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

No, you have told them that they have no proof when in fact it is you lacking proof. Semantics are not the way to debate, but you try anyway.

 

So you admit that you do not know the meaning of wards, just continue to spew what decide to be in your favor. A true Compositional Error Fallacy. It is what we have come to expect from one such as you.

 

Actually, that is exactly what you do but you lack the honesty to admit it.

 

The simplest way to argue this with Christians is to point out if the shroud is real the bible is wrong, which do you think?

 

LOL I had not proven that there is not a tooth fairy either by your logic.

But there is no tooth fairy or a three in one god for that matter.

Wish people would grow up to at least to the point I was at in 1959.

By the way it is the job of someone making a claim to prove it, such as the existence of the tooth fairy not the people who tend not be believers in fantasy to try to do the impossible an prove a negative that there is not a tooth fairy.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence
Claiming that it is impossible to prove a negative is a pseudologic, because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in ...
Overview · ‎Proof and evidence · ‎Proving a negative

No concept of God is agnostic, not atheist. Please stop trying to hijack the meaning of agnostic.

Dictionaries are mainly for a record of usage

Well you agree with the fact no G/gods are required to have a religion so that one is on the bottom of my list.
I really nbeed to know however where or what lead you to believe you need a quorum to be classified as a religion?

remember they are all in denial when their rules apply to them

Atheism is not one belief. You may have reduced it to its core that in no way means it is a singular belief, there are countless beliefs that are integrated and inseparable from the core. Religion takes that into account, as if it did not you could claim Christianity is not a religion.
Marxism is the core belief, that has volumes of associated beliefs.

tilt game over! they cant see that it so buried under their dogma.

bingo!

Yes it black and white, same difference as water and dirt, completely different.

They can but then you get mud.
Establishing clear distinctions reduces the gray and in fact produces color, as an agnostic my life is colorful since I understand and comprehend the distinctions rather than blending together which only results in mud.

at the point of asking for evidence it does not, when you conclude that gods do not exist without proving your point then you do become an affirmative party.

It most certainly 'can' be and is with regard to gfm's definition of usage.

Glad you enjoy yours as much as the rest of us enjoy ours.

There is no default position, that is a fantasy, presumption of innocence is a construct of due process to avoid corruption and has no efficacy here.

 

agnostic
/aɡˈnɒstɪk/
noun

1. 1.
   a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

Stop trying to redefine words to make your argument easier, no concept of god is the very definition of a genuine atheist, however inconvenient for those who wish to tell others what they think.
Definitional fallacies are logical fallacies that occur when some definition fails to properly explain some term.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Definitional_fallacies

 

This pretty much apes the debate here.

 

stop with the FALSE accusations that Koko is redefining a word because everyone knows its you and your brethern, the first one that comes up:

ag·nos·tic
/aɡˈnästik/
noun
noun: agnostic; plural noun: agnostics

1. 1.
   a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
   
   https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=definition+of+agnostic
   
   

That all atheists have to defend their claims it seems is word games and chicanery.

You are the one definition committing definition fallacy with your incorrect interpretations.

The default condition is agnostic: neither belief nor disbelief in a God
atheists disbelieve
theists believe

so simple if you are not in denial.
This has been explained to you countless times.
You use the dictionary to support your theory but dismiss it out of hand when your theory gets blasted by the dictionary.

 

As you did with Smart you double down, claiming that something means what it does not, remember this is about whether a tribe with no concept of god can be called Atheist, stop trying to deflect away from the subject back to your precious semantics.

Either you live in a world where you believe everything until it is proven not so or you live in a world where you do not believe ie, make a positive assertion (especially extraordinary claims) until you have sufficient evidence. It is that simple.

Word games will not hide that we all live in one world or the other. I have made it clear which world I live in.

 

Not what a fact is.

A fact is not a universal truth, nor is it a proof.

Facts are shorthand predicate. They are useful for speeding up conversations. That's all facts are.

 

You asked me if what I said was a belief no it's not.

 

For myself I live in a world and a Universe for that matter that is very strange and getting stranger the more we get into such fields as quantum mechanics.

But no added knowledge had, at least to this point, had made the fantasies of a universe full of supernatural gods and other such beings any more likely to be true then in the era of Thomas Paine writing of his book "The age of Reason".

So no you do not need with our current knowledge any irrational and or religion beliefs systems to reject on it face the stories make up over the last few thousands years of gods and demons.

footnote I did however enjoy finding quarters under my pillow that was suppose to had been place there by the tooth fairy.

