Necessity is not sufficiency. — Pfhorrest

I agree.

That is why the religious are labelled hypocrites so often.

Regards
DL

Abdicating their responsibility for their sins and riding into heaven on their Jesus scapegoat is what Christianity is all about. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Apologies, but you appear to have no understanding of what Christianity is all about, and no, I'm not going to teach you. Good luck with the holy jihad!

Apologies, but you appear to have no understanding of what Christianity is all about, and no, I'm not going to teach you. Good luck with the holy jihad! — Nuke

Take Jesus as your scapegoat out of Christianity and what is left?

Nothing but a genocidal prick of a god.

Thanks for acknowledging that my inquisitor ways are working.

I stick to arguments and not the murders, that your religion seems to prefer.

Strange though that you invoked jihad instead of inquisitions, which is the Christian forte.

Some would see that as deflection or hypocrisy.

I just call it the usual poor Christian apologetics.

Regards
DL

I'm not Christian by the way.

Atheism is the lack of a (religious) ideology It's there in the name. A (not) theism (religion). You qualify as an atheist simply by not believing in a god or gods. — Baden

Given the fact that most atheists (I have encountered) tend to be of the proselytizing variety, perhaps "rejection of religious ideology" would be more accurate?

I think you missed the point. You said all religions follow an ideology, and concluded that any ideology is a religion. The first says that ideology is necessary for religion. The second says it is sufficient. But necessity is not sufficiency.

You can have an ideology without being religious, even though you can’t be religious without an ideology.

atheism is simply a refusal to believe in God — Vaibhav Narula

Atheism is the belief that human reason is qualified to deliver useful statements on issues the scale of the God question. Atheism feels like "simply a refusal to believe in God" to most atheists because their faith in the infinite reach of human reason is so deep, and so unexamined, that they take such a qualification to be an obvious given requiring no inspection.

Few atheists seem to grasp that atheism is just as much a positive assertion as theism, with just as little proof to back it up.

That said, the belief that posting the above will accomplish anything at all is just as lacking in evidence as theism and atheism, so we are united as brothers in self delusion.

Atheism is the belief that human reason is qualified to deliver useful statements on issues the scale of the God question. — Nuke

No its not. A specific atheist might have that belief but thats him, not atheism. Neither is atheism a “refusal” to believe in god, its simply the lack of a belief in god. Atheism isnt even specific about WHY the person doesnt believe in god.
An easy way to think about it is if the answer to the question “is there a god?” Is anything other than “yes”, then you are some kind of atheist.

Atheism feels like "simply a refusal to believe in God" to most atheists because their faith in the infinite reach of human reason is so deep, and so unexamined, that they take such a qualification to be an obvious given requiring no inspection. — Nuke

This is just a broad and inaccurate generalisation. First, there is no “faith” in reason, not in the same sense that religious people have faith in god. The distinction is “faith” in the sense of confidence and “Faith” as a reason for believing in god (which of course its not). You are mixing those two uses up.
Second, its rich that blind adherence to dogma somehow qualifies as examined but noticing the lack of evidence and very clear contradictions and magical thinking of religious thought is somehow “unexamined”. Just the act of questioning religion or the existence of god thats being fed to you by trusted parents or authority figures is substantial “inspection”.

Few atheists seem to grasp that atheism is just as much a positive assertion as theism, with just as little proof to back it up. — Nuke

No its not, Believers are the ones making making a positive assertion, and atheists the ones unconvinced by the positive assertion believers make. Because they are unconvinced of the claim, yes an atheist might say they do not believe there is a god but that does not mean they are making a positive claim.

That said, the belief that posting the above will accomplish anything at all is just as lacking in evidence as theism and atheism, so we are united as brothers in self delusion. — Nuke

Again, not true. There are many former believers who have been convinced by argument or discussion and are now atheists. There is plenty of evidential first hand accounts of the journey from believer to non-believer that directly contradicts your views here on every level. Likewise, many atheists have been converted to or back to religion and plenty of evidence there too.
The only way its a waste is if either or both participants in the discussion aren’t open to changing their minds and are being disingenuous.

Atheism is the belief that human reason is qualified to deliver useful statements on issues the scale of the God question. — Nuke

No it is not. There are theists who also believe reason is capable make informative statements about God. That does not make them atheists. Second Buddhists for instance believe that reason oversteps its boundaries in attempting to deliver answers about the ultimate cause of the world and hence needs a corrective. They do not cease to be atheists because of that. Third, people differ in their views of what 'human reason' is and so if you choose to specify what you mean by 'reason' you would be unnecessarily forcing a uniformity of views. Finally if one definition is sufficient to distinguish a particular view from others then you do not require an addition.

