The Religion of Atheism

If there are multiple Christian religions, how can Christianity itself be a religion?

 

No one is born a theist. Our default state is of no religion.

 

no one is born an atheist either.

pretty tough to have anything before the brain engine starts.

 

When you’re born you don’t believe in anything as you don’t know anything. That’s how it works.

 

If people didn't invent the Gods, we wouldn't have the atheists.

 

Nor president Trump.

 

No thats not how it works. When you know nothing you are an agnostic not an atheist.

purely speculation, a nice expression of faith.

 

Christianity is one religion with multiple denominations. Do you have any comments regarding any of my other examples of your flawed logic?

 

just because you come up with a name to group a subset of individuals does not change the fact that they are individuals with a similar position on religion, just like atheists. Seems my logic is rock solid and its yours that fails.

 

no, you are not. you have no evidence to believe in anything. that's explicitly atheist.

 

If man had not invented 'gods', then the terms 'Theism' and 'Atheism' would never have come into being in the context of religion. There would be none. Not speculation at all. .

 

yeh thats agnositic, atheists believe in 'No God exists', this isnt real difficult if you bother to look up the meaning of the words.

well you can have your opinion, however proving God does not exist has yet to be done, so feel free to enlighten everyone.

 

Chatting with someone who makes clear logical fallacies gets you nowhere.

 

I know but I dont mind, at least for a little while

 

You’re unaware of the logical fallacy you just made, asking to prove a negative.

 

So, is atheism a religion yet?

No?

Okay, I'll check back later....

 

Pulease get serious, proving a negative is not a fallacy, its done all the time ffs.

Of course always has been always will be, nothing has changed despite the neoatheists attempt to change the meanings of all the words, quite laughably I might add.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_a_negative

 

Atheism is a religion to Kokopuff but not to most Atheists. Fortunately we don't really care what he thinks....even on the rare occasion he actually does.

 

yeh ok, so you screwed up for the 4th time in a row, so what?

Proving a negative
Look up negative proof in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Proving a negative or negative proof may refer to:

Proving a negative Edit
A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something.[10] Saying "You cannot prove a negative" has been called pseudologic because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics including Arrow's impossibility theorem.

I hope that my reading what you post for you helps this time.

 

neoatheists cognitive dissonance and denial wont change the facts however.

 

No.

You think one can prove a deity does not exist.

You’re done.

 

You must be responding my counter argument which proves that proving a negative is easy peasy and not a fallacy as you claim

Now for your latest erroneous claim:

I dont think it I know it.

Easy peasy, all you have to do is investigate every diety that ever existed and any new one that pop up and then provide hard evidence they do not exist.

Now if you are too lazy or dont have the means to do that, blame yourself for accepting a wooden nickels as facts, since everyone knows proving a negative is done all the time.

 

So just because someone, thousands of years ago, said there is a god I have to prove there isn't? It's up to the person to prove there is or there's no debate. Without that first proposition and proof there is no god.

 

Well if you discontinue agreeing with what was said thousands of years ago then you wont have to prove your religious position. The existence of a God has nothing to do with the proposition. If you claim God does not exist then you have the burden of proof. This isnt rocket science.

Burden of proof

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shortened from Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

Holder of the burden
When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.

Shifting the burden of proof
One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.

Hope that helps