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

You added these comments after I had replied.

I specifically refuted what Jake claimed and explained I have no interest in proving that his god does not exist, so another statement that is demonstrably false.

No one is harassing you, they are challenging you on what you say. Again you have made claims about atheists that are demonstrably false. Atheist are not necessarily Materialists, it is this lack of understanding of what atheists believe that stops your understanding that atheism is not a religion.

 

My impression is that you haven't.

 

Because logic isn’t your thing, as you keep repeatedly demonstrating , by throwing out terms you don’t know the meaning of.

 

Yes, it really, really is.

Such as? Also provide your definition for religion and provide your reasoning for why it is a better definition than what I have proposed.

See above. I have provided a definition through the use of philosophy and logic, and focused on the logic behind how a religion is formed.

Yes, it is. The argument concludes with its initial predicate. That's precisely what a circular argument is. Yes, it can also be asserted as a statement, but if it is believed, then it is believed based on argumentation, and that argumentation is circular in nature.

While Satan definitely believes that Jesus Christ exists, he doesn't believe that Jesus Christ is who he says he is. Satan doesn't place his faith in Jesus' words in any way. Instead, Satan continually attempts to usurp Jesus' power by ultimately preventing him from being who he says he is (the Savior of the World, the Redeemer, etc...).

They aren't equivalent... They are different religions. Yes, I do value one religion over the other.

No, I am not. See above.

Not at all... Remember, I defined religion as an INITIAL circular argument with other arguments stemming from it, not as "any circular argument".

Not at all. The belief that "god(s) exist" is called Theism. Yes, that is also a religion. Then, there are many religions within Theism, since there are many beliefs in differing gods. Yes, Christianity is one such religion which attempts to define specifically who/what "god" is.

The belief that Jesus is the Son of the Father is not a religion, however, since that belief is not an INITIAL circular argument, but rather, it stems FROM the initial circular argument of Christianity. It is one of the "other arguments" which stems from the initial argument.

 

You're gonna have to reword that, as I'm not understanding your assertion.

 

And I'll direct them to where I have explained why you are in error.

 

Repetition won't magically make your claim true. It is not a fallacy to identify something as absurd, whether or not you provide further clarification.

"I know this because I'm smart and I
smart because I know this." Circular, but not a religion. Additional absurdity: if a religion bases its claims in an appeal to an infinite regression or foundationalism, rather than circular logic, then according to your definition it is no longer a religion.

I don't work for you and the shortcomings of your definition have nothing to do with any other definition.

You have provided a definition that leads to absurd conclusions.

None of the things I quoted explicitly do so.

Wrong. Besides, all beliefs must ultimately appeal to foundationalism, circular reasoning (not the same thing as foundationalism, despite your claims), or an infinite regression. We are again brought to absurd conclusions due to the failures of your definition. If all of these things constitute a religion, then literally every single claim of any kind, even "There's a quarter in my pocket" is a religion. If only circular reasoning constitutes a religion, then a Christian who relies on foundationalism instead isn't religious.

You are literally the only Christian I've ever heard claim this.

The equivalence is that they are religions and the fact that you don't treat them as equivalent as religions proves you don't seriously consider them to all be religions in the same way.

Seen and the argument still stands.

The absurdity in this definition has been demonstrated above.

No, it is a position on a single topic, not a religion. You could believe that God exists and not practice any religion of any kind. Plenty of deists do.

Yes, there are. Finally a correct statement.

According to the definitions you've provided, Christianity is not one religion.

It is if you use it as such.

There are thousands of initial circular arguments within Christiainty

See above.

 

Do you understand the difference between 1) Behaving as if something is true and 2) Actually asserting that it is true? Do you understand the difference between pragmatic behavior and actual, absolute adoption of a truth claim?

I behave, for example, as if free will is true. I have no opinion about its actual metaphysical truth of falsehood. I act this way out of practicality, not belief.
I behave as if an until-now unknown quantum fluctuation won't rip the universe apart this afternoon. I have no opinion on the metaphysical truth statement.
I behave as if I won't die next Thursday. Same.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-is-a-religion.554804/page-43#post-1070586071

 

Correct. Rather, it is adherence to logic which does that.