There are theists who also believe reason is capable make informative statements about God. That does not make them atheists. — Vaibhav Narula

I agree. But the assumption that reason is qualified is not a requirement in theism, as one can become theist by other means. That assumption is however required in atheism. I've been doing this for 20 years, and have yet to meet an atheist who arrived at their perspective by any other method.

A specific atheist might have that belief but thats him — DingoJones

Could you please introduce us to the atheist who does not believe that reason is qualified to generate useful statements on the subject?

Neither is atheism a “refusal” to believe in god, its simply the lack of a belief in god. — DingoJones

Here's how it works. Not understanding their own perspective, most atheists will sincerely claim it is "merely a lack of belief". And then dictionary writers who probably aren't that interested in the topic and are racing against a deadline will accept this claim and put it in the dictionary. And then the atheists will hold up the dictionary as proof saying, "See? We told you. It's right in the dictionary!"

First, there is no “faith” in reason, not in the same sense that religious people have faith in god. — DingoJones

Ah, good, so you will then be able to provide proof that reason is qualified.

o its not, Believers are the ones making making a positive assertion, and atheists the ones unconvinced by the positive assertion believers make. — DingoJones

Believers are making a positive assertion that they know they are making, and atheists are (typically) making a positive assertion that they don't know they are making.

Please recall, theism is thousands of years old, whereas atheism is maybe 500 years old, or something like that. It's grandpa talking to a teenager.

There are many former believers who have been convinced by argument or discussion and are now atheists. — DingoJones

Ok, fair point. I will reframe my claim that this is a highly inefficient process which typically, but not always, goes pretty much nowhere.

That assumption is however required in atheism. I've been doing this for 20 years, and have yet to meet an atheist who arrived at their perspective by any other method. — Nuke

The method of thinking about the question, possibly looking for evidence, and then coming to the best conclusion they can? What other method would you think better?

Could you please introduce us to the atheist who does not believe that reason is qualified to generate useful statements on the subject? — Nuke

Non-sequitor. This doesn't address you mixing up uses of the word “faith”.

Here's how it works. Not understanding their own perspective, most atheists will sincerely claim it is "merely a lack of belief". And then dictionary writers who probably aren't that interested in the topic and are racing against a deadline will accept this claim and put it in the dictionary. And then the atheists will hold up the dictionary as proof saying, "See? We told you. It's right in the dictionary!" — Nuke

Thats ridiculous conjecture and completely baseless. Not only unable to show atheists do not understand their own perspective, the notion that they do not is absurd. They just have to answer something other than “yes” to the question “do you believe in god”. Thats it. Anyone can understand that, unless of course they have a vested interest in not understanding it such as oh lets say in defence of religion for example.
You have a good sense of humour though, your phrasing made me laugh. I pictured this uppity atheist badgering these busy 50’s newsroom style Dictionary writers and one just gets fed up and snatches the paper to change the definition so the atheist will shut up

Ah, good, so you will then be able to provide proof that reason is qualified. — Nuke

Non-sequitor. This doesnt address what you quoted.

Believers are making a positive assertion that they know they are making, and atheists are (typically) making a positive assertion that they don't know they are making.

Please recall, theism is thousands of years old, whereas atheism is maybe 500 years old, or something like that. It's grandpa talking to a teenager. — Nuke

Lol, really? We’ve just been getting dumber and dumber since the good old biblical days huh?
Please, tell me all about what ignorant savages who believe in magic can teach us intellectual teenagers.
And just because you call it a positive assertion doesnt make it so. I precisely pointed it out to you already. Bolded so you wont miss it this time.

“Because they are unconvinced of the claim, yes an atheist might say they do not believe there is a god but that does not mean they are making a positive claim.“

Ok, fair point. I will reframe my claim that this is a highly inefficient process which typically, but not always, goes pretty much nowhere. — Nuke

Ok. Why do you think that is?

Perhaps you are right in all of your opinions but it doesn't benefit me to argue with you. — christian2017

I do not blame you for wanting to ignore me more. I am hard on the immoral.

Strange that you would willingly choose to be wrong though.

Do you have reason and logic that tells you why you prefer that position?

Please share.

Oops.

I'm not Christian by the way. — Nuke

And you profess to know more than a Gnostic Christian about Christianity. How droll.

Regards
DL

You can have an ideology without being religious, — Pfhorrest

Give an example of someone with an ideology that cannot does not fit into an ism.

Regards
DL

An “ism” isn’t the same thing as a religion. That’s the point.

