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

Holy Crap!
Post Reply
Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

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

Post by Seth » Mon May 02, 2011 8:12 pm

Feck wrote: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 ?
Now you're deep, deep in the vortex of the Atheist's Fallacy. Shall I throw you a life-ring?
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Feck
.
.
Posts: 28391
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:25 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Feck » Mon May 02, 2011 8:13 pm

Do you want a some mouth wash ?
:hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog:
Give me the wine , I don't need the bread

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

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

Post by Seth » Mon May 02, 2011 8:14 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
charlou wrote:
Svartalf wrote: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....
I think it's probably more "you're no better than we are." Which is true.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

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

Post by Seth » Mon May 02, 2011 8:16 pm

camoguard wrote:@Seth, you must have overlooked my posting on Friday. So here's a bump with a link. My post
Perhaps I did, but your bump didn't get me to your post, probably because such references don't work properly when the user has the order of display reversed so the newest is at the top.

You might have to repost it and I'll get to it. I was sick all weekend with a temp of 103, so I fell behind. My apologies.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

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

Post by Seth » Mon May 02, 2011 8:18 pm

charlou wrote:
Svartalf wrote: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.
Well put.
Svartalf wrote: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"
The bit I've bolded ... I hold that all things are natural, even things we don't know about or can't explain, that there is nothing supernatural, that therefore there is no supernatural entity - no god.
Right, you hold the BELIEF that all things are natural, and that nothing supernatural exists. But you cannot subject your confidence in this proposition to immediate rigorous proof, therefore it is a belief, upon which you can build an edifice of religion...like naturalistic science...that you follow devotedly as a matter of ethics or conscience. IE: a religion.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Feck
.
.
Posts: 28391
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:25 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Feck » Mon May 02, 2011 8:21 pm

Maybe a mint ?
:hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog:
Give me the wine , I don't need the bread

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 41057
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

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

Post by Svartalf » Mon May 02, 2011 8:40 pm

Seth wrote:
Svartalf wrote:
Seth wrote:
AshtonBlack wrote: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.
There's no well to poison, you showed yours was drier than the Atacama desert within days of coming here, and you just proved it again.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
AshtonBlack
Tech Monkey
Tech Monkey
Posts: 7773
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:01 pm
Location: <insert witty joke locaction here>
Contact:

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

Post by AshtonBlack » Mon May 02, 2011 8:46 pm

Seth wrote:
Seraph wrote:
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.
My emphasis. Non sequitur and therefore argumentum ad rectum. More specifically "no possibility". Using the scientific method to gain knowledge, means sifting through for the most probable 'truth' and therefore leaves that sort of absolute assertion at the door.

But carry on. Stop me when you get to solipsism.

10 Fuck Off
20 GOTO 10
Ashton Black wrote:"Dogma is the enemy, not religion, per se. Rationality, genuine empathy and intellectual integrity are anathema to dogma."

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 41057
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

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

Post by Svartalf » Mon May 02, 2011 8:51 pm

I think it actually was an argumentum at legem tertiam clarkii.

Which of course means that until our science evolves enough, dog is 100% supernatural equivalent, and if we reject it, it's its own fault for not giving us the tools to perceive it.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

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

Post by Seth » Mon May 02, 2011 8:57 pm

AshtonBlack wrote:
Seth wrote:
Seraph wrote:
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.
My emphasis. Non sequitur and therefore argumentum ad rectum.
Evidently you don't understand the meaning of the term "non sequitur." Which makes your rebuttal the argument ad rectum here, not to mention argumentum ad hominem.
More specifically "no possibility". Using the scientific method to gain knowledge, means sifting through for the most probable 'truth' and therefore leaves that sort of absolute assertion at the door.

But carry on. Stop me when you get to solipsism.
Solipsism is unnecessary to the concept of limited scientific knowledge. Because, as you say, science is just about "most probable" truths (although there are known scientific facts, like the charge of an electron or the atomic weight of uranium), when it comes to poorly-understood phenomena, including phenomena associated with religious god claims, science is pretty much nothing but a series of beliefs.

That the definition of "belief" requires a high standard does not change anything. If it's not subject to immediate rigorous proof, like the charge of an electron or the atomic weight of uranium, it's a belief, not a fact. As a belief, a religion may be build upon it.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

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

Post by Seth » Mon May 02, 2011 9:02 pm

Svartalf wrote:I think it actually was an argumentum at legem tertiam clarkii.

