Is atheism a religion?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So . . . considering the fallible human nature both your view and mine may be based on a falsehood.

I don't think you have ththe fiest clue about what "my view" is.

Your turning this into an argument of Theism versus Atheism.

You preferred your one-sided rant against atheism.

Again . . . It remains a fact that there is no objective verifiable evidence either for nor against that existence of Gods.

And I'm asking you to think through the consequences of this position. If true, then it means your religion is false even if God did exist.

 

[`mud]

A lot of arguments stitched from one common thread !
It is a shame that no point of any needle is employed !

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I think it is more accurate to say that some atheism is not a philisophical position. Classical/philosophical atheism make the claim that no god exists.

Sure there is the new atheism that views atheism as a psychological state rather than a position, but surely some versions of atheism do in fact make a claim.

Classical, Philosophical Atheism? What exactly is the philosophical position of "no evidence to convince me to believe that a God exists"? What is the difference in Atheism, between Old Atheism and New Atheism? I do not claim that NO GOD EXISTS. Although I do BELIEVE this, it is not my position. I would be making a truth claim, which I would need to prove. Like the truth claim that God does exists.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't think you have ththe fiest clue about what "my view" is.

The two contrasting views you presented. It would help if you made your view clear if your posts have not reflected this. Your tag says atheist.

You preferred your one-sided rant against atheism.

Classic misrepresentation based on a one-sided rant from your perspective,

And I'm asking you to think through the consequences of this position. If true, then it means your religion is false even if God did exist.

Confusing at best.

 

[lukethethird]

You're going to have to ask the atheists that question. It's their philosophical position. So it's their responsibility to present their arguments for it. As we have seen countless times here on this forum, they do have their reasons, and they will present them for debate when asked. And that is the proper philosophical methodology.

Why would the word 'God' even be mentioned in their philosophy, it would make no sense?

 

[shunyadragon]

Why would the word 'God' even be mentioned in their philosophy, it would make no sense?

Their philosophy simply is the belief that Gods do not exist.

 

[ecco]

That is a ridiculous assertion. Can you support it with comments from Muslims saying Islam is not a religion or Jews saying Judaism is not a religion?

No more support than atheists claiming their belief is not a religious belief,

Your reply doesn't even make sense.

I asked you to support your nonsense allegation with comments from Muslims saying Islam is not a religion or Jews saying Judaism is not a religion.

You didn't. Because you can't.

Many atheists have stated atheism in not a religion, no Muslims state Islam is not a religion.

How can you continue to pursue your ridiculous assertions following so many failures? Is that something the Bahá'u'lláh teaches?

 

[ecco]

Nonsense. There is abundant objective evidence that gods are the creation of man's imaginings. Do you believe in the Golden Plates? Do you think that Ogun is a real god or that Ogun is the creation of man's imaginings? How about Zeus? Then, using your logical brain, extend that to Jesus and Allah and the God Who Created Everything Last Thursday.

Nonsense, It remains a fact that there is no objective verifiable evidence either for nor against that existence of Gods. Methodological Naturalism does not go there.

I asked three questions. You addressed none of them. Instead you posted some meaningless drivel.

That's what people do when they don't want to answer questions. Apparently you are afraid to question your own beliefs.

 

[`mud]

Quite simply.....atheists don't believe in beliefs !

 

[shunyadragon]

I asked three questions. You addressed none of them. Instead you posted some meaningless drivel.

That's what people do when they don't want to answer questions. Apparently you are afraid to question your own beliefs.

Phffffttttt!! Plop! Plop!

 

[shunyadragon]

Your reply doesn't even make sense.

I asked you to support your nonsense allegation with comments from Muslims saying Islam is not a religion or Jews saying Judaism is not a religion.

You didn't. Because you can't.

Many atheists have stated atheism in not a religion, no Muslims state Islam is not a religion.

Answered this, but I will comment. None of the opinions of the believers that they are not religious beliefs is not defensible including atheists. This amounts to accusing others have religious beliefs and religions, and ,'not me' egocentric view.

