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

Yes, there is. There is evidence for all of them. You simply don't take a liking to that evidence.

Argument From Ignorance Fallacy.

 

No, there is no evidence. Only bald assertions. They are rightfully summarily rejected, as no supporting evidence exists for the assertion.

 

Non Sequitur.

It is both a religion AND a theory. A theory is an explanatory argument. That's all a theory is. The initial circular argument of Christianity is also a theory, since it explains why we exist. It is an unfalsifiable theory, thus it is not a theory of science, but rather of religion. Theories relating to religion make use of supporting evidence, since that is what strengthens faith, while theories relating to science make use of conflicting evidence, since that is what falsifies theories.

Okay.

Attempted Force of a Negative Proof Fallacy.

You have not presented evidence; you have presented a theory.

Correct.

Attempted Force of a Negative Proof Fallacy.

No, they aren't. They are evidence that their respective faiths are correct, not that other faiths are wrong.

No, I don't. Just its mere existence is enough for it to be evidence of God.

They DO exist. There ARE multiple religions on this planet.

Correct. That IS evidence of Atheism.

Yes, I see that.

 

I explained why I have not created a paradox you ignored those arguments and simply stated the assertion again. Fallacy

I explained why you definitions are meaningless for the purpose of debate, you replied again with assertion and added ad hom for good measure.

I showed how that was fallacious reasoning and why it did not define those words due to your oversimplification and definition fallacies, you ignored everything I said and doubled down. I have provided definitions as have others and their are more sutible definitions widely understood. I am not doing so again.

You are talking english in a way that makes no coherent or relevant addition to the debate, that is gibberish

The only words I offered were Jesus Lives, it proves my point that a circular argument is not all that is required to make a religion, but you deflected away from that and added enough to uidentify a belief then called it a religion. Creating a paradox on the way which you then accused me of creating. I will not debate dishonest posters.

Good Day

 

Fallacy Fallacy. That is not a logical fallacy.

Buzzword Fallacy. You have not defined your newly created term, nor provided the reasoning for that definition.

 

Sense of humour fail fallacy.

 

2 Corinthians 5:7.

Maybe just that part.

show me that it's what a theory is

I'm sorry before I can address any of this you will have to show me that your claim of what a theory is, is correct

just like asking someone to prove God doesn't exist.

claims of fallacy to dodge arguments.

correct and incorrect are mutually exclusive. If Islam is correct Christianity cannot be.

how is mere existence evidence of God explain.

so which one is correct and why.

I'm sorry this statement doesn't make sense. I don't think anyone's arguing that atheists don't exist.

well I'm glad that you can see that your alternate reality is not reality.

 

Excuse not to counter an argument.

Pathetic.

 

Has he started saying fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy to you yet?

He does that when he doesn't have any way to counter an argument.

I think what this is, is that people are fighting for the legitimacy of their belief. Which I don't understand. If you believe something why does it matter if other people think it's legitimate, as long as it's not going to harm you in any significant way.

I hate to think that this is some sort of evangelism, because it's pathetic.

 

An argument is a set of statements.
A statement is a sentence that is either true or false.
Basic logic and linguistics that anyone can understand.
@Polydectes been good to talk to a reasonable theist hope to debate with you more.

 

An argument is (a) predicate(s) and a conclusion.

A statement is an assertion. It is a clear expression of thought put into words.

Sure is.

Glad you've bonded with him.

 

He is nothing but a troll, and not even a good one.

 

Well I'm not so sure of troll is correct I think a lot of people really want their religious views held on the same level as science.

 

Can we pause for a moment and define what it means when someone asserts “I am a Christian”. From my prespective any such claim covers a multitude of possibilities from Pete Buttigieg’s modern Episcopaleanism to the rampant fundamentalisms recently hatched in the US of A to the power politics of the Roman empire still operating from the Vatican under the delusion of being the one and only gateway to heaven.

 

Hm, this isnt’ the place to enter into a long philosophic diatribe but a statements can be made that are unable to be proven true of false.

 

I don't subscribe to lofty definition. To me in order to be a Christian it's simple. Believe Jesus is The Messiah or Christ.

 

Which version of Jesus? Which translation of scripture? The assumption the gospels ( in the many versions we have) paint an accurate picture of who Christ was and what he actually believed is just that, an assumption. And that’s even if many of us find the Jesus we meet in the Gospels a far more attractive, moral and sane entity than the deity portrayed in the Old Testament of an irrational, vengeful, and unpredictable .
Which takes us to the next puzzle. Why do any of today’s ‘Christians’ accept the muddled mess we find in the Old Testament?
2nd Thessalonians 2:11 ?

 

I am unfamiliar with versions. You'll have to list them and explain the distinction.

Um.... What? What difference does the translation of scripture make?

Well any belief in any god whatsoever is an assumption. So pulling at that particular thread will likely unwind the whole concept of a god.

I'd think that depends on the individual. I have no idea why some people believe what they believe.

 

Tribalism has many faces. Our species has a propensity for tribal belief systems that have done us well over our evolutionary history.
Then there’s the science of religious experience as researched by today’s neuro psychologists. I could give a long reading list but anyone interested need only google ’The neuropsychology of religious experience'

 

I'm still wondering what you mean by different versions of Jesus.

 

Was watching a video in which Jeff Hester touched on this, will be looking into it more. Any recommended books for someone just discovering it?

 

Polydectes wrote:
"Um.... What? What difference does the translation of scripture make?
For some the difference of being tortured and burnt at the stake or not.
Take a specific example, the translation or more to the point, mistranslation of the ancient Greek term ‘arsenokoitis’ as used in 1st Timothy 1:10.
Scholars of ancient Greek tell us this term had a meaning in the time of it’s daily usage of something like “Those who use personal relationships for material gain”. Some linguists go further and translate is as something like ‘pimp’. Theologians over the ages have run with the term translating is variously as ‘sodomite’,’homosexual’, ‘pervert’ etc. The bible is riddled with these kinds of distortion from the early church’s mistranslation of ‘poisoner’ into the feminine ‘witch’ with the consequence both suspected sodomites and witches were gleefully burnt for public education and entertainment at the stake. So, may I be so bold as to suggest differences in translation did have and still do have terrifying consequences.

 

yep atheists accept that they do not believe god exists.

yes its the common denominator to sevceral religious sects and cults, even the church of satan, another flavor of atheist religion to be proud of.

Doesnt matter if there is no logic to their logic, all that counts is that they can sell it to the public that way.

Of course it is.

gfm never made that argument that is your illegitimate strawman comparison.

then you argue your illegitimate strawman, case in point.

Yes they expect you to join them in being party to their cure all snake oil sales

As you can see that is too complicated for them.

Yep thats the way root isms work, everything grows from there

They ignored one equally as hilarious as that one from atheist central link that bear posted where they say atheism is a belief system that lacks belief.

Sure it is, like any other religion it is the core foundational principles of several different flavors of atheism practices/religions.

Thats why atheist central lost in court and get the same tax exemptions any other religion is entitled.

 

40 pages now and atheism continues to remain, by definition, not a religion. Just like not playing baseball isn’t a sport.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods.

 

Some would go futher and claim there’s no meaning in the negation of a meaningless concept.