It is not logical to dismiss arguments without reason for doing so. That is what someone does when they throw stones.

Correct, per my definition of religion, as that is merely a circular argument, not an initial circular argument, as there is no set of argumentation which all stems back to it. Without that, it is not a religion, per my definition.

As this pertains to you, you are making a void argument as you have yet to define how you are using the word 'religion'. Void Argument Fallacy.

Void Argument Fallacy. You have not defined 'religion' as you are using it here, so you have not formed an argument.

You are attempting to show why my definition of religion doesn't work. That is fine. That has nothing to do with any other definition. I am simply asking you to provide your definition for what a religion is, since you have been throwing the yet to be defined by you term around in your refutations. You need to clearly define your terms so I can understand what you are asserting, or else I have no choice but to dismiss your argumentation as void.

No it doesn't.

Yes, they did.

You're still incorrectly equating a circular argument with an initial circular argument.

As to the foundationalism objection, an initial circular argument is the foundation of a religion, as I have described. The foundation of an initial circular argument is logic itself, which is where foundationalism comes in, since logic is accepted as true on an axiomatic basis.

I can only assume that you do not speak to many Christians then...

Correct.

I do realize that they were formed in an equivalent manner, as I have presented that formation process to you. I'm not sure what your objection is with regard to this...

No, it doesn't.

And has been rebutted.

Theism is a religion.

Deism is a type of Theism.

YAY!

Yes, it is. You simply attempt to equate all circular arguments with initial circular arguments.

Then one asks "why is Jesus the Son of the Father?", then you have to answer with "because that's who Jesus says he is"... See how that stems back to the initial circular argument of Christianity??

Circular arguments, maybe... but not initial circular arguments...

 

Your "impression", as are your arguments continue to be false and unproven by you. Another failure on your part.

 

Even when acting pragmatically, one is still ultimately accepting/rejecting/saying 'idk' regarding [insert argument here].

I could act like I support leftist policies to get a good grade from a Marxist teacher [behaving as if something is true], but that doesn't change that I still ultimately support conservative policies. [actually asserting truth]

This just seems to ultimately be getting into telling the truth about something vs lying about something...

 

In reality, all of us behave in practical ways about things we don't truly know about. All of us. It isn't "lying." It is just living without omniscience. So, no, that's not what it was all "ultimately getting at." See the examples provided and left unaddressed.

 

The lie would be about what one actually believes, not about correctness in any way.

 

45 pages now, and atheism remains, as it did on page 1, not a religion by definition.

 

Or simply ignoring unpleasant questions like the unanswered ones posed in this thread. Like what is the definition of "neo-atheism"?

Some have certainlky tried really hard to ignore that question, you foremost among them.

 

I can only assume he replaced a W with an O in his mind to make up some new issue to troll about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism
Christian persecution complex in action.

 

Absolutely!

You need to come with us and help us convince the IRS of this the next time we apply for tax exemption as religious organizations.

How about it?

 

I suspect you're trying to fudge the definition of "believe".

I believe grass is green when healthy. That doesn't make it a religion.

If you want to accuse me of having a religion you have to do a LOT more than finding out whether I think there exists a supernatural.

 

Well unless it qualifies as a worldview.

 

The point was what the word "believe" means in the context of the post I responded to.

The word "believe" has a relatively broad range of meaning and doesn't necessarily imply anything about religion. In fact, I can "believe" healthy grass is green. I can even believe in the possibility of a supernatural - such as the possibility of string theory, which is outside of our current ability to verify through testing, thus making it supernatural at present. I don't worship that, and it isn't a religion.

And, "worldview" is another mushy word, isn't it?

 

not so much

the failure is people do not seem to understand words that require a set or several elements to fit together, religion is one of those words, believe or belief is that what you accept is true, what makes or what can make it a religion is when it becomes a governing action in your life.

 

They do not want to be classified as a religion so they can infiltrate the us gubmint with atheology, pretending they are not a religion. After a snoot full of stalin that aint gonna happen anytime soon.

 

The above post explains a lot, I would not worry too much about atheist "reds under the bed" if I was you. Maybe this thread should be in the conspiracy forum.

 

You should only comment when you have something of worth to say. This is not it.