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

Are you saying that Koko lives his life as if gods exist?
Let us remember what you wrote,
By accepting it to be true (aka, "believing it"). In other words, living your life as if god(s) do not exist.
Does Koko live his life as if gods exit or not?

 

Yes, we know logic isn’t your thing.

Your counter argument is directly refuted by the definition of atheism. I’m sorry that your ideology and blind faith forces you to detach yourself from reality when faced with the facts. But that won’t make them go away.

 

Right. Had you taken a course on logic, you wouldn’t keep throwing out terms you don’t know the meaning of and use incorrectly.

 

Not at all. In post #1001, it was asked "how do you practice atheism"?

In post #1033, I answered "By accepting it to be true (aka, "believing it"). In other words, living your life as if god(s) do not exist.

In post #1038, you attempted to make me into a practicing atheist since I only accept the existence of the Christian God (and do hold an atheistic position towards other gods). That attempt failed because holding an atheistic position towards other gods besides the one that I believe in does not make me into an atheist in any way (ie, I remain a theist, since I believe that god(s) do exist). You aren't being consistent with your term definitions and have argued yourself into paradoxes about the definitions of these terms...

That's precisely what I said originally, if you look at post #1033... While I didn't type out the word "all", 'all' was implied in the context because the whole reason of saying "god(s)" is because there might only be one god, or there might be several gods (ie, it wouldn't make sense to say "gods" if only one god exists and vice versa), so I included both ways of saying it.

???

 

And into deflecting, your definition does not stand logic. You have argued yourself into paradoxes.

That is is precisely what you said in the beginning except it is not!

The reason you have got yourself in such a mess is because "By accepting it to be true (aka"believing it") is not actually what "living your life as if gods do not exist" means. Atheists live their life as if gods do not exist because they lack the belief "aka have no belief that it is true or false". Exactly what most Atheists have been telling you.

Now deflect away.

 

No, I am not. I made that quite clear in my post #1050 which you are responding to here.

Okay.

False Dichotomy Fallacy. I explain this in post #1050, of which you are responding to here.

There are actually THREE options.

[1] Walk through the left door.
[2] Walk through the right door.
[3] Walk forward (through neither door).

Atheists are #1. They believe that god(s) do not exist [ie, there are no gods in existence]... Theists are #2... They believe that god(s) DO exist [ie, at least one god, if not several gods do exist]. Agnostics are #3... They do not accept nor reject either claim. They don't make a decision. They hold no existence belief regarding god(s). They are the ones who are leaving either option available.

THAT is how Koko is living his life. THAT is what Koko is practicing... Agnosticism.

 

I do hope both gfm and Koko remember to answer this one because it is the question they have been dodging for most of the thread they are welcome to use unicorns instead.

Do koko and Gfm live there lives as if unicorns do not exist? Which according to GFM means accepting it to be true(aka, "believing it")

 

Wrong
1.Koko either lives his life as if gods exist
or
2.Koko lives his life as if gods do not exist

Stop trying to muddy the waters with walking through doors, remember you were the one that made the statement.

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

 

Calling something absurd is not a "fallacy." Your definition leads to absurd conclusions. Reductio ad absurdum is a foundation of logic, not a fallacy. If your definition were true, everyone would have a near infinite number of religions. There would be no reason to call yourself a "Christian" because your religion is "I don't worship Thor" as much as it is "Christianity."

 

Inversion Fallacy.

What I said is crystal clear, and has remained consistent.

There is no mess.

Yes, it is.

And by asserting that, you have expressed a belief that atheists hold, thus refuting your assertion that atheists lack belief.

Atheists believe that the assertion "god(s) do not exist" is a true assertion. To "have no belief that it is true or false" would put oneself into the agnostic category... They would be walking forward (through neither door).

And they've been dead wrong.

Okay.

 

Not going through the "right door" is the same thing as living life as if gods don't exist. You don't need to "reject" anything to simply not follow it. Koko is NOT a practicing theist.

 

Are you just using some kind of random generator to label things fallacies? The inversion fallacy is denying the antecedent. If A, then B. Not A, therefore not B. That has nothing to do with what you quoted.

 

Also, you are misusing the term "counterargument." In logic, a counterargument is when you use the same logic as someone else in order to show it leads to an absurd conclusion (aka reducio ad absurdum) . . . which you mislabelled as a fallacy. In the meantime, you just concluded with an argument from ignorance, which is an actual fallacy.

 

Stop with the fallacies, stop with the deflection and stop with all this walking through doors crap.

You made a statement.

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

Does Koko live his life as if gods exist or not?

 

Only by you and your misunderstanding of what "inversion fallacy" actually is. I have noticed that facts tend to get in your way so you deny them.

 

Correct IF you provide counter-argumentation... However, calling something absurd without providing any counter-argumentation IS a fallacy.

No, it doesn't.

Correct.

