So Neo, did you know that Atheism is a religion?

[Feck]

Actually, it is in the interest of organized religion to falsely and artificially classify atheists as members of an atheist religion, just so they can lump them together and think of them as just a rival religion, which obviates the need to think about their actual views, or to rethink their own world view in the face of this "abnormal" attitude.

Yes, and there's an "I know you are, but what am I" nyer nyer nyer ness about these kinds of "arguments".

I've always thought it was a weird argument on the part of the theists...it's like they're saying we're as bad as they are....

They are trying to claim we are, by the strange logic they use .

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You are all A-unicornists that must be a religion too but Seth says you have to be Tolerant of me (You Can't PROVE I don't have a magic unicorn)

I can prove you used to have a unicorn.

canned_unicorn_meat_zoom.jpg (90.08 KiB) Viewed 843 times

[Seth]

A belief is "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof."

So, would it be fair to say that since most atheists lack a belief in the existence of a god thingy because such an entity has not been proven to exist to their satisfaction, they, erm, lack belief? Most atheists do not say "there is no god". Not even Dawkins, whom you like to invoke, says that. They say "I believe it when I see it". No matter how unlikely most atheists regard the existence of a god, there are not many who go to the extent of saying: "There is no god. I know that."

I disagree. Most atheists do indeed say "there is no god." The more radical Atheists get quite militant about saying exactly that. But even if they legitimately say "There is insufficient critically robust scientific evidence of the existence of god to believe that god exists," this is still a belief. They BELIEVE that there is insufficient critically robust scientific evidence of the existence of god. They cannot prove that such evidence does not exist, they can say only that to their knowledge and understanding and belief, such evidence is not available to them.

This does not mean that the evidence does not exist.

The evidence may indeed exist, but may simply be beyond our human ken at this time in our existence. Or, atheist may simply be rejecting without proper examination evidence that exists. Theists would (and do) argue that evidence is all around us, but atheists reject this assertion because their preferred paradigm, that of "naturalistic science" flatly precludes as a matter of basic policy the existence of "supernatural" deities. This atheistic presumption is, of course, a manifestation of the Atheists Fallacy, because it is entirely scientifically possible that god is not supernatural, but is merely not understood by our current scientific knowledge. Thus, there is no possibility of rigorous proof of the claim.

Therefore, the assertion that there is insufficient evidence to believe that god exists is itself confidence in the truth of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof, which is a belief. And followed devotedly, as a matter of conscience or ethics, can be (and is) the basis for a religion.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Bald assertions instead of facts. Nothing new here.

[Seth]

A belief is "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof."

So, would it be fair to say that since most atheists lack a belief in the existence of a god thingy because such an entity has not been proven to exist to their satisfaction, they, erm, lack belief? Most atheists do not say "there is no god". Not even Dawkins, whom you like to invoke, says that. They say "I believe it when I see it". No matter how unlikely most atheists regard the existence of a god, there are not many who go to the extent of saying: "There is no god. I know that."

By my definition of god, I know there is no god.

No, you don't, you believe there is no god of your definition. This is because even using your own definition, your confidence in the proposition that there is no god meeting your definition of god is not subject to immediate rigorous proof. It may be that your conceiving of a god creates that god...in an alternate universe...under the multiverse theory. Thus, you cannot prove that even your definition of god does not exist.

[Seth]

My Adumbledorism is the active "I don't believe dumbledore exists" variety. If dumbledorists want to invoke their belief in dumbledore to infringe on my life I may actively oppose it. Is my Adumbledorism therefore a religion?

Not by my conception of 'religion'. God, or no god, I think religion must always involve the notion of a supernatural element as an essential ingredient.

This is clearly not the case, since there are recognized religions that do not involve supernatural elements, including Secular Humanism and Buddhism.

That's one of the reasons, I suspect, that the broader definition is now accepted by those who edit dictionaries.

[Seth]

Theist: I believe in God, and here's why you should...
Atheist: I don't believe you.

Rejection =/= Belief.

Fallacious syllogism.

Theist: I believe in God, and here's why you should...
Atheist: I don't believe you, and here's why...

Rejection = belief.

[Feck]

Don't talk about definitions remember the God idea works on God some how being independant of all rational proofs ! the theists moved the goalposts in the face of everything science discovered . Do you have to keep swallowing or does it all back up and come out of your mouth Seth ?

[Seth]

I don't believe you = I don't believe you're right


Subtle, but important difference.

Not insofar as the formation of a belief. I don't believe you're right = I believe you're wrong.

[Svartalf]

Theist: I believe in God, and here's why you should...
Atheist: I don't believe you.

Rejection =/= Belief.

Fallacious syllogism.

Theist: I believe in God, and here's why you should...
Atheist: I don't believe you, and here's why...

