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

Of course that does not mean that the point is correct or valid.

 

Atheism - absence of belief in God, not unbelief in God.

Or it used to be. Today it's been hijacked by bigots hiding behind the label.

 

That was actually a play on the trolling commentary but done in a way that avoids possible infraction and is likely above its level of comprehension.

 

Again you are making false statements about what I have written, I dismiss nothing as absurd, if you cannot be honest I see no point in debating you.

You are now beginning to use the Definition Fallacy where you are creating definitions which make your position easier to argue.

 

Glad to hear. I like most of it too.

Concerning the first part, I think your definition does cover a lot of what religion is, but I find that the definition I have offered is more precise about what exactly constitutes a religion and how a religion is logically formed. The foundation of any religion is the initial circular argument (ie, the "argument of faith") that it asserts. For example, Christianity argues that "Jesus Christ exists and is who he says he is". All other arguments of Christianity eventually stem back to this initial circular argument. The Theory of Evolution, that "all current life forms are a result of mutations of earlier life forms", is also a religion, as we have no way of going back in time to see if those earliest life forms actually mutated or not. Same with the Big Bang Theory. We have no way to go back in time to see whether that event actually occurred or not, so that theory remains a circular argument.

Concerning the bolded part, I find that this part, rather, gets more into how Phenomenology defines the term "reality". Phenomenology defines 'reality' as "one's own model of the universe and how it works". In other words, 'reality' is uniquely experienced by each individual.

Absolutely correct. Mankind are inherently religious animals. We all make use of religion at one point or another.

Quite an astute observation there. Agreed.

Yup. The way I've phrased this point in the past is that atheists essentially attempt to equate religion with theism (ie, that they are synonymous terms). That obviously runs into issues of its own, such as their consideration of Buddhism and Shinto as religions, but never mind that...

 

I did some light skimming through past posts, and you may be correct here. I may have confused you with another poster. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and retract my claim that you have asserted that no god(s) exist. I will now operate under the position that you haven't made any particular assertion.

And this is merely an argument by repetition on your part, as you are now asserting your original argumentation which has already been counter-argued by both Koko and myself. You're only looking at half the picture. You are only looking at the claim that atheists are rejecting while completely ignoring the claim that atheists are asserting. To make this clearer, I will assert your point but replacing atheism with theism instead.

"Theists simply do not accept the claims of atheists". However, if that were the case, then theists would only be looking at the claim that they are rejecting while ignoring the claim that they are asserting. This is what you are doing with regard to atheism. You need to address the full picture, not just half of it.

??? Each religion is based on a completely different initial circular argument. That's what differentiates between particular religions...

 

Still bulverism, even when the claim is "blatantly false". You can't dismiss an argument because a particular person is making it.

Stop committing fallacies and I will stop calling them out.

 

I have been making MANY valid arguments. You are simply illiterate in logic.

 

Perfect example of yours proving my point. You should really research the words and terms you use if you wish to be taken seriously.

 

To dismiss an argument without counterargument IS to dismiss it as 'absurd' (or whatever particular synonym happens to tickle your fancy). Point being, you aren't agreeing with the argument, ie, you believe something different for some reason.

Nope, I am basing my definitions on logic and philosophy. I am not attempting to make my position any easier to argue. Logic is what defines 'circular argument' (as I have expressed), and philosophy is what defines 'religion' (as I have expressed).

 

The problem is that scientific conclusions require evidence. Repeatable, documentable evidence that stands up to the scientific method, in fact. Rejection of beliefs that are based on popular opinion (as is the belief in a supreme being), does not in itself constitute a belief. So I believe your conclusion is faulty.

 

“God” does not need to be disproved without first being PROOVED.

 

Which is why we deal in scientific evidence, and not faith.

 

Without evidence, the correct answer is “we don’t know.”

 

See burden of proof.

Provide sources from logic and philosophy for your definitions. Otherwise you are simply making an Assertion fallacy.

 

You will give me the benefit of the doubt because you made a mistake! Good Day.

See burden of proof.

 

Bingo!

Correct answer.

 

Further argument by repetition... I think we're done here, if you're just going to keep repeating your original arguments instead of responding to my counterarguments...

 

You have not made a coherent answer to the burden of proof argument. Nor can you. We are indeed done.

 

Of course I can dismiss an argument simply because of who is making it. It is called expressing a truth, something you seem to have a problem doing.

As for fallacies, they only belong to you and y our lack of ability to see them.

 

The only source in Philosophy is the reasoning of the argument itself. That reasoning has already been made available for you to see.

The sources of logic are its foundational axioms as well as any proofs which extend from those axioms. That information is also available for you to learn about.

 

It's already been made, by both me AND Koko... You reverted back to your original argumentation instead of addressing it.

Yes, I do consider this discussion over with though, since you're now on an argument by repetition loop.

 

Assertion fallacy.

 

Again I am awaiting a reply from Koko regarding his court case. Again you have made false assertions about me. I will not debate with posters who cannot remain honest. We are very done.

 

You do realize that philosophy is merely an agreement of ideas, based on hope and dismissal of any fact not in accordance with it. In your words, a fallacy.