I wouldn't say "near infinite", but yes, everyone does have a lot of religions which they adhere to. There are two types of theories ("explanatory arguments"). One type is falsifiable, the other type is unfalsifiable. Falsifiable theories are within the realm of science, while unfalsifiable theories are within the realm of religion. Any unfalsifiable theory is the basis of a religion, since that theory does not have the ability to move beyond being an initial circular argument.

Incorrect. If I accept the initial circular argument that "Jesus Christ exists and is who he says he is", then I am a Christian, by definition.

Correct. That is a separate religion of mine. (That Thor does not exist).

Yes, they are both religious views which I hold. The existence of neither Thor nor Jesus Christ can be proven true/false, since they are not falsifiable theories. They remain circular arguments.

 

Incorrect. "Not going through the right door" still leaves you with two options: To either go through the left door, or to keep walking straight ahead.

Living life as if god(s) don't exist is what one does when they walk through the left door [ie, an atheist]. That is practicing atheism.

Walking straight ahead is a completely different animal of its own. It is NEITHER living life as if god(s) exist NOR is it living life as if god(s) do not exist. It is just saying "idk yet" while continuing onward... An agnostic doesn't go through either door.

That's PRECISELY the point that I am asserting to you and the others... Agnostics do not accept NOR reject god(s). They just say "idk" and keep walking straight forward...

Walking through the left door is accepting the "does not exist" claim and rejecting the "exists" claim. Vice versa for walking through the right door. Walking straight ahead does not accept nor reject those claims.

Correct. I've said that multiple times now.

 

Strange you have changed your statement, perhaps because you realise how you have backed yourself into a corner and do not want to answer the question your original statement begs.

By accepting it to be true (aka, "believing it"). In other words, living your life as if god(s) do not exist.
Does Koko live his life as if gods exit or not?

 

No. I am using proofs of logic to label things fallacies.

No, it is not, despite what you might read on random websites.

Yup, that is Denying the Antecedent.

Correct. I noted an Inversion Fallacy. An Inversion Fallacy is a type of contextomy fallacy also (more commonly?) known as 'projection'. It is an inversion of context from its original source onto another source, hence the word 'inversion'...

 

Yes. And either option is living as if you didn't go through the right door, living as if God doesn't exist.

Anything short of going through "God exists" door is living as if God doesn't exist, whether it is active and "practicing" or passive and "non-practicing."

Which is still living as if God doesn't exist. I live as if an asteroid isn't going to hit earth in the next 5 years. I don't actively reject the notion, I just walk the middle path and have no opinion about it. That's still living as if it isn't true. I'm not building a bunker or in any other way living as if it is true.

Yes. Which is still living as if God doesn't exist.

I'm aware of the analogy. You don't have to assert that God doesn't exist or actively reject his existence in any way in order to live as if God doesn't exist. Someone who has never even heard of God or considered whether or not God exists, who is even completely unaware of the question is still living as if God doesn't exist.

You are falsely conflating two different things.

If he is NOT a practicing theist, then he's not living as if God exists.

 

No, you aren't. You are randomly applying labels that make no sense. I've tutored formal logic for over a decade.

 

No, I am not.

That is reducio ad absurdum. While that is ONE form of counterargument, that is not (as a whole) what counterarguing is. A counterargument is simply developing an argument that opposes someone else's developed argument.

Incorrect. You are simply confusing 'reducio ad absurdum' with 'argument of the stone'... In other words, you are confusing "showing, through use of counter-argumentation, that someone's argument is absurd" with "claiming, without any counter-argumentation, that someone's argument is absurd".

Asking you to form an argument of your own is not an "argument from ignorance". I am not claiming that I am right because you cannot prove that I am wrong. I am simply asking you to form an argument of your own... I am asking you to "change my mind", as Steven Crowder would say...

 

No, it really, really isn't.

Plenty of unfalsifiable things have nothing to do with religion. You are making up a definition to try to reach a conclusion that you want, but it has little to do with actual religions.

That isn't a circular argument. You could make it into on, but as it stands, it is not one. And by this definition Satan is a Christian.

Yet your behavior demonstrates you don't actually see the two as equivalent. Otherwise you'd be just as likely to identify your religion as "I don't believe in Thor" as you do Christianity.

Again, you are misusing the term "circular," and you are equating each and every religious view as being a separate religion, which is also absurd. Your believe that God exist would be one religion, your belief that Jesus exists would be another religion, your belief that Jesus is the Son of the Father would be another religion, and so on, ad infinitum.

 

@gfm7175
Remember that question you keep avoiding?

 

I will keep calling out your logical fallacies as long as you keep committing them.

I have consistently and directly responded to each assertion you've made.

Those statements all sound like something that a dictator would say.

Correct. I did indeed make that statement, word for word.

False Dichotomy Fallacy. Koko doesn't live his life either way. He neither accepts nor rejects the existence claims that theists and atheists make. He lives his life as if god(s) might or might not exist, as opposed to "they exist" or "they don't exist".