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

Once again, you purposely leave out that vital bit about BELIEF in NO god(s)...

xwsmithx posed an important question to you... "What do you believe, that God does not exist or that you can't decide one way or the other?"

Which is it?

The 'lack of belief' mantra is self refuting, as I have already pointed out...

 

Definitions can not be self refuting, as you’ve been shown.

The definition of atheism precludes it from being a religion.

Just like not playing baseball isn’t a sport.

 

That is not as an important question to me as does the Loch Ness monster exist, since I visit Loch Ness regularly. This is the problem with people who are religious they think gods are important to others.

 

Irrelevant, but okay.

You've been discussing gods in this thread since page 16 and post #393, and have contributed very regularly since then. It seems to me that this topic is rather important to you.

P.S. -- The question still stands.

 

What is the topic of this thread?

 

Debating whether atheism (specifically the practice of it) is a religion or not.

Atheism is about the non-existence of gods.

That concerns gods.


P.S. The question still stands.

 

No Atheism is about the lack of belief in gods, you keep getting it wrong, possibly because you cannot conceive of living without your god. Anyway the topic is about whether atheism is a religion and clearly its not. Also since I found out the main protagonist is clearly a conspiracy theorist who thinks there is a communist/atheist plot I really am not interested. And you have nothing interesting to say. Good Day.

 

Okay. Sorry to hear that you feel that way.

 

I've argued with you once before on your claim that the initial claims of religion or atheism are circular arguments. There's no circularity to the claims that "God exists" or "God does not exist". It's only when you add something more to it that refers back to itself that the argument becomes circular, such as, "God exists because God exists." Even such seemingly circular statements as "God exists because the Bible says so" is not entirely circular, even if it's an appeal to authority fallacy. The initial statement, "God exists," stands alone, as does the statement, "the Bible says so." But you can then say that the statement, "The Bible says God exists," is true but is not proof. Similarly with the claim that the most important element of an infinite being is existence, so God must exist. It might seem circular, but it really isn't. It's not a good argument, I don't think, but it is a valid one.

Anyway, since I've managed to prove to myself logically that God cannot exist, at least how we in the West envision God, it's not true that God's existence is an unfalsifiable theory! I falsified it! Does that make atheism "science"? I don't think so. On the other hand, the Big Bang Theory now has a major piece of evidence in its favor, the existence of background radiation from the Big Bang, so it is science.

 

Yep its about the belief that G/gods do not exist.

But here's the thing. As I discuss in my new book How Plato and Pythagoras Can Save Your Life (Conari, 2011), it's this matter of proof and evidence that gets to the source of the modern conflict between science and religion: science demands affirmative proof for what's essentially un-provable in the scientific arena.

Think about it; if an atheist is so quick to invoke science as their guiding rationale in their belief in a random universe, then shouldn't they prove it?

Because, really, if any scientists proudly and self-assuredly declare themselves atheists (Richard Dawkins and Stepehen Hawking-you know who you are!), then they're not only being intellectually dishonest, but they're also going counter to the guiding principles of the thing that they profess to love so much: Science.

In science, we can't affirmatively know or assert something until we've empirically proven it; absent any such affirmative data, the true and proper scientific stance should be one that echoes Socrates' credo of "I know that I don't know".

Thus, without any affirmative scientific proof that God does not exist, the default position should be one of agnosticism--of "I don't know since I don't have enough data one way or another."

Really, how can Dawkins claim, as a scientist, that he's an atheist when he hasn't proven that God doesn't exist? As a private citizen, he can choose to believe--or not believe--anything he wants. But what irks me is when scientists use the banner of science to somehow give legitimacy to their own--oftentimes dogmatic--beliefs.

thus for a scientist to embrace atheism is not only intellectually dishonest, but also logically inconsistent. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...c-atheism-fallacy-how-science-declares-god-is

The 800 pound gorilla that has neo atheists in a full nelson
He brings up the devastating same point to atheology that you do.

 

You know thats patently ridiculous, why do you continue to repeat it?

I am agnostic and I both lack belief in Gods and I lack disbelief in Gods and I admit to having a religion by definition. [of religion]

I have double lack, twice the lacker that you are, or any atheist for that matter and I admit to having religion. 2 lacks are better then one.