Which of course means that until our science evolves enough, dog is 100% supernatural equivalent, and if we reject it, it's its own fault for not giving us the tools to perceive it.
True, but "supernatural equivalent" and "supernatural" are not at all the same thing, since "supernatural equivalent" is nothing more or less than argumentum ad ignorantum.

And that's the whole point. Unless you can prove that a proposition is a fact that is subject to immediate rigorous proofs, it's a belief, and a religion can be built on any belief. Indeed, nothing prevents a religion from being built founded on verifiable facts. The metric is devotion to something held as a matter of conscience or ethics.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 41057
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

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

Post by Svartalf » Mon May 02, 2011 9:17 pm

actually, by stating that it was us who were wrong to label the divine as supernatural because maybe we don't know inough, it was you who made the argument to ignorance
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
AshtonBlack
Tech Monkey
Tech Monkey
Posts: 7773
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:01 pm
Location: <insert witty joke locaction here>
Contact:

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

Post by AshtonBlack » Mon May 02, 2011 9:23 pm

Seth wrote:
AshtonBlack wrote:
Seth wrote:
Seraph wrote:
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.
My emphasis. Non sequitur and therefore argumentum ad rectum.
Evidently you don't understand the meaning of the term "non sequitur." Which makes your rebuttal the argument ad rectum here, not to mention argumentum ad hominem.
More specifically "no possibility". Using the scientific method to gain knowledge, means sifting through for the most probable 'truth' and therefore leaves that sort of absolute assertion at the door.

But carry on. Stop me when you get to solipsism.
Solipsism is unnecessary to the concept of limited scientific knowledge. Because, as you say, science is just about "most probable" truths (although there are known scientific facts, like the charge of an electron or the atomic weight of uranium), when it comes to poorly-understood phenomena, including phenomena associated with religious god claims, science is pretty much nothing but a series of beliefs.

That the definition of "belief" requires a high standard does not change anything. If it's not subject to immediate rigorous proof, like the charge of an electron or the atomic weight of uranium, it's a belief, not a fact. As a belief, a religion may be build upon it.
Non sequitur - a logical fallacy where a stated conclusion is not supported by its premise. It does not follow that because god could be natural but unknown that no possible rigorous proof is possible. All it means is that, with current scientific understanding, no rigorous proof has been presented. It precludes nothing.

10 Fuck Off
20 GOTO 10
Ashton Black wrote:"Dogma is the enemy, not religion, per se. Rationality, genuine empathy and intellectual integrity are anathema to dogma."

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

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

Post by Seth » Mon May 02, 2011 9:30 pm

AshtonBlack wrote:
Seth wrote: Evidently you don't understand the meaning of the term "non sequitur." Which makes your rebuttal the argument ad rectum here, not to mention argumentum ad hominem.

Non sequitur - a logical fallacy where a stated conclusion is not supported by its premise. It does not follow that because god could be natural but unknown that no possible rigorous proof is possible. All it means is that, with current scientific understanding, no rigorous proof has been presented. It precludes nothing.
Ah, I see. Yes, I grant you that, you are correct in that regard.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
AshtonBlack
Tech Monkey
Tech Monkey
Posts: 7773
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:01 pm
Location: <insert witty joke locaction here>
Contact:

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

Post by AshtonBlack » Mon May 02, 2011 9:37 pm

Seth wrote:
AshtonBlack wrote:
Seth wrote: Evidently you don't understand the meaning of the term "non sequitur." Which makes your rebuttal the argument ad rectum here, not to mention argumentum ad hominem.

Non sequitur - a logical fallacy where a stated conclusion is not supported by its premise. It does not follow that because god could be natural but unknown that no possible rigorous proof is possible. All it means is that, with current scientific understanding, no rigorous proof has been presented. It precludes nothing.
Ah, I see. Yes, I grant you that, you are correct in that regard.
Seth, I do understand where you're coming from. I will grant there is a similarity between a theist who behaves like a dick, because of his religion and an atheist who behaves like a dick. The commonality isn't religion, it's that they're both dicks.

10 Fuck Off
20 GOTO 10
Ashton Black wrote:"Dogma is the enemy, not religion, per se. Rationality, genuine empathy and intellectual integrity are anathema to dogma."

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests