Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

true, but that does not make it any less a religious tenet, the reason that those who are not in that same religion will not adhere to the tenet.

 

Its possible to be an atheist budhist. Do you consider that a religion?

 

hence faulty premisies

 

depends on how you set up the premise

 

??

What premise? Whose premise?

Seriously dude, try to make some sense eh?

Do you think you've made an actual argument? Do you think Swensson or I have? Nobody has. All we've done is watched you poorly define terms and contradict yourself over and over. We've yet to get to any actual argument.

 

thats my point LOL
they are YOUR creation not mine, and as usual you are blaming me for the junk you post.

 

see you cant follow along with the conversation, I am having no problem despite all the strawmen and red herrings you post.

of course you both have made arguments, and I responded to them, several times and neither of you understand this stuff which is causing you both to exhibit a constant display of confusion, I am reduced to teaching so you can argue with me lol

 

1) he does not believe x exists : he does believe x exists

2) he believes x does not exist : he believes x does exist

thats the way you SHOULD have written had you known how to set up the premise.
Either line one or line two, not 1/2 of each combined the way you did.

Hope that helps.

 

I would find that terminology to be confusing. Buddhists do believe in a universal spirit, which they rejoin, if they escape the cycle of incarnation (from my Buddhism 101 understanding). I would consider this unified spirit, as "God," in that belief. Of course, I've never heard of an, "atheist Buddhist;" can you delineate the differentiations from a standard Buddhist?

 

I still think you are either trolling or hopelessly confused yourself.

I have notice you like to lecture on things people obviously already know. Yes, we know how notation works, and yes we know what antonyms are.

 

What premise? What argument?

All I did was ask if you can see the difference between "does not believe" and "believes there is no". Which of course, you didn't answer.

You instead declared that a person can both beleive and !beleive.

Then you said you meant "believe" and "!believe" as shorthand, apparently for something other than "believe" and "doesn't believe"....
Because if that's all it is shorthand for then you are still directly contradicting yourself when you said it has to be either the synonym or antonym.

You are not teaching anyone anything. You're just dodging your own contradictions once they are called into question.

 

There are people who call themselves Buddhists who don't believe in Gods, or even in reincarnation. They follow the wisdom of the Buddha, minus the spiritual aspect.

 

I weary of the chase Captain. Wait for me, I shall be merciful and quick.

 

So they believe in no inner essence, no immortal part of their being (as is typically referred to as a soul)?

 

Correct. And there are more of them than you may expect. They call themselves Buddhists because they follow the Buddha, but that's all there is to their "religion" (if it is to be called one).

 

Well, only speaking for myself, I would, then, not consider their practice to qualify as a, "religion." They, no doubt are as committed to it as a religious adherent, but so are body builders, for example. For the serious, of that group, it is an entire way of life: from hours of working out per day-- isolating opposing muscle groups, and including frequent, "posing"-- to how they eat (for example: lots of lean protein, and limiting carbs in the evening, to maximize the sleeping body's secretion of Growth Hormone), to getting enough sleep and, for many, the use of injected steroids/hormones. But I would not consider, no matter how religiously they followed it, Arnold Swartzenegger's Encyclopedia of Modern Bodybuilding, to be anyone's true "Bible."

Their paths, in both cases, could and do qualify as philosophies of life. And Arnold could be one's teacher. But w/out the afterlife part, or belief in some Central, universal force, of a spiritual nature (whether or not it is conceptualized as a, "Being") I would be disinclined see the name religion as being accurate.

Nor would running, aerobics, Zumba, yoga, Pilates, Nutri-System, Tai Chi, Karate, or Krav Maga, divorced from a spiritual element, be my idea of religion, in the appropriate sense, no matter how dedicated the follower.

 

@Jolly Penguin

For clarification, I don't feel that a religion need both an afterlife, and a uniting spiritual energy, but at least one of the two. For instance, belief in an afterlife, even if the God/gods of it had no agency in this world, or even no interest in it, could still be the heart of a religion. But also, if one believed in a SINGULAR force, uniting the universe, or even just the planet-- though he might believe his own being would be broken down at death, to be recycled & reused by the greater whole-- that could also constitute a religion, as it assigns a higher purpose, to their life, in a communion of some spirit.