An “ism” isn’t the same thing as a religion. That’s the point. — Pfhorrest

You want the win without naming something to look at. Ok.

You win this argument on whatever group you had in mind.

Strange though. I post to lose arguments and thus learn something new, but you did not provide anything new.

Telling you that religio is/was mostly a secular tern and experts cannot agree on the definition of religion would not make any difference.

Regards
DL

Abdicating their responsibility for their sins and riding into heaven on their Jesus scapegoat is what Christianity is all about.

Strange how so called good Christian people follow such a vile and immoral ideology. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

As Nietzsche has already said:

The word 'Christianity' is already a misunderstanding - in reality there has been only one Christian, and he died on the Cross.

And you profess to know more than a Gnostic Christian about Christianity. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

It's not just you. The understanding of Christianity on philosophy forums tends to be pretty primitive. Almost all the focus goes to ideological assertions, while crucial topics like the experience of love are almost entirely ignored.

The method of thinking about the question, possibly looking for evidence, and then coming to the best conclusion they can? What other method would you think better? — Pfhorrest

I agree with the thinking and looking for evidence. And so when it comes to the largest of questions we might ask, where is the evidence that any theist or atheist has ever proven anything? Lacking such evidence the conclusion we might come to is that we are united in ignorance on such questions. I see a few roads which present themselves from there.

1) We can retreat in to denial and pretend we have proven something.

2) We may conclude that if we're ignorant and can't do anything about that, let's just forget the whole subject and direct our attention elsewhere.

3) We may conclude that finding this ignorance is itself an answer of sorts, and then ask, what can we do with what we have discovered?

It's interesting to me that theists and atheists, who are so often posed as enemies, share near universal agreement on some issues fundamental to the inquiry. First, they almost always agree that a God can only exist, or not, one or the other. Second, they almost always agree the point of the inquiry should be to develop knowledge.

When any investigation goes endlessly round and round to nowhere for 500 years it seems worthwhile to begin to question the assumptions that investigation is built upon. This seems a challenge suitable for philosophers.

An “ism” isn’t the same thing as a religion. That’s the point. — Pfhorrest

Agreed.

yes an atheist might say they do not believe there is a god but that does not mean they are making a positive claim.“ — DingoJones

They are making a positive claim, without knowing that they are making a positive claim.

But I know you'll never get that no matter how many times it is explained so rather type ourselves in to a pointless fury why don't I just respectfully accept that you are entitled to any view on the subject which works for you and it's not my place to stick my nose in to it.

You havent provided any explanation that hasnt been refuted. Just because you ignore arguments does mean they havent been made.
So what you really mean is no matter how many times you repeat the same assertion I will not be convinced by it, and you are right. You have to do better than that.
Implying that Im too dogmatic or narrow-minded to understand what you are saying is just your way of avoiding arguments/questions you don’t have answers for.
Im an open minded person, but not so open my brain falls out. You have to have an an actual explanation, not just a bare assertion and you have to address counter-arguments instead of just pivoting and deflecting.
There is no fury happening with me, im not angry at all. If my last post came across as terse I apologise. I thought you were having some fun in your last post so I was reciprocating.

What I meant to say Dingo is that you have utterly defeated me with your razor sharp intellect and I am too embarrassed to continue.

The word 'Christianity' is already a misunderstanding - in reality there has been only one Christian, and he died on the Cross. — Gus Lamarch

That does not explain the fact that Christians are following an obviously immoral religion.

They know it and that is why they run from any moral discussions.

They are moral cowards and do not want to learn how to be brave.

Regards
DL

in reality there has been only one Christian, and he died on the Cross. — Gus Lamarch

Except Jesus was a Jew, and he probably died because the Romans thought he was agitating revolution. Jesus likely believed God anointed him the messiah to help usher in the Kingdom of God and restore Israel, free of Roman rule.

That or Peter, James and Paul had visions of an angel they called Jesus who they thought was crucified by the devil in the firmament, and the next generation turned that into a historical narrative.

It's not just you. The understanding of Christianity on philosophy forums tends to be pretty primitive. Almost all the focus goes to ideological assertions, while crucial topics like the experience of love are almost entirely ignored. — Nuke

Of course it is primitive. It was born as a pagan religion.

The rest of the world knows that to adore a genocidal god is immoral. Christians and Muslims have yet to progress away from their immoral thinking.

They ignore love, because they have a god of hate.

Regards
DL

and the next generation turned that into a historical narrative. — Marchesk

Which helped usher in 1,000 years of Dark Ages.

Thanks Christianity. Not.

Regards
DL