How can you continue to pursue your ridiculous assertions following so many failures? Is that something the Bahá'u'lláh teaches?

Red Herring accusatins and not remotely related to the topic of the thread.

 

[Curious George]

Classical, Philosophical Atheism? What exactly is the philosophical position of "no evidence to convince me to believe that a God exists"? What is the difference in Atheism, between Old Atheism and New Atheism? I do not claim that NO GOD EXISTS. Although I do BELIEVE this, it is not my position. I would be making a truth claim, which I would need to prove. Like the truth claim that God does exists.

Classical athiesm is simply making the claim that no god exists. New atheism is defining atheism as the psychological state of lacking belief of gods.

To believe something is to claim it.

 

[PureX]

Atheism is not a philosophical position, it is a rational and practical position.

All philosophical positions are rational and practical to those who hold them. And as such, they should be logically defensible. That's what philosophy is all about: logically defending an asserted position on the truth.

There is no objective rational evidence to justify a rational belief in the existence of God.

Of course there is, which is why so many people choose to believe in some ideal of "God". Just as there is rational evidence to support to proposition that no gods exist at all. Which is why atheist believe this to be so.

There will always be a philosophical rationale for a belief in the existence of a God(although fallacious). With regards to the God belief, most Atheists are rational not philosophical.

Everyone is "philosophical" to some degree. Anytime we defend our positions regarding the truth of reality, using logic and/or reason, we are engaging in philosophical debate.

Do you believe that the burden of proof for all extraordinary claims, does NOT rest with the person making the claims? That would be simply ludicrous.

That's right, so that when an atheist claims there are no gods (proposes this view of truth/reality), the burden of defending such an assertion becomes his. Just as to assert that 'God X' does exist, would likewise then demand that the persons asserting this be able to defend their assertion.

"Proof" is a burden that's only relevant to the individual doing the assessing, as the criteria for such is entirely subjective.

 

[shunyadragon]

Classical athiesm is simply making the claim that no god exists. New atheism is defining atheism as the psychological state of lacking belief of gods.

To believe something is to claim it.

I do not see the difference. It is like a word shell game.

 

[Curious George]

I do not see the difference. It is like a word shell game.

One set allows for a neutral position as atheism.

 

[shunyadragon]

One set allows for a neutral position as atheism.

I disagree.

 

[PureX]

I do not see the difference. It is like a word shell game.

Yes, the purpose of which is to excuse oneself from having to defend their assertions while demanding that everyone else must do so.

 

[Curious George]

I disagree.

I really do not see how. If we define athiesm as a state of lacking belief (regardless of reasons not to define it so) then a person that lacks the ability to believe is an atheist. You may disagree with the utility of the definition, but disagreement with categorization based on the definition is wrong.

 

[ecco]

Nonsense. There is abundant objective evidence that gods are the creation of man's imaginings. Do you believe in the Golden Plates? Do you think that Ogun is a real god or that Ogun is the creation of man's imaginings? How about Zeus? Then, using your logical brain, extend that to Jesus and Allah and the God Who Created Everything Last Thursday.

I asked three questions. You addressed none of them. Instead you posted some meaningless drivel.

Phffffttttt!! Plop! Plop!

I'm sure that took a lot less thoughtful consideration than a meaning response would have. Are you afraid to address the questions lest it would make you think?

 

[ecco]

I asked you to support your nonsense allegation with comments from Muslims saying Islam is not a religion or Jews saying Judaism is not a religion.

You didn't. Because you can't.

Many atheists have stated atheism in not a religion, no Muslims state Islam is not a religion.

Answered this, but I will comment. None of the opinions of the believers that they are not religious beliefs is not defensible including atheists. This amounts to accusing others have religious beliefs and religions, and ,'not me' egocentric view.

You haven't addressed it in the past. You haven't addressed it in the above.

How can you continue to pursue your ridiculous assertions following so many failures? Is that something the Bahá'u'lláh teaches?

Red Herring accusatins and not remotely related to the topic of the thread.

It is relevant to your inability to address the issues presented.