Unlike rahl I actually use the definition of religion to determine what is and what is not a religion, not illegitimately substituting the definition of agnostic or atheism and then blather about stating fantasy as fact. 48 pages and atheism is still a religion! Just like water is wet!

 

That is nice for you, keep a sharp look out for those commie/atheists. Enjoy yourself good day.

 

You know that's patently ridiculous, why do you continue to repeat it?

 

Wrong! He lives his life as if he were this god and attacks any who fail to worship him and his idiotic claims. Kind of like you.

 

Go back and read the thread topic and this time try really hard to comprehend it.

It is a fallacy on its face. There are no such things a neo-atheists, you and yur have never been able to define what the term means and the title says nothing about atheists. You lose and continue to lose every time you post.

 

Correct.

Mr. Kardaras makes use of a lot of words here which people use in numerous different ways (formal usage, colloquial usage, buzzword usage, etc...) To avoid confusion in my response, the way that I personally make use of those words is as such:

Proof: An extension of a foundational axiom within a closed functional system.

Evidence: Any statement that supports an argument.

Science: A set of falsifiable theories.

Religion: An initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it. [I suppose one could also (very roughly, just to better grasp what I am getting at) say that religion, as a whole, is "a set of unfalsifiable theories"... That isn't really correct, but that wording might help in seeing precisely what makes it different from science and why I use the words "initial circular argument" in my definition]

I think a lot of the issue is that schools teach Bacon's philosophy of science instead of Popper's philosophy of science. People, as a result, tend to blend religion into science [even though they swear that they aren't doing so] because that is precisely what Bacon was trying to do at the time. Popper was the one who actually differentiated the two from each other, and was the one who had the better philosophy concerning science.

I also think, due to Bacon's bad philosophy, that people tend to focus on "supporting evidence" instead of "conflicting evidence". No amount of supporting evidence can bless, sanctify, or otherwise make holy any theory of science, nor can supporting evidence magickally transform a theory into a theory of science. Supporting evidence is what religion makes primary use of, not science. Popper correctly honed in on "conflicting evidence" with regard to science, as that is what falsifies theories. That is what can completely and utterly destroy a theory.

Given how "Mr. Atheist" defines science, then Mr. Kardaras asks a good question here, but as I mentioned above, these words such as 'science' 'proof', 'evidence', and etc. get used differently, so assertions get murky. People first need to clearly define these terms before they make their arguments.

An atheist's belief in a random universe CAN be just as logical as a theist's belief in an intelligently designed universe, in that they make use of the same line of reasoning to reach their differing conclusions. This is because there is evidence [remember how I defined the term] for both arguments. Both views can be supported. But, evidence is not a proof, and since neither argument can be falsified, neither argument is within the realm of science. The theory of a random universe and the theory of an intelligently designed universe both remain religions. They both ultimately hinge on their initial circular arguments. I know that xwsmithx doesn't like the whole "circular arguments" thing, but he seems to be stuck on viewing the assertions in their statement form instead of their argument form. In debates, it is the argument form that is being debated.

This is a correct assertion by Mr. Kardaras. Those people are operating under the philosophy of Bacon instead of the philosophy of Popper. They are attempting to classify religion as science instead of keeping them separated.

In terms of the 'random universe' vs. 'intelligently designed universe' arguments being discussed earlier, there is no "scientific stance" to take, since those theories are outside the realm of science. There is no way to go back in time to see what actually happened.

Under the definitions that I am accepting, there is no such thing as "affirmative scientific proof", as proofs only exist in closed functional systems and science is an open functional system. I do agree with Mr. Kardaras about the "default position" thing though, as saying "idk" doesn't require any faith basis, while saying "yes" or "no" does require at least a faith basis ("faith", as I am using it, means "circular reasoning", as a 'circular argument' is an 'argument of faith').

Precisely the last part.

Correct. I don't like all of his specific arguments, but as a whole, he makes a good point, the same shared point that we are making, I think.

 

Correct.

In their statement forms, there is not, as those are just statements being made. In their argument forms, however, there IS circularity.

Correct. And that, ultimately, is the argument that Theists make (and the argument that their additional arguments all stem back to).

Correct, that argument appeals to The Bible, and correct that this particular argument isn't 'really' circular as presented there. It becomes circular, when shown through additional argumentation, that the argument still essentially remains "God exists, therefore God exists".

Correct.

Correct.

