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

yep under the exact same rules used for theism.

 

I am arguing what the atheists have argued not the newspaper headline, did you actually read the article?

But you quote from them as a source to back up your assertions. Even though what they say directly contradicts what you say.

There are no official definitions there you have simply asserted that without any evidence and there is no definition of a Neo Atheist, none. Completely made up by you. Rather there is a detailed explanation of what the American Atheists consider an atheist to be and why it is not a religion, which you try to argue against. Yet again what you claim and what we can all read are two directly opposed things, but you still claim it despite the evidence. Or in the case of Neo Atheism simply not there at all!

 

No.
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

 

Yes, it quite literally does. A fallacy renders the argument containing the fallacy to be invalid, since it contains a logic error within it. The argument needs to be re-formed in a way which does not contain any fallacies. Another way of saying this is that the argument fails the internal consistency test.

 

This part regarding religion remains irrational, since you are still locked in paradox regarding your definition of religion, as pointed out in post #810. You argue that religion involves the worship of a supernatural entity or a god, yet argue that it simultaneously doesn't have to involve such worship.

Then, in post #847, you go further into paradox when you claim that those religions (which simultaneously aren't religions) are simultaneously religions and effigies...

Then, in that same post #847, you alter your definition of religion to "involves worship" rather than "involves worship of a supernatural entity or a god". Which one is it?

Instead of clearing these paradoxes, you simply threw your hands up in the air in post #872 by repeating your original position of: "atheism isn't a religious belief".

You need to clear these paradoxes before we can resume logical and rational discussion concerning anything about religion.

It makes use of both faith AND evidence.

Remember, evidence is simply any statement which supports an argument.

 

Remember, my definition of religion does not require "religious practices".

All it requires is an initial circular argument and additional arguments stemming from it.

Atheism makes the initial circular argument that "god(s) do not exist, therefore god(s) do not exist". Additional arguments, such as "Jesus was a human. Humans do not have a divine nature, therefore Jesus did not have a divine nature" all stem back to the initial circular argument that god(s) do not exist.

That, by my definition, classifies Atheism as a religion.

Now, why use MY definition of religion instead of your definition? Mainly, because my definition is clear and consistently applied, while yours is inconsistently applied and riddled with paradoxes, of which you have yet to clear.

 

It need not "practice" anything. It need only be based on an initial circular argument and have other arguments stemming from that initial circular argument. If those two criteria are met, then you have yourself a religion.

 

Quite a leap of faith there.

Some atheists may make positive assertions.
Most just want to be left alone with their feelings.
Atheists simply don't believe you, when you make all these supernatural, and magic, claims

 

I'm an atheist, and I never even think about it, except when I see some internet troll claim I am practicing a religion.

 

Some theists may make positive assertions.
Most just want to be left alone with their feelings.
Theists simply don't believe you, when you make all these claims about god(s) not existing...


C'mon now... You can't purposely ignore the belief involved...

 

Atheism is a disbelief, not a belief.

 

Disbelief IS a belief in and of itself, though.

Belief is simply the acceptance of an argument as a truth.

Atheists make the argument "god(s) do not exist, therefore god(s) do not exist." They accept that argument as a truth. Therefore, Atheists are indeed making use of belief, and Atheism is a belief.

"Atheism is true" is, in and of itself, a belief.

 

You can play on words all you want,
It really doesn't mean anything to anyone but yourself.
Few atheists bother making arguments.

You say their is a magic god in the sky.
I simply don't believe you.

If you say you have unicorns in your backyard,
I simply don't believe you,
but I'm not going to argue with you about it.

So, how many religions do you have,
I am sure there are lots of things you don't believe in.

But if you are Christian, you just violated a commandment, by putting another God before the one you claim

 

Atheism does not make any such argument. Atheism means the lack of belief in a god or gods. It by definition, is not s religion.

 

False premise, they could consider themselves a fence post or a car tire, that position is totally meanless

again, they could consider themselves a fence post or a car tire, that position is totally meanless

The take away point was the court ruling, that atheists qualify and get religious exemptions just like any other religion. Another frivolous argument from you.

Yes https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

No leap at all, the label 'atheist' confirms the affirmation has been made.

Do you believe that?

Guess you dont

But the courts overruled you.
Check and mate!

 

False religion is not an argument, it is a system of claims and assertions normally based on authority. Jesus lives is not a religion no matter what convoluted logic you through at it.

 

Sorry kokopuff
You have said all that crap many times before, it means nothing.

 

It does have to be some exercised self governing philosophy though, otherwise its just philosophy, ethics, theology etc.

actually I havent said that many times before, you not believing yourself is new.

 

Of which Atheism is none of the above.

 

So are you seriously testifying that neoatheists are brain dead? Only someone who is brain dead has no philosophy ethics or self governing principles?

 

Must be.

 

Not a false premise at all but keep arguing with your source and making meaningless arguments.

As above.

No they do not get the same religious exemptions, one court ruling on one atheist association does not mean equal status, always you make the same mistake. You think if you can show one atheist or atheist group does one thing then that means Atheism gets or thinks that thing when over and over it is shown to you the only commonality is that all atheists lack belief in gods. Why you cannot understand this simple point is beyond my care now.

 

You should have seen him when that atheist church opened.

Now it proves all atheists are a religion

 

sure they do, yeh thats all it takes is one court ruling LOL

 

cool, never thought you would admit it though