-biologic by-product of evolution.

At this point we have to ask why the supernaturalist insists in saying that morality requires a metaphysical ground. Supernaturalists argue that on naturalism, there is no reason to believe that the morality evolved by Homo sapiens is objective. On naturalism, it would seem that some actions may become socially right or wrong, but they are not objective. Typically, the naturalist argues that the foundation of morality is simply human well-being; but the supernaturalist retorts that that there is no reason to assume that human well-being is enough to ground sound objective morality. In fact, why can morality be based on rodents’ well-being or other animals’ well-being? It would seem arbitrary to say that human animals are the locus of morality. The supernaturalist argues that without a supernatural paradigm morality is just a behavioral by-product of biological evolution, reinforced by social and parental conditioning. Furthermore, the supernaturalist says, naturalism teaches that humans are determined biological machines. As such, moral actions are in reality nothing more than electro-chemical reactions in the nervous system. And this would imply the lack of free will, which is essential to morality. Hence, on naturalism, morality is illusory.
https://philonew.wordpress.com/2013/01/03/is-the-foundation-of-morality-supernatural/

 

You idea of evidence is a blog?

 

Atheists are very religious. They BELIEVE that there is no god. They have never see scientific evidence proving this, but they claim that the lack of evidence is enough for them to base their beliefs on. Like someone saying there are no aliens because there has never been proof that they exist, or someone saying that snow doesn't exist because they've never personally seen it. Atheism, like theism, is actually strongly built on faith, believing something that can not be scientifically proven.

 

You really are squirming with that reply.

First, you claim to be an agnostic the claim a complete knowledge of this gawd who is supposedly the creator of all things, except what you declare he is not creator of. Then you demand proof of love while denying there is a need for proof of this gawd.

You just show that to you there is o difference between natural and supernatural but will fight to try of force others to agree with you.

Talk about wasting bandwidth, that is all you have done since day one on these boards and then try to insult and demean any who has the brains to disagree with you. Perfect example of you wasting bandwidth and time.

 

Why do NeoAtheists deny the practice of atheism is a religion?

As far as I know, atheism has nothing to do with religion. It is simply a lack of belief in the existence of god. I don't think religion is necessary for a belief in god is it?

 

I think it is because they don't want themselves to be a part of what they are railing against (religion), since that is effectively them railing against themselves. Thus, they redefine the word 'atheism' to mean "lack of belief" rather than "belief that god(s) do not exist". The issue there is that their claim to "lack of belief" is in and of ITSELF a belief. Then they need to redefine the word 'belief', and so on and so forth... It's a sad cycle...

I have found that the best definition for 'science' is "a set of falsifiable theories" and the best definition for 'religion' is "an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it". Given those definitions, it becomes quite easy to distinguish between what is science and what is religion.

Atheism falls under religion, since it is not falsifiable. Also, Atheism makes the initial circular argument that god(s) do not exist (ie, Atheism concludes with its initial predicate). This is the same for any religion. Atheism, like any religion, can only be accepted/rejected on a faith basis, as a circular argument is, in other words, an argument of faith.

 

Correct. It can only make use of supporting evidence; it cannot be proven or disproven. That is what constitutes a religion, as a religion is simply an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it.

Belief is also involved, as belief is "the acceptance of a statement as a truth".

 

Correct. The belief might be a falsifiable belief instead of an unfalsifiable belief. It could also be a subjective belief.

This was once a theory of science. It has since been falsified, since smokers have lived and died without getting cancer. George Burns is a famous example of such. This theory has been utterly destroyed through falsification.

One could generalize and claim that, but it's not necessarily true. It depends on the individual cat and individual dog.

Arguably a religious belief.

A subjective belief.

One was based on science and was since falsified... others were subjective or generalizations that are ultimately based on each individual... One was arguably a religious belief.

This is a subtle version of the Argument From Ignorance Fallacy. Remember, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. Evidence (or the lack thereof) is not a proof.

See above.

 

A belief is the acceptance of a statement as a truth.

A religion is an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it.

So, I'd say that a belief (specifically in an initial circular argument) would be the framework of a religion.

