Why do NeoAtheists deny the practice of atheism is a religion?<<MOD WARNING>>

No. It’s the definition of atheism.

 

It’s the definition, as I showed

 

No, I don't insist that at all, actually.

 

It's a very poor one, as it is self-refuting, as I have shown and you have ignored.

"The belief that god(s) do not exist" is a much better definition for Atheism.

 

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.
https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-science/
Philosophy is opinion, nothing more.

 

It's a very poor definition, as it is self-refuting.

It also seems to me like you are appealing to a random dictionary as the final arbiter of a word definition. That is known as the "appeal to false authority" fallacy.

 

Deleted holy link definition and holy link. Appeal to False Authority Fallacy. I expect my interlocutors to form their own arguments instead of copy/pasting other people's arguments, as I consider pure copy/pasting to be intellectual laziness...

WRONG. It is not a synonym for opinion.

Philosophy is the study of how and why we reason.

 

It is of course not self refuting. Definitions can’t be self refuting, lol. What a moronic thing to say.

But that isn’t the definition. The lack of belief is the definition.

 

Logic isn’t your thing apparently. There is no fallacy in citing the definition of a word, in order to define said word.

 

The Piraha people had no concept of god, but apparently would not be Atheists according to some definitions since they did not believe gods did not exist having no concept of them. Most humorous!

 

Correct, but there is a fallacy in the way that you attempted to do it, however. You seem to be appealing to a random dictionary as if it is the final arbiter of a word definition. Dictionaries do not own, nor do they preside over, any word definition. Dictionaries are instead used to standardize spelling and pronunciation of words. They do offer common usage definitions of words as determined by the people who compiled those words, but common usage does not necessarily mean "correct" or "most sound"...

 

OK, this defies every reasonable application of logic. There is no way not believing in things unproven to exist could rationally be considered a religion. We will have to agree to disagree. Have a nice afternoon.

 

Philosophy is the opinion of how we reason and why, it is entirely subjective in this context. People really need to understand the limits of philosophy.

 

Yes they can, actually.

And that is self refuting... According to that definition, to claim "I am an atheist" is to claim "I lack belief in the existence of god(s)".

My response to that assertion is to ask you "is that your belief"? If you say yes, then you have refuted yourself, since you just admitted that you DO have belief that god(s) don't exist. If you instead say no, then you are simultaneously rejecting the very definition of atheism which you are asserting, which leads you into a paradox.

 

How so? It follows the axiom that a conclusion must follow from its predicates... It also follows from how logic has defined "circular reasoning"... So, I'm not sure how logic is supposedly being defied, since it is actually being followed...

Remember that while unicorns have not been proven to exist, their non-existence has ALSO not been proven. Thus, it is a religious belief to believe either way...

 

You are more patient than I, gfm7175. Oddly enough I see what they see from the other side .. total idiocy.
Do have a bit of logic for them.. Pascual Wager I believe it's called.. goes like this "If I am wrong and there is no God, then nothing will happen; If you are wrong and there is a God, then you will suffer"

 

If you are wrong Shriva gonna bite your ass big time. Think it through, please!

 

I'll take my chances.. nah.. I had faith before this shroud thing became a thing.
Oh.. and it's Shiva, and no, I'll not have my ass bit, I am protected by my Lord from minor gods and demons.

You can't explain this documentary, but it makes no difference, you will not watch or consider anything that would shake your faith and beliefs to the ground

 

I know it's a fact.

 

Haha I've had many people tell me that. I'm simply here to educate, even if I'm not successful in educating the poster who I am responding to.

The problem I find with Pascal's Wager is that it overlooks how maybe nothing at all will happen to someone if they choose to not "take action" and believe in God now.

Think of it by replacing one religion with another, such as replacing Christianity with Global Warming. These global warming zombies use Pascal's Wager to argue that one ought to "take action against global warming now" or else [insert catastrophic event here] will occur as a result. The problem is, maybe absolutely nothing catastrophic will result from "doing nothing" (and this is what currently standing laws of science actually support). So, that's why I don't agree with the reasoning behind Pascal's Wager.

 

This is shorter... check out around 8:18 which talks about the 3D info embedded in the clothe.

 

Agreed, and I don't think Pascul's wager would bring a person to the Lord only start them down the road to explore the possibilities of "God".

 

There's zero support for your idea that atheism in and of itself is a circular argument. That's a complete invention on your part and doesn't hold water.

 

Again, agree to disagree.

But you must believe there are tens of millions of religions. I just invented a new one this second! I believe in an invisible horse named Charlie. I can’t see him, he doesn’t eat, doesn’t poop (quite a relief actually) and I have no evidence of any kind to prove his existence. But he is very real. Now if you deny him, making you an acharliest, the list grows to 10,000,001.

OR

There can be no rational basis for discourse when people can just make **** up like I just did for Charlie and pretend his existence is validated by your denial of it. And I don’t believe that YOU believe for a minute that denying his existence constitutes a religion. That is me giving you credit as a rational, sentient being.

Nothing in any epistemological system works that way. You want me to believe three hydrogens and one oxygen make water, the burden of proof is on you to substantiate your conclusion with evidence. You can’t just turn to me and say “well prove it DOESN’T!!”

Oh, and then call my religion atrihydrogenism!

 

Nice try, but your lack of understanding says far more than you do.