Correct that this argument isn't circular (and that it is a valid argument). I would also agree that it isn't a good argument. Not one that I would make use of anyway...

What does "prove to myself logically" mean? What is your argument? Are your predicates for your argument all within the realm of science? How do "we in the West" envision God? Part of falsifying a theory is making use of a null hypothesis test that is accessible, practical, specific, and produces a specific result. Your testing doesn't seem very specific to me, so you haven't falsified the theory that God exists. It seems like in your example, you are just believing that God doesn't exist, then claiming that belief as a "proof".

No, because the theory that God exists is not falsifiable.

Evidence is NOT a proof. Your liking of particular supporting evidence for a theory does not magickally make that theory into a theory of science. A theory of science must survive, and continue to survive, internal and external testing. It must be falsifiable. There is no way to go back in time and see what actually happened all those years ago. The Big Bang is a past unobserved event, and science has no theories about past unobserved events (as they are not falsifiable).

The radiation you mention MIGHT be a result of "The Big Bang", yet it might not be. We simply do not know for sure, since we can't use a time machine to potentially falsify the theory.

 

My proof is 46 pages long. I've sent a copy to Koko, I don't know if he ever got around to reading it. I started out to prove God's existence, but I started from the point, I exist. How I ended up proving God cannot exist is that I realized that I can't be sure that I exist, I only think I exist. It's entirely possible that I am a figment of someone or something else's imagination, a character in a book, movie, TV show, etc. Then I worked my way forward, trying to determine what I could say starting from the point, "I exist, or someone or something that imagined me exists or existed at some point in the past." I realized as I went that the latter part of that statement could very well apply to God. As for how we in the West envision God, we envision God as limitless, omnipotent, unchanging. What I ended up proving was that "God" must be limited, definable, and changeable. It's possible that the creator of the universe was all those things, but that would make him/her/it a very powerful alien, NOT a god. And the major problem with a changeable god is that there's no way to know the "correct" way to worship such a god, since whatever way you worship today might not be good enough tomorrow.

You misinterpret what is and is not science. Plenty of theories are not falsifiable, such as evolution. That's not what makes them science. What makes them science is that they attempt to describe the natural world, or the natural universe. And a theory doesn't need to be falsifiable to be a) rigorous or b) dismissed. Copernicus' original theory of the heliocentric universe wasn't dismissed because it was disproved, but because Kepler showed that elliptical orbits fit the data better than the circular orbits proposed by Copernicus. Likewise with the Big Bang theory. If we find a better theory to fit the data, it will be replaced. It replaced the Steady State theory, that the universe has always existed exactly as we see it. We already knew from Einstein and from observation that wasn't true since the universe is expanding, but how it started didn't have a likely theory until the Big Bang. No theory can ever be "proven" in science, all they can be is supported, often by mountains of evidence. Newton's 1st Law of Thermodynamics, that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed, had mountains of evidence in its favor before Einstein blew it out of the water. That didn't make it a bad theory.

 

I think it depends on the context.

I don't care whether we call atheism a religion or not from a technical point of view. From a constitutional perspective it is a religion and should have the same protections and restrictions as a religion.

People should be free to be atheist and promote their view but it would be unconstitutional to teach atheistic theories in a public school.
Atheism is not the absence or religion.

 

And that question was answered on page 1. Atheism by definition is not a religion.

 

How about that it was answered on page 1, Post #2!

 

Nope. Atheism by definition is not a religion. Just like not playing baseball isn’t a sport.

 

but wouldnt a G/god be required to be changeable based upon the intelligence level of the observer?

No atheism is about the lack of belief in one more G/god than theism.

Oh thats easy, because rahl is trying to prove atheism is not a religion by looking up atheism when he should be looking up......drum roll.......RELIGION

 

An interesting question, but I think what you're describing is God being required to be different based on the intelligence level of the observer. So the God of a smart man might have very different qualities from the God of a stupid man. But God could still be unchangeable, at least from the point of view of each man. And the idea of unchangeability is inherent in our Western, Judeo-Christian conception of God.

Malachi 3:6 For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

But in my logical progression, I showed that intelligence and change are concomitant, that to be unable or unwilling to change is the characteristic of a rock.

 

Reflect on the title of this thread: "Why do NeoAtheists deny the practice of atheism is a religion?"

There is no "practice". So there's nothing to deny, -only to falsely assert like "atheism is a religion".