Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

Of course the first thing we will see come out of this thread is neoatheists will scream that atheism is not a religion so lets skip past the first 1000 distraction posts with some background.

Based upon past threads I predict that readers will not see any logically based refutations beyond unsupported neoatheist opinions, that they will claim is proof, simply because they said it and pretend their opinions are proof.

So here we go:

There is no discernible logical difference between the accepting of theism or atheism as true, two sides of the same coin.

First Atheism is a well established religion, the atheist religious position is:

Although it isn’t an organized religion like Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, atheism is a religious worldview. With assurance rooted in faith (rather than in proven fact), the theist says “I believe in god(s)/God,” while the atheist with equal confidence says “I don’t believe in god(s)/God.”

Atheism is a religious worldview because it claims to know something fundamental about reality that hasn’t been—or can’t be—proven. Like theists, atheists operate out of a foundational faith or belief that shapes their perceiving, thinking, and living in the world.

Both attempt to offer a comprehensive account of reality. If the goal is, as someone said, “living with the grain of the universe,” then you’ll live according to how you discern the grain from either your theistic or atheistic starting point.
https://www.thebanner.org/columns/2019/01/is-atheism-a-religion

Secular humanism world view lacks belief in G/god but is none the less a religion

Jainism world View lacks belief in G/god but is none the less a religion

Quakerism world view lacks belief in G/god but is none the less a religion

Unitarian Universalism world view lacks belief in G/god but is none the less a religion

Therefore:

Atheism world view lacks belief in G/god therefore it too is a religion

The definition of nontheist is effectively the same as the definition of atheist. The prefixes "a-" and "non-" mean exactly the same thing, a negative. Theism means belief in God. Put them together and both words stand for not believing in the existence of a god or gods. The "Oxford English Dictionary" defines non-theist as "A person who is not a theist." This is the same as the broad, general definition of atheist, thus the two labels can be used interchangeably.
https://www.learnreligions.com › definition-of-nontheist-247871

Then to preemptively cover the usual thread distractions from those with no answers claiming there is no such thing as 'neoatheist':

neoatheist
neo- +‎ atheist
Noun

neoatheist (plural neoatheists)

A member of the vocally anti-religious movement that came to prominence in the early 2000s. 2008, Robert Jones, Progressive & Religious, page 186

A fundamental blind spot that so many of the neoatheist critics of religion share is that they have been unable to imagine an authentic religion that does not operate with certainty as its only common coin ... 2011, Frank J, Re: All Finnish public 3 IDists are now practically or close to YECs ... Group: talk.origins

just denied unguided evolution and attacked strongly on neoatheists 2012, Charles Crawford & ‎Dennis Krebs, Foundations of Evolutionary Psychology, →ISBN:

I praise Dawkins' clarity, I rejoice in Dennett's call to study religion scientifically as a natural phenomena, and I admire S. Harris's keen polemical skill. Yet I think these thinkers are all arrogantly out of their depth. These "neo-atheist" authors chiefly use highly selective analogy, anecdote, personal sentiment, and rash generalization...

2013, The Faces of Satan, They batter believers in religion with smug certainty Group: can.politics, link

neoatheist thinkers such as Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, I thought it amazing that he still wanted to learn something new
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/neoatheist#English

Neoatheists of this board claim atheism is by definition not a religion ignoring the fact they are as religious as anyone else:

Definition of religious
1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious

Which means your religion can be based in eithr your philosophical position or a deity. There are no restrictions and no diety requirements to own the title of religion, as neoatheists to pretend.

Neoatheists are religiously faithful believers G/god does not exist, however (they have no proof) Just like theists faithfully believe God does exist.

They simply handwave away the fact that [Neo]Atheism is a religious world view that claims the religious position that no G/gods exist, which shapes and colors neoatheist thoughts and actions no different than Jainism, Quakerism, Human Secularism etc. shapes the thoughts of their religions respectively

Simply accepting the title and position of 'Atheist' carries a vast supporting belief system which to be a fact (not faith) is required to have analyzed all possibilities of the existence of G/gods to legitimately conclude and prove that no G/gods exist as fact.