I recognize that this also, identically, matches what, physically, does happen at death, with us all, so that it can be drawing a very thin line to say that the WHOLE, which one's life partakes in, and serves, constitutes a religious belief only if it has a "spiritual," or unseen, undetected, connection & holism.

Perhaps it would be made a little clearer, if we think of a Humanist's view of mankind. If our obligation to one another, in the practitioner's mind, is based on ethics, then I would call it a philosophy. If, however, the Humanist believed in a shared Human Consciousness, a Group Mind, even just a Communal Unconscious, linking us all-- as opposed to us all being, most essentially, individuals-- then I would call it a religion, or at least moving in that direction, depending on the specific apperception of the person in question.

Another way to look at it would be to say that, though I do believe that, for each of us, religion is individualized, I don't believe in such a thing as a religion of the Individual. If one believes oneself to be God, ALONE, then one is not religious, he is crazy.

 

Ah yes of course, the last refuge of an atheist with no answers and no defense

But that would not be true now would it. In fact as seen in the above quote of myself I generously corrected your errors, hopefully so you would learn something.

Sure I am, everyone ELSE is learning you are projecting your actions on to me, and you do not know how to properly set up arguments.

I made no contradictions but you are doing a great job demanding that distinctions without a difference are not semantics, then SOP blaming me for your actions.
Hell, you dont follow the conversation even when I respond by quoting you!

Lets look at the etymology, neoatheists have it all wrong:

Lucretius: Philosophy vs. Religion
Helped Shape the Modern World

Lucretius may be useful in understanding the foundation of the early modern project and revealing the imprudence of modern atheism.

Lucretius (c. 96-55 B. C.): religionum animum nodis exsolvere, proof that he considered ligare, to bind, to be the root of religio. 3

Usage; A religious Jew is a Jew who observes the rules of the Sabbath, an irreligious Jew neglects the Law

Oxford Dictionary: The connection of the word religion to religare, to bind, has usually been favored by modern writers. [Philosophers]

"Ones' primary set of beliefs--whether they believe in gods/goddesses or not-- can also be considered a 'religion'. Any 'ism' for instance, such as alcoholism, capitalism, communism, cannibalism, etc., can be considered ones' 'religion,' as it 'binds' followers to behave and think in certain ways. The word 'religion' therefore, has various levels of meaning, and as described above, is a method of servitude in one form or another. -- Linda Cooper, married to a professor of philosophy and religion"

 

What is your point, that any "-ism," can be considered a religion? My simple answer to that is, maybe it can, but not by me. And they are NOT, by the hugely vast and overwhelming, super-majority of people.

 

yeh thats pretty simple alright

Argumentum ad populum fallacy

btw did any of them graduate high school?

 

Yes, as you well know-- even just among the college educated; or limited to those with Masters degrees; restricted, even, to just those with Doctorates, or to only Professors-- the majority of people do not consider alcoholism, a "religion." And your counter argument-- that popularity of an idea, is not proof of it-- when it comes to LANGUAGE, is absolutely WRONG (and a surprisingly uneducated opinion)!

What IS, or is NOT, the meaning of any term, is almost ENTIRELY determined by its usage, in a society (fyi).

 

doesnt change the fact its still Argumentum ad populum fallacy
got anything more than a popular fad to offer us? Philosophy? Logic? Reason?
Any ism can be consructed ie formatted into a religion.
I do agree however that alcholism would be a bit difficult sell, lol, doesnt change the facts however.
Otherwise thats false, the courts make that determination in the US

 

Apparently, your argument is not based on the commonly-understood usage of the words you are using, to argue over. That doesn't sound to be a very worthwhile debate, to my mind-- which is not to say that you couldn't see it as worthwhile. But, using LOGIC, if you are arguing over meanings that do not apply, in the minds of any but a tiny number of people, the POV that wins out, in your thread's debate, will also, only apply in the minds of that tiny number.

Have fun!

 

Thank you for outlining your understanding of the term. I think it is vital that we be clear about how we use such words (as you are and as Koko is not) because our definitions can vary wildly.

When we define the terms as clearly as you have, equivocation becomes less of a risk.

 

whine whine whine
projection
you have yet to explain your meaning,
I explained my meaning countless times,
and some people understand it just fine,
Im not getting paid to play tutor here