Rejection = belief.

False, I reject the chretin god
I have no believe concerning the existence of divine beings, or lack thereof, and the only positive opinion I have is that none of the belief sets I have come across is right for me to adhere to.
You want to tag that as an actual, positive belief?

You can... though that will reflect positively neither on your intelligence nor on your intellectual honesty.

[Svartalf]

Don't talk about definitions remember the God idea works on God some how being independant of all rational proofs ! the theists moved the goalposts in the face of everything science discovered . Do you have to keep swallowing or does it all back up and come out of your mouth Seth ?

Yeah, it's fucking fascinating how theists try to foist on us the double concept that
-Dog is so incredibly great and beyond anything you can conceive that he's unknowable and impossible to detect, understand or communicate with
-They know everything there is to know about it.

[Seth]

Technically, you can describe nonbelief as the belief that the rejected thing is worthless/false/inferior...

ProBlem is that if you posit an actual belief, that would have to actually entail that all non believers actually agree on enough points to be able to be regarded as a group, which, beside the fact they reject organized religion, they don't...

ergo, unbelief isn't a crypto belief

Nothing in the definition of religion requires agreement on anything. One person may make a religion of a belief upon a completely different basis than another. In the case of Atheism, the core belief, which is held by all Atheists is "there are no gods." Other details of the belief/practice system simply split the larger group into sects of Atheism. There's Dawkinsianism, and Dennettism, and Myersism and all manner of nuance and difference in belief, but they all hold in common the fundamental belief "there are no gods."

The definition of religion is
a) something that binds a group together
b) a commonality of beliefs and/or practices that gives them an identity, especially as it differenciates them from outsiders

Citation please. And yes, that is ONE definition of religion, but not the only exclusive definition.

Problem is that the dynamics of atheists show that the definition, neither clause, fails to apply to them. Even when they band together to try and get strength in numbers to resist attacks from religious nuts, they are more fractious than communist trends, and have even less common ground between them.

And yet they hold a worldwide atheist conference every year... Factionalism does not destroy the existence of religion, just as the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland.

And again, you posit a core belief, without accounting for the fact that the is no such thing, since there are as many approaches to denying the divine as there are atheists, and the fact that this point fails to bind them together effectively.

Sure there is. "There is no god." That's the core belief. It may be equivocated as "There is insufficient evidence to belief that god exists" but it's the same core belief.

Also, "there is no god" is not a proper description. there may be people who hold to that like a chretin to its creed, but others just go "gods have no place in our world", or even "gods are fucktard who don't deserver worship even if they really are out there"

That's just sect division, not the simple absence of belief. In fact, such statements prove that the adherents are indeed religious in their beliefs.

[Svartalf]

There is no "core belief", and I don't believe that, I know.
There is pretty much nothing in common between my brand of atheism (more like agnosticism doubled by an attitude of "if they don't show'emselves, as well treat'em like they aint'ere at all), the ultraskeptic scientific brand pushed by the likes of dawkins, and the rabid antitheism practiced by some people I know who treat the likes of dawkins like the pope or like Dawg itself

[Seth]

Theist: I believe in God, and here's why you should...
Atheist: I don't believe you.

Rejection =/= Belief.

Fallacious syllogism.

Theist: I believe in God, and here's why you should...
Atheist: I don't believe you, and here's why...

Rejection = belief.

False, I reject the chretin god
I have no believe concerning the existence of divine beings, or lack thereof, and the only positive opinion I have is that none of the belief sets I have come across is right for me to adhere to.
You want to tag that as an actual, positive belief?

Sure. You believe that none of the belief sets you know of satisfy your needs. You have confidence in the proposition, and yet that confidence is not subject to immediate rigorous proofs. Therefore you have a belief. But that does not make it a religion.

You can... though that will reflect positively neither on your intelligence nor on your intellectual honesty.

Example of the Poisoning the Well fallacy.

It is your statement that does not reflect positively on your intelligence or your intellectual honesty. It's an ad hominem as well, and it's unnecessary and uncalled for and was included merely in a vain attempt to cut off the debate by declaring victory.

[Seth]

There is no "core belief", and I don't believe that, I know.

Where is your critically robust immediate proof of this?

There is pretty much nothing in common between my brand of atheism (more like agnosticism doubled by an attitude of "if they don't show'emselves, as well treat'em like they aint'ere at all), the ultraskeptic scientific brand pushed by the likes of dawkins, and the rabid antitheism practiced by some people I know who treat the likes of dawkins like the pope or like Dawg itself

So what? Your belief set does not affect the belief set of others. Nothing requires that the belief set be uniform and universal. In fact it can be entirely individual and distinct. All that is required is that you follow that belief/practice set with devotion and as a matter of concience or ethics.