If we are to stick to the strict standards [neo]atheists demand of theists to prove there is a God, that God is a fact ,then atheists are also required to stick to those same strict standards to claim as fact that there are no G/gods.

Neoatheiests have thus far failed on every level to provide any rational reason or logic what so ever why they should be excluded from the religion title especially when the only thing we see out here are neoatheist religious evangelists claiming atheism is not a religion with no supporting evidence, you know who you are.

Neoatheists simply excuse themselves from providing the same level of proof they demand of theists by claiming its too hard and too much work which is not even a good excuse much less justification.

Its is not rational to claim their position of faith (atheism) has any greater relevance to the facts than than the theists position of faith

Therefore its not logically rational to conclude the neotheist position is not a religion, when its substance and contents are no different than any other run of the mill nontheisic religion.

If there is anything I missed or omitted it will be clarified in succeeding posts.

Neoatheists:
Please consider the above points before posting and provide readers with rational responses why neoatheists believe and demand that neoatheists should be exempt from the logical rational and even reasonable conclusion that their world view of no G/gods [atheism] is any less a religion as any other, (Jainism, Quakerism etc as stated above)

 

Well to listen to atheists after awhile they sound as fanatical in beliefs as a fundamentalist bible banger!

But this is what you get when each side claims something they cannot have...absolute certainty of truth.

While it seems more likely to my mind that an intelligence is involved in creation when up against chance that has an impossible odds against it, there is no way to have certainty. And to exclaim it is a lie created by the weakness of arrogance. Our opinions of human intelligence is far too optimistic and short sided.

 

You are trying to claim that atheism is a worldview . . . while listening several mutually exclusive atheist worldviews.

I'll try again:
* There are multiple atheist worldviews, as your own OP shows, though you continuously fail to acknowledge this fact even when presenting it yourself somehow
* Atheism is not, itself, a worldview, as proven by the above . . . by the fact that there are several atheist worldviews

Where are you getting lost? Also, please do more homework. Most Quakers believe in God, as do many UUs.

 

Which “neoatheist” opinions exactly? You’ve expressed your opinions of what “neoatheists” believe but have you actually addressed anyone who actually said they believe all the things you attribute to them?

 

So do you think its rational to claim there are many atheist worldviews while at the same time claim their core belief is not a worldview?

You obviously do not understand what a worldview is.

A world view[1] or worldview is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view

The neoatheist claim that atheism is not a world view is nonsense, same as jainism and all the other worldviews that reduce to acceptance of one concept, like atheism.

Seems you are wrong again

Nontheist Quakers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigation Jump to search Nontheist Quakers (also known as nontheist Friends or NtFs) are those who engage in Quaker practices and processes, but who do not necessarily believe in a theistic God or Supreme Being, the divine, the soul or the supernatural. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheist_Quakers

Yes it would really be nice if you did a little homework before posting.

Thats 2 : 0

 

I commented on neoatheists expressed beliefs
Look at yardmeats post above, start with that nonsense

 

Pretty sure you're incapable of reading basic English words as the poster you replied to in this dimwitted fashion literally said "most Quakers" believe in Gods. Most doesn't mean all.

 

It does not change the fact that I referenced the Quakers that do not believe in God, not the Quakers that do believe in God which are not relevant, the poster tried to shift the focus of my intended meaning, Please note, I did not say 'all' either, but thanks for noticing.

 

You refereed to your own and other people's definitions of "neoatheist", and most of that focused on anti-religion rather than not believing in God. You've not referenced any self-defined "neoatheist" or their quoted beliefs.

Yardmeat isn't relevant in that context unless they define themselves as "neoatheist" (which I somewhat doubt they will ).

 

Ghetto Fabulous, @Kokomojojo, as usual. You set a high bar and of course your enemies simply limbo under it.

That original analogy just came up after I read your OP above. I think it was an epiphany. I have one or two at least weekly.
Or is it weakly?