 

Logic itself supports that assertion of mine. Logic is what defines what an argument is, as well as what a circular argument is.

What do you consider to be "support"? (since you are rejecting logic as that support)

Not my invention... "circular argument" is defined by logic. I have provided that definition and explained how atheism is a circular argument.

 

Or, in other words, you are rejecting logic rather than accepting it. That's your choice.

I believe that there are many religions, and that's just the ones that I am aware of.

Yup, that's how religion works. You have faith in the existence of an invisible horse named Charlie. Yes, my rejection of Charlie's existence would indeed make me an acharliest.

There IS a rational basis for the belief in Charlie, though. It is a faith basis. It is belief based on circular reasoning. That basis is the same logical basis for belief in any religion, including but not limited to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Atheism, Buddhism, Shinto, the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of the Big Bang, the Theory of Abiogenesis, Global Warming, and even acharlieism.

Okay, so you don't accept as a truth that I accept as a truth that acharlieism is a religion. That's your choice, but I'm telling you that I believe that acharlieism is indeed a religion. I have showed you how logic defines the word "circular argument", and showed how [insert religion here] makes use of such argumentation. But, since you reject logic, rejecting my argumentation here isn't an issue for you.

Actually, you are the one choosing to reject logic. I have shown why.

Yes, it does. I have shown why.

Here, you are committing the false equivalence fallacy. You are attempting to equate 'science' with 'religion'.

Correct. If I were to do that, I would be committing the Attempted Force of a Negative Proof Fallacy.

Your example failed because it committed the False Equivalence Fallacy. You attempted to equate two completely different things (science with religion). Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Religion is an initial circular argument with additional arguments stemming from it.

 

Yes, I have told them that they have no proof. I have ALSO told them that I have no proof. It goes both ways. Are you even reading my posts?

 

I never admitted any such thing.

I'm "spewing" logic. I am telling you how logic defines these words.

Fallacy Fallacy. That is not what a compositional error fallacy is. I have described it to you in the prior comment which I doubt you read through, since you had no counterargument.

Okay.

 

Correct. You haven't.

It is not "my" logic. I did not come up with the foundational axioms of logic.

That's your faith, since you have no proof. Other people place their faith elsewhere, since they also have no proof.

??? Non-sequitur...

Koko responded to this part, so I won't bother answering something which I have answered numerous times already.

 

Sorry no one have any obligation to believe in complete nonsense on it face such as the tooth fairy or the Christian god or the rome gods nor does any such disbelieve have anything to do with religion but on the other hand if someone wish to promote complete nonsense on it face then it is his or her job to bring evidence forward not the disbelievers.

 

Precisely! As a Christian, my life was once "muddy" since I did not understand the distinctions that I have since come to understand.

I will say that, in my personal experience, agnostics generally have the best understanding of what religion is and how it works, even better than many fellow Christians of mine, let alone many atheists. This is because religious fundamentalism (ie, attempting to prove one's religion) blinds these people from seeing and understanding the logical blueprint behind their chosen religions. Christians and Atheists alike do not realize that "the other side" is basing their belief on the same exact logical blueprint that they themselves are basing their own belief on. That logical blueprint is "faith" (ie, circular reasoning).

 

How so? There is no conflict in the Biblical account and the evidence (which we should point out.. indicates proof a supernatural event) I believe God has given many nonbelievers another chance.. will they take it? (they never have.. look at the people of the Exodus.. witnessed first hand the supernatural event of God and later could completely blow it off)

 

I presented evidence of a supernatural event.. will you do what most atheist do and refuse to consider that evidence?

 

False Dichotomy Fallacy. It is not limited to those two options.

One could also live in a world where they choose to believe in currently standing theories of science, since theories of science have moved beyond being simple circular arguments due to continually surviving null hypothesis testing (ie, are falsifiable and haven't been falsified as of yet), and then choose to accept, reject, or say "idk" to theories of religion (unfalsifiable theories which cannot move beyond being simple circular arguments). That's the world that I live in.

Your reasoning here fails because you have committed the False Dichotomy Fallacy. See above for my explanation as to why your reasoning is in error.

 

Define "belief" as you are using the term...

 

Only reading them in amazement that you think they are valid.

And yes, you admit that you have no proof yet keep insisting that only you are correct in your fantasy.