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

Argument of the Stone Fallacy.
Argument By Repetition Fallacy.

Since you keep resorting to those fallacies, there is nowhere for this discussion to go.

 

Christianity is not a religion?

 

True. Good clarification there.

 

The argument Jesus lives is not a religion.

 

You have doubled down and said nothing.

 

He's good at that.

 

Not playing on words at all.

English means something to many people across the world.

So I've noticed...

That's my belief.

Okay.

Okay, let's suppose that I did say so.

Okay.

You don't have to... That's because one need not justify their religious beliefs...

There are several religions that I believe in. One of them is Christianity. Another one of them is Creationism. I also have slight faith in the Theory of Evolution. I remain agnostic with regard to the Big Bang Theory.

Yes, there are. One such religion is Buddhism. Another is Shinto. Another is Islam. Another is Global Warming.

I am.

I am not a perfect person. I have, at one point or another, temporarily placed other "gods" (such as money, or myself) above the God I worship.

 

Yes, it is. In fact, that argument is the very argument (ie, the initial circular argument) that defines what Christianity is. Christianity argues that "Jesus Christ exists and is who he says he is". If one accepts that argument as a true, then one is a Christian.


[1] Christianity is a religion.
[2] Christianity is NOT a religion.

You must clear your paradox.

 

you're making a fallacy, it's called an argument from fallacy. Sometimes called the fallacy fallacy. So your argument is therefore invalid.

 

Sorry belief in God only uses faith. There is absolutely no evidence. If there was you could point it out and make an argument that God exists you cannot.

 

Atheism is not a religious practice.

You insisting otherwise is like you insisting the world was flat. There is no way in hell I'm going to believe you. You can't argue for your position because your position is false.

you can cite all the made-up paradoxes you want you can't prove the world is flat sorry.

 

Ridiculous.

 

Argument By Repetition Fallacy. I have already countered this oft repeated argument of yours numerous times, even in post #910 itself, in the part of the post which you decided to cut out from here.

In other words, you are misapplying the Argument From Fallacy fallacy because you don't like me calling out the fallacies that you keep making in your argumentation...

 

Wrong. There is also evidence involved. Religion makes use of supporting evidence.

Argument From Ignorance Fallacy.

Yes, there is. Evidence is simply any statement that supports an argument. Evidence is, essentially, a predicate.

Life itself is evidence for Christianity. So is the Holy Bible. So are the multitudes of Christians which currently exist and have existed in the past. So is the Ontological Argument. So is the Moral Argument. So is the Cosmological Argument. They are all evidences for Christianity. They are all predicates which conclude with "God exists". None of them are proofs, however. None of them move Christianity beyond being an initial circular argument.

I will also note that you have yet to clear your paradoxes from posts #810 and #847.

 

no you didn't because you can't. I tend to cut out stupidity. It isn't worth repeating.

feel free to call out any fallacy you which then ignore all the ones you make. I'm okay with you proving yourself to be profoundly poor got understanding logic.

 

No paradox you have created one by using using the Oversimplified Cause Fallacy and the Definition fallacy and inserting your incorrect understanding of my statements. In short you have created another strawman. Your definitions no more explain what a religion is than your explanations of what Faith, reason or philosophy is. By making such definitions and Oversimplified Cause fallacies you remove any meaningful debate and just hold your assertions to be true. In short you are talking in gibberish. In saying Jesus Christ lives and is who he says he is you have identified only one of the attributes of a christian you have not gone any way to identify what Christianity as a religion is. Your definition is fallacious and useless for the purpose of debate.

 

It is, actually, but bickering over that is irrelevant. All that is relevant is that Atheism makes use of an initial circular argument and additional arguments which stem from it.

At one point, it WAS a theory of science. That theory has since been falsified.

True. That is due to your fundamentalism in your religion of Atheism. It blinds you from even considering reasoning such as I have offered to you. Maybe one day you will put your fundamentalism aside, however.

I can, and I have.

No, it is not. It is supported by philosophy and logic. Your position rejects those things.

You brought them into existence; only YOU can clear them...

I never tried to. In fact, the flat world theory has been falsified by science.

 

Argument of the Stone Fallacy.

 

There is no evidence of any of the over 3000 Gods on earth today,

 

then I guess you think Christianity is wrong.

if there is supporting evidence it wouldn't be called a religion it would be called a theory.

okay in the center of the Earth instead of it being magma and iron it's a giant purple gorilla.

You have to prove that it's not. because I presented the evidence that it was according to you.

no life itself is evidence of Buddhism you have to prove that all the time Buddhism existed before Christianity it was wrong.

the Quran, the talmud, The book of Mormon, and dietetics are all evidence that the Bible is wrong. And it's more.

You have to accept the Bible as some mystically Superior manuscript to all the others I listed in order to believe it's evidence of God.

oh I guess Muslims and Buddhists don't exist here I was thinking there was multiple religions on this planet.

the magnitude of atheist evidence that he doesn't.

I reject the alternate reality you live under where I made paradoxes.

 

You're making the argument from the potato fallacy.

 

Yea, we are all aware logic isn’t your thing.

I have not resorted to any fallacy. I have refuted your argument, with the definition of the word atheism.

 

Actually it is the point of the thread, so debate over it is the whole point of the thread! That you missed this is abundantly clear.

No all that matters to this debate is whether atheism is a religion by any acceptable and useful definition of the word religion, which you have not supplied. Atheism is a statement, one statement and nothing else it is not an argument. "I lack belief in gods" is not an argument.

 

You created the paradox. Only you can clear it.

I have provided the philosophy behind the way I have defined the terms. Your fundamentalism blinds you from belief which differs from your own, however.

I have provided the reasoning behind why I find my offered definitions to be the best way to define those words. If you have a better way of defining those words, please offer it along with the reasoning behind those definitions.

No, I am talking in English.

Yes, I have. I have identified the one core attribute which every Christian accepts as true.

No, it is not.

 

actually it isn't and if you actually felt bickering over it was irrelevant you would have stopped a long time ago.

that's false it comes from the position of skepticism. The atheist says I am skeptical of the existence of God prove that exist. and in ten thousand years of human history nobody ever managed to.

if it was a theory what evidence was it based on?

I'm a Christian.

Lol, I'm a Christian. So I'm sorry you're "you don't have the true knowledge because you aren't indoctrinated under my religion" argument isn't going to work.

well not in any convincing manner, and I'm a Christian. so I should be the person you have a easy time convincing it and you fail.

Nuh uh.

no you did when you imagined to them in the first place.

so show me the supporting evidence for your claim.