It is fun to have fun but you have to know how. - The Cat In The Hat

 

This is the second time we've had this conversation and the second time you've failed to read your own link. Even if we grant that atheism is a belief, no, a single belief is not itself a worldview. By definition. Even by your won definition. All it should take to understand this basic fact is to understand the difference between a singular (belief) and plural word (beliefs). Read your own damn link. A worldview consists of multiple beliefs and opinions that form a comprehensive view of the world.

"The term World View denotes a comprehensive set of opinions, seen as an organic unity, about the world as the medium and exercise of human existence."

Atheism is one opinion. Not a comprehensive set of opinions. There are multiple comprehensive sets of opinions that can include atheism in their set. Those are worldviews. Atheism can be the component of a world view, but it is not one in and of itself.

"Additionally, it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs forming a global description through which an individual, group or culture watches and interprets the world and interacts with it."

Ideas. Plural. Beliefs. Plural.

"One can think of a worldview as comprising a number of basic beliefs which are philosophically equivalent to the axioms of the worldview considered as a logical or consistent theory."

Number of beliefs. Plural.

Returning to your question: "So do you think its rational to claim there are many atheist worldviews while at the same time claim their core belief is not a worldview?" Yes. Because I understand that a worldview contains many beliefs. that's what makes it a worldview. As your own link attests.

Seems like you failed to read the post you responded to. I said that most Quakers are theists. I did not say ALL Quakers are theists. Your link shows the existence of some non-theist Quakers . . . something any literate person can see I never denied. It does not say that MOST Quakers are atheists. Please read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers

No, most Quakers are not atheists. Some are. Most aren't.

As your own sources prove, you have the numbers reversed.

Forget homework. I'd settle for you reading your own links at this point, which clearly won't happen any time soon.

 

You said Quakers do not believe in God. When I said most do, you said I was wrong. Make up your mind.

 

The only think that is "nonsense" is your hamfisted attempt to shove me into your definition of "neoatheists." As I've made clear in our previous conversations, according to the definitions you've provided of "neoatheism," I'm not a neoatheist, and quite frankly I'm not sure I've ever met one.

 

Just FYI, I've met and have had conversations with thousands of atheists.

Instead of finding a shared worldview, I've found wildly differing opinions on epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, politics and other core components that worldviews typically have. You can find worldviews that contain atheism as a component. The component is not the whole. Randian Objectivism is a worldview that contains atheism.

Even if we go with the Kokomojojo argument and say that atheism is a belief or opinion, fine. He's still wrong about it being a worldview. What's THE metaphysics of THE atheist worldview? I assure you that atheists disagree and can point to examples. What's THE ethical theory of THE atheist worldview? I assure you that atheists disagree and can point to examples. What's THE epistemology of THE atheist worldview? I assure you that atheists disagree and can point to examples.

 

Who cares if theists think atheist are just another religion? It serves their purposes and beliefs to a T, just like all the other stuff they blindly accept within the articles of their faith. Meanwhile atheists already reject religious dogma so what does it matter what a theist has to say about your beliefs? Conversion comes from within, not without regardless of which side you're on or what argument you employ.

I'm an agnostic atheist who respects other right to believe what ever the hell they want to as long as they don't try to impose those beliefs on me or the public in general. Live and let live while doing unto others as - is a simple but effective "world view", imho.

 

Yep, there are dozens of beliefs and opinions, every time a theist argue a point you reject. No one wakes up from a coma and the only belief they have is G/god does not exist as you are trying to present atheism. Actually atheism is more a universe view since theists will tell you that G/god created the universe.

Yes all those rejections of the hundreds if not thousands of theists claims are the framework of your belief in which one concludes they are atheist.

plonk!

 

you should not say that because it sounds ridiculous, you cannot identify as both as the same time, if that were the case I could identify as athe-agno-theist, if 2's good 3's better! 'I dont really believe it, because I dont know, but God might exist' That way I can really hedge my bet!

Saying its not a religion is like saying its not a cake because it its brown (made with chocholate). Its the ingredients and finished product that determines 'what' it is, not what they want to call it because they dont like the label

 

When someone says

It requires the reader to apply elementary:
Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic, is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion. Deductive reasoning goes in the same direction as that of the conditionals, and links premises with conclusions.
To understand what is being said, not a knee jerk reaction to assume it means ALL Quakers.

