Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

Your post was gaslighting. I only argued a few points from it at a time.

I specifically addressed your point:

I said:

Theists do not have to exist IF you use any of the following as a definition of atheist:
1) Without a God/Belief in God = Atheist,
2) Absence of God/Belief in God = Atheist,
3) Lack of God/Belief in God = Atheist,

That means even if theists did not exist Atheists would exist:

Its a fact!

But you arent

Cant? There is no coffee in my mug right now. How hard is that.

Many does not make it correct. There are many here yourself included all patting each other on the back, does not make any of you correct, sorry

Lack of belief is not rational

YOu did, simply throwing a dictionary definition out here and expecting to argue strictly off that premise is immature and inexperienced.

We? You wouldne want to bet your life on that wold you? LOL

I have not seen any such thing in this thread which is precisely why its so long.
Apparently the bird and especially meat failed to get the memo.

The latest gig is that they (swensson excepted) both think you can respond to a true / false question with "I dont know" and make me the subject of every response.

I'd ask you to help them but then I quoted Stanford University and you told me that was assinine, so I guess I will pass.

 

Koko, If you say that neo Atheism is a religion because of the formation of Atheist Church's. Would you say that regular Atheism, sans Church's, is not a religion?

 

Despite all the sophomoric posting, there is something mildly amusing about you taking on one of the great philosophers (and more) of the 20th century and calling him irrational.

As I've said before, you don't know how to do this, you're faking it.

But sometimes, it gets so bad it's funny.

Like now.

 

No amount of falsely turning the spotlight on to me will change the fact that you answered a true false question illogically.

 

HUH?
What are you talking about?
Flew??? Is not a great philosopher. He barely ranks as a student. lol

For lack of belief, atheists could exist without theists.
LoB does not negate of theism.
Theism is not required for someone to Lack belief.
However for someone who states God does not exist, (atheism) that is a negation of God exists.(theism)

 

What idiot doesn't realise that these atheist churches exist merely to troll theists? Personally, I wish they wouldn't do this, for less perspicacious theists use this trolling as evidence of atheism being a religion, which is of course, utter nonsense.

 

No, everyone has a religion, either secular or nonsecular.
While deity worship is the conventional 'usage' as their 'source' it is not a requirement or restriction for deity worship for a believe system to be classified as a religion.

All we are really talking about here is the 'source' of ones religion, not religion in and of itself.

What is religion.

Religion is best characterized as the non-empirical homologue of ideological beliefs, by contrast with science or philosophy the cognitive interest is no longer primary, but gives way to the evaluative interest.

Acceptance of a religious belief is then commitment to its implementation in action in a sense in which acceptance of a philosophical belief is not.

Or, to put it more accurately a philosophical belief becomes a religious belief insofar as it is made the basis of a commitment in action.

Religious ideas may be speculative in philosophical sense, but the attitude toward them is not speculative in the sense that well "I wonder if it would make sense to look at it this way?"

Religious ideas then may be conceived as answers to the 'problems of meaning' in both senses discussed above.

On the one hand they concern the cognitive definition of the situation for action as a whole, including the cathetic and evaluative levels of interest in the situation.

This they share with ideological beliefs.

On the other hand, however, they also must include the problems of 'meaning' in the larger philosophical sense of the meaning of the objects of empirical cognition, of nature, human nature, so the vicissitudes of human life etc from their point of view. durkhiem


In other words, your ideological value based nonempirical philosophies that you adopt 'in action'. ie beliefs that you put into practice compared to someone elses beliefs that they 'choose' to put into practice. Once put into action and held to strongly its morphs from philosophy to religion. See ligare.

 

I kinda know what you mean. The first twenty five years of my life, I had no traditional religion. So you could say that living life without religion is like religion. But it's not, really. Otherwise the way of the rabbit or the way of the largemouth bass is a religion, because it is a way of being. And that is to venture into some mystical view of things. As such, then your view of things isn't necessarily reflective of reality as much as it reflects your own mysticism. As a Christian convert, I view Atheism as the rejection of the concept of God. And there is a solid rationale involved in their position. Their rationale doesn't strike me as religious, but as a cognizance of the world in which they live, and an engagement with it for the cause of their own survival. Godspeak to them is like trying to mount wings on a frog, in that it is to them an absurdity which is incompatible with natural law and the life they are given.

 

Prove it. I say that is a nonsense, crackpot claim.

 

Yes. It's either to troll theists or it is a support group for those who are subjected to people abused and/or repressed by the religious. That's the only sensible meaning I could see for "Atheist" church (with emphasis on atheist), since atheists need have very little in common. Not enough for an actual church equivalent.

But also should be mentioned that some religions such as Buddhism and Taoism are often atheist, along with all the other things their members have in common. So while a Buddhist temple could be called an "atheist church" in one sense, it isn't based primarily on atheism.

 

Yeah, and I don't take them seriously. Only a fool would.

True, but they are still contemplative philosophies focusing upon spiritual development.

 

E.T.A: this should read, 'I don't take the title (church) all that seriously'.

 

what a cruel condescending thing to post

bit short sighted today eh?

why would you post such a crackpot remark?

I have no idea what you are talking about, was there a mystery point in there somewhere? My crystal ball is broken, and I lost my dick tracy decoder watch.

.

 

Rorty.

 

Well, I learned something here just now. If you put somebody on ignore, threads they started also disappear from the forum list, including all posts by everyone else, but you still get alerts when people post on those threads so you can still visit them and see the posts by the others.

I was a little confused seeing alerts of people posting in a thread I later could not find lol

 

If you wish to rejoin the thread and see what others are posting, click on your username on the banner at the top of the page, and then on the dropdown menu, go to 'your content' and click on your last post in the thread.

 

Ah yes. That does it. Thanks.

 

I like some of rorty, he has a few good ideas, but what do you suggest as an alternative?

 

Go to college.

 

Thats not the point.
you continue to push abandoning the standard 'theological speak' but appear to have no alternative to offer us.
I want to know what you or rorty suggest we use as a substitute?

 

How would you define God if theists didn't exist?

Why would anyone need to define atheist if theists didn't exist?

 

Teilhard de Chardin, prettiest writing in philosophy.

He was a Catholic, so no religion issues for you, it's a traditional philosophy, which means you don't need to take a bunch of classes to read it.

This was not an assignment, I heard good things about him, and read it for the heck of it. I liked it.

 

I don't think anybody believes Darth Vader exists. But we all know who he is. Same could go for a God. Nobody has to believe it exists in order to have people who believe it does not.

 

and here I thought you put me on iggy, now that is some seriously backwards + convoluted logic, who do you think is going to take neoatheists seriously after that one!

 

So he has a substitute then for 'theological speak'?
Thats what I am looking for.