 

Belief CAN be faith based, but it is not ALWAYS faith based.

So, it doesn't follow that belief is religion.

 

You reject it without proof though... Would THAT be foolish as well, according to your own standard??

 

^^^^ just so

 

Why are Religious arguments always hinged on the ambiguity of the human language?

 

You can't be both an agnostic AND an atheist. It is one or the other... Either you believe that god(s) do not exist, that they DO exist, or else you simply don't believe either way.

You are correct that you don't need to justify your skepticism, however... Attempting to do so leads to numerous logical fallacies.

 

Not always..sometimes they just bold face lie.

 

You are arguing semantics and losing.

 

That had nothing to do with semantics... That was Logic.

Your initial premise was flawed.

 

Uh . . . no, it was not logic. But you do prove that atheists have neither the language, the logic, or the symbol to prove that deity does not exist.

Believe as you wish, gfm, by all means.

 

Nicely well thought out post!

The only part of the post I would quibble with would be the phrase "scientifically proven", since there are technically no proofs in science outside of formalizing a theory of science through mathematics and/or logic, since only closed functional systems make use of proofs. Putting that quibble aside, great post!

What those people do when they claim "lack of evidence" as their justification for believing in a particular religion is commit the Argument From Ignorance Fallacy. They attempt to claim that lack of evidence is a proof, as well as attempt to claim that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It actually works the opposite way. Lack of evidence (or even supporting evidence itself) is NOT a proof, and absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. To put it bluntly, they fail at logic (typically due to their fundamentalism in their chosen faith).

 

You wouldn't know logic if it bit you in the ass, from the little that I have seen of your posts.

You are correct, however, that Atheism cannot disprove the existence of deities. I am not asking them to do so. To ask that from Atheists would be a logical fallacy on my part, known as the Attempted Force of a Negative Proof Fallacy (in other words, attempting to force you into committing an Argument From Ignorance Fallacy). I am not asking Atheists to justify their belief, nor will I allow them to ask me to justify my Christianity belief. These are both religions; they can only be accepted/rejected on a faith basis.

 

Well, your analogy does show a real problem.

Love is an emotion of an individual. That emotion can refer to an object that doesn't exist and the emotion may be entirely unjustified. The person, object or idea that one individual loves may be totally unloved by someone else. The object of love is certainly NOT some universal truth. FAR from it.

Belief in the supernatural is also about the individual.

So, let's agree that nobody can "believe" the supernatural into existence. Humans can develop an emotional attachment to pretty much anything - even a soccer ball with a face! Pretending that anything we believe is real simply because we believe it is sheer insanity.


It's NOT just that someone "believes in science" or is in some way limited to science. It's that we need to have the humility to understand human weakness and work toward reducing the impact of that weakness. And, that applies to all fields of human endeavor.

We need to work to find actual evidence and keep an open mind.

 

Typical naysayer reply. You fall shy here, because you do not have the logic or the language or the symbols to prove that deity does not exist. End of story.

 

Yes, you are a fundamentalist of your Atheist religion. I am aware of this already... No need to keep rubbing it in...

I am not attempting to prove that deity does not exist. I, in fact, believe that deity DOES exist. Are you even listening to any of my argumentation??

 

OK, then, gfm, you are a believer as am I. Yes, I am reading it carefully. The proofs for the cult of religion and the cult of scientism are different is what I am writing. To believe in atheism or theism is religious belief or faith to me.

 

In natural sciences (called science, using scientific method), the inability to gather meaningful evidence means that you don't even have an hypothesis. That applies to religion as well as stuff like string theory.

Those who think their belief means that there is an actual supernatural are the ones arguing from ignorance. There is no indication of there being a supernatural, and you can't cause such to exist merely by thinking it is so.


For some reason, YOU think that I should have to form something you call belief about something you call "supernatural" - or maybe you call it god or vishnu, or mother earth or a sentient universe, or whatever.

Sorry. I do NOT have to do that. And, I don't see any reason why I should. Asking ME to argue from ignorance merely because YOU argue from ignorance doesn't form a justification for telling me what I should do or assuming what I have done.