The logic you need to study is that if the Quakers you are thinking about does not fit then do some homework so that you know how it is being applied.

The reader should have a eureka moment!

Nontheist Quakers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nontheist Quakers (also known as nontheist Friends or NtFs) are those who engage in Quaker practices and processes, but who do not necessarily believe in a theistic God or Supreme Being, the divine, the soul or the supernatural. Like traditional Quakers, also known as Friends, nontheist Friends are interested in realizing peace, simplicity, integrity, community, equality, love, joy, and social justice in the Society of Friends and beyond.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheist_Quakers

Hope that helps?

 

A worldview requires many beliefs and opinions. Not just one. Atheism is, at most, one. Now you get it.

Flatly false. I've agreed with several theists, including on this forum. And you, at best, talking about my personal worldview.

Showing that I have a worldview, which I do, is not the same as proving that atheism is a worldview, for reasons provided and thus far dodged.

Straw man. Nope. I'm not saying that atheists only have one belief. I've never argued that. I've argued that atheism is, itself, at most 1 belief. An atheist can have several other beliefs. I'm glad you understand that. That's my point. Several beliefs and opinions come together to form a belief system. One of those opinions can be atheism, but atheism is not itself the system/worldview. You add other things to it to make a worldview. Get it now?

Let me try another for you to see if I can explain:

"Mustard is good" is one opinion. It is not a worldview. Does that mean that people who like mustard have no other opinions? No. As any literate person can understand, it just means that they need more beliefs and opinions to constitute a worldview. The mustard-loving is not sufficient for an entire worldview. You need other opinions. Same goes for atheism. Get it now?

Complete nonsense. Please read and learn.

 

You described Quarkerism as an atheistic worldview. Yes, any literate person would understand that to mean that you are claiming that all Quakers are atheist. To further confirm this, when I said that most Quakers are theists, you said I was wrong.

You stated that Quakerism is an atheistic worldview. When I stated that there are atheist and theist Quakers, you said I was wrong. Are you now taking that back?

 

Actually, to make this easier, I'm just going to use a simple analogy that is based on the definition link you provided. A worldview is a comprehensive collection of opinions and beliefs.

Imagine, for a second, that beliefs and opinions are represented by marbles. A single marble is not a worldview. No. A worldview would be better represented by a jar of marbles.

Everyone walks around life with their jar of marbles. Some of those jars have blue marbles in them, and others do not. (Hint: the blue marbles are atheism. The jars of marbles are, once again, worldviews).

Now, Kokomojojoism tries to claim that blue marbles somehow ARE jars. To be clear, blue marbles aren't jars . . . they are marbles that are contained within jars. The "reasoning" that Kokomojojoism uses is that, since everyone who has a blue marble in their jar has a jar of marbles, then the blue marbles must somehow BE the jar that contains all of the other marbles. That argument is as dumb as, well, a jar of marbles. That is, nonetheless, the argument you are making.

 

Agreed with you. Atheism is a rational religion, but Neo[Atheism] is not rational. The "commonly accepted" definition for their religion is self refuting. The re-defining of numerous terms, including but not limited to: "religion", "science", "proof", "fact", "belief", "faith", "atheism", "theism", etc. is not rational.

 

yep thats one variant, its also:

The latter being the one that applies to atheist.


Very simple;

Like the rest of the 'isms' listed, atheism just refers to the result of your conclusions of countless decisions you have made regarding the world, your world view and hence becomes the rose colored glasses [framework] you view the world through.

better luck next time!

 

That's because they quite literally ARE just as fanatical, if not more-so...

Yup. Each side loves to commit numerous logical fallacies, including but not limited to the "argument from ignorance fallacy" and the "circular argument fallacy". Truth is, religion cannot be proven nor disproven. It can only be believed on a faith basis. I personally believe in Christianity on a faith basis, but I do not go around acting as if it is or can be proven true.

Agreed!

 

Atheism is the belief that god(s) do not exist.