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

Nothing in the definition, the real one not one you made up, states that it is religion. Your fevered desire to claim it is just re-enforces that you refuse to understand the written word. In other words, proves that you exist in an alternate reality.

 

Yes, aunicornism is a religion.

It is a religion because it is predicated upon an initial circular argument, and other arguments of aunicornism all stem from that initial circular argument.

 

Still waiting for you to provide a definition of neo-atheism, atheism and the difference between the two. I asked this of you several times in this thread and you either can't or won't provide the information, proving that you just made up the term as a method of derision. Or are afraid of providing further proof that you don't know what you are spewing about.

 

All of your arguments are a fallacy which you try to project onto others. Having nothing of worth to put forth must be hard on you, so you spew all the more.

 

In the same way that it is "possible" for an atheist to "pray" to the concept of God not existing and sacrificing a toenail every Sunday so that the godless universe answers his prayers. The point is that defining atheism as religion so broad that it would also include baseball. Yes, that is absurd. Pointing out the absurdity is the point.

You admitted yourself already that you can develop a worldview around any starting point. If you now see the absurdity in your definition, that was the intention.

What are you even talking about?

 

I'll try this one more time... If you would argue in the following manner, then your comparison would be correct...

[a non-sport] IS NOT [a sport].
[non-theism] IS NOT [theism].

However, you do not use the word theism in your comparison. You, instead, make use of the word religion, as if it were equivalent to theism. Your argument does not follow, as shown below...

[a non-sport] IS NOT [a sport].
[non-theism] IS NOT [religion].

The red text is where your reasoning is in error, and where your comparison fails, since you switch terminology (from "theism" to "religion"), attempting to equate the two terms.

Theism is the belief that god(s) exist.
Religion is an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it.

They are two completely different things. While theism IS indeed one of many religions, religion is NOT reducible to simply being theism...

 

By accepting it to be true (aka, "believing it"). In other words, living your life as if god(s) do not exist.

 

What definition of "religion" would you accept as true?

After providing it, please explain why it is better than my proposed philosophy and logic based definition of "an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it"...

 

Precisely correct. He is indeed begging the question. Another great example of what happens when one is a fundamentalist of their religion (numerous logical fallacies, paradoxes, etc. get committed).

 

Shown false

Show to be the complete opposite to what you claim

Again what you think you read, has no relation to what is written

Shown to be false.

I think we all agree you have.

Still no definition of what a neo atheist is, surprised they had a ship.

 

That doesn't take practice. It takes intelligence to not waste time on the imaginary.

 

So when you live your life as if all the other gods do not exist except Christianity you are a practising atheist, interesting point, who knew there were so many practising Atheists in the world?

 

Incorrect. I am, rather, a practicing Theist (specifically a Christian). I would have to reject the existence of god(s) in order to be a practicing atheist. Since I accept the existence of god(s), I am instead a practicing theist.

See above.

 

Do you live your life as if Zeus exists? No

Then according to your self you fulfil the criteria for being a practising Atheist. This would be the same as if you accept the very first quote of this thread,

Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief. Since many different gods have been objects of belief, one might be an atheist with respect to one god while believing in the existence of some other god.
Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, New York, 1998.

 

The definition of atheism precludes it from being a religion. I’m sorry you can’t deal with that reality, but that won’t make said reality go away.

 

You really need to take a basic course on logic. You seem to think throwing out logical fallacy terms, incorrectly, makes you look intelligent. It doesn’t.

 

That definition is even worse than the ones used by the OP.

 

More bad news, by using your definition, you have made Koko a practising Atheist, since he also lives his life as if gods do not exist.......................................................................I will let you tell him.

 

Correct, I do not.

Incorrect, as your conclusion does not follow from your premises. I can't simultaneously be a theist AND an atheist. I happen to be a practicing theist, since I believe in the Christian God. The gods which I reject are irrelevant, as the definition of theism applies whether I believe in one god, four gods, or any number of gods. Atheism would only apply if I rejected all gods (ie, I do not accept even a single god).

The bolded is correct, if one were to focus on one particular god or grouping of gods, but that does not make someone into an Atheist instead of a Theist.

 

Argument By Repetition Fallacy.
Argument of the Stone Fallacy.

As you continue to completely ignore my counter-argumentation and are instead taking the "broken record" approach, I think we're done here.

 

Numerous cases of the Inversion Fallacy dismissed on sight.

 

Argument of the Stone Fallacy. You have dismissed an argument as 'absurd' without providing any counter-argumentation.

Care to counter-argue as to why that is? Care to provide a "better" definition, and provide the reasoning behind that definition, as I have done for mine?

 

So you have now abandoned your statement

And changed it to By accepting it to be true (aka, "believing it"). In other words, living your life as if ALL god(s) do not exist.
I think you have worked yourself into a corner.

Oh wait, no you are going for special pleading as well, because of course you know more than the Routledge!

 

Again, incorrect.

Koko does not live his life as if god(s) do not exist. That would be going through the 'left' door. He is walking ever forward, going through neither the left nor the right door. He doesn't "have" any god, but he doesn't reject any god either. Atheists reject god(s). Koko is not doing that. By my definition, Koko is a practicing agnostic, NOT a practicing atheist.