Atheism is a RELIGION

[ChristineM]

I don't get it. You can do better than this blind claim.

As opposed to your blind claim that opposes fact and definition?

 

[Matheist]

It speaks directly to the point. Please answer the question.

Do you consider your lack of belief in the Easter Bunny to be a religion?


I lack belief in god(s).

Do you have some good reason(s) and evidence demonstrating that god(s) exist?

atheism. n. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Therefore:

1. Religious claims about Gods
2. Disbelief in Gods
3. Without belief in Gods <- your only argument
4. Belief in Gods (Richard Dawkins)

The definition #1 #151 Atheism is a Religion . #6 #32#37 #41 #205​

See? You ignore point 1, 2 and 4 and that includes them as an Atheist. It is #Strawman Fallacy.

So what is your answer?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You only have beLIEf and not an argument (Claim + Reason + Evidence). Before it can be an argument, you have to bring the definition of religion from the dictionary and point out how Atheism is not a religion, which you completely fail to do.

No, no, my friend.

You are asserting that atheism is a religion. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that atheism is a religion.
You have yet to do that, and the fact that your refuse to answer my questions regarding what would actually make atheism an actual religion (which would actually take the conversation in a useful direction), further demonstrates that your claims are empty and meaningless.

 

[SkepticThinker]

atheism. n. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Therefore:

1. Religious claims about Gods
2. Disbelief in Gods
3. Without belief in Gods <- your only argument
4. Belief in Gods (Richard Dawkins)​

See? You ignore point 1, 2 and 3 and that includes them as an Atheist. It is #Strawman Fallacy.

So what is your answer?

I see that you're trying to squirm out of answering my question. Why is it so hard for you to answer? It's a question that speaks directly to your claims in this thread.

Do you consider your lack of belief in the Easter Bunny to be a religion?

 

[Matheist]

I see that you're trying to squirm out of answering my question. Why is it so hard for you to answer? It's a question that speaks directly to your claims in this thread.

Do you consider your lack of belief in the Easter Bunny to be a religion?

If the Easter Bunny for obedience to Nature's God (self-preservation of Ecological Order) .. then it is a Religion. #201

So what is your answer to this issue? #223

 

[Matheist]

No, no, my friend.

You are asserting that atheism is a religion. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that atheism is a religion.

Already did: The definition #1 #151 Atheism is a Religion . #6 #32 #37 #41 #205

How did you answer it?

Argumentum ad lapidem (Appeal to the stone fallacy): This is a fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If the Easter Bunny for obedience to Nature's God (self-preservation of Ecological Order) .. then it is a Religion. #201

So what is your answer to this issue? #223

That doesn't make sense to me. Can you clarify by stating it another way?

All I really need is a yes or no ...
Do you consider your lack of belief in the Easter Bunny to be a religion?
Do you think that people who don't collect stamps are practicing a hobby of not collecting stamps?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Already did: The definition #1 #151 Atheism is a Religion . #6 #32#37 #41 #205

How did you answer it?

But you didn't. You have yet to answer questions about the criteria that makes something a religion. Why is that?

The burden of proof is yours. You are the one claiming that atheism is a religion.

Otherwise, maybe don't make assertions you can't back up.

Argumentum ad lapidem (Appeal to the stone fallacy): This is a fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity.

What does this have to do with anything?

 

[Matheist]

But you didn't. You have yet to answer questions about the criteria that makes something a religion. Why is that?

The burden of proof is yours. You are the one claiming that atheism is a religion.

Otherwise, maybe don't make assertions you can't back up.

What does this have to do with anything?

Read here: #205

(The definition #1 #151 Atheism is a Religion . #6 #32#37 #41 #205 #223)

So you did nothing other than "Argumentum ad lapidem (Appeal to the stone fallacy): This is a fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity;" and spamming this thread.

 

[Matheist]

Premise 1: Who is an Atheist?

1. Pure Agnostic: God's existence and non-existence are exactly EQUIPROBABLE.
2. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists, but I'm declined to be SKEPTICAL.
3. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain, but I think God is very IMPROBABLE.

Premise 2: "Equiprobable, skeptical, improbable" means:

1. Disbelief in God(s)
2. Belief in God(s)
3. It does not mean without belief in God(s)

---------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Atheism is a religion with 320,000,000 Gods
---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[ratiocinator]

I have read them and none of them go anywhere near supporting your conclusion. You really don't seem to understand the definitions you keep posting.

atheism Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

religion The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Therefore, atheism is the lack of the first requirement needed for a religion. This is really simple.

So you have dismissed part of the definition of god, religion, belief etc that applies to Atheism? ... That is Strawman Fallacy.

I think you need to look up what a straw man fallacy is.

I haven't dismissed any part of any definition. The definition of religion requires a belief (and worship) and the definition of atheism is the lack of that belief (or disbelief).

What "superhuman controlling power" do atheists believe in and worship? If you can't answer that, you have nothing.

 

[ratiocinator]

Premise 1: Who is an Atheist?

1. Pure Agnostic: God's existence and non-existence are exactly EQUIPROBABLE.
2. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists, but I'm declined to be SKEPTICAL.
3. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain, but I think God is very IMPROBABLE.

1. A pure agnostic isn't an atheist.
2. Belief and confidence in said belief are not the same thing: I can believe something without being 100% sure and I can not believe something without being 100% sure. Neither is a mixture of belief and unbelief.

Premise 2: "Equiprobable, skeptical, improbable" means:

1. Disbelief in God(s)
2. Belief in God(s)
3. It does not mean without belief in God(s)

This is utter nonsense, see above.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Atheism is a religion with 320,000,000 Gods
---------------------------------------------------------------

Even if we were to accept the preceding nonsense, this is a massive non-sequitur.

religion The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. [emphasis added].

 

[SkepticThinker]

Read here: #205

(The definition #1 #151 Atheism is a Religion . #6 #32#37 #41 #205 #223)

So you did nothing other than "Argumentum ad lapidem (Appeal to the stone fallacy): This is a fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity;" and spamming this thread.

You really didn't, as already pointed out and explained. More than once.


If you're just going to continue to spam the thread and not offer any real discussion or clarification or response to questions, I'm gonna have to be done.
It's clear that you are not interested in having an adult discussion or backing up any of your assertions. I would suggest that you go read up on burden of proof and get back to those of us who understand how debate works.

Your thread is just a waste of time at this point.

 

[Matheist]

That doesn't make sense to me. Can you clarify by stating it another way?

All I really need is a yes or no ...
Do you consider your lack of belief in the Easter Bunny to be a religion?
Do you think that people who don't collect stamps are practicing a hobby of not collecting stamps?

Prolonged with irrelevant issues and which not in any way whatsoever change this fact:

Premise 1: Who is an Atheist?

1. Pure Agnostic: God's existence and non-existence are exactly EQUIPROBABLE.
2. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists, but I'm declined to be SKEPTICAL.
3. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain, but I think God is very IMPROBABLE.

Premise 2: "Equiprobable, skeptical, improbable" means:

1. Disbelief in God(s)
2. Belief in God(s)
3. It does not mean without belief in God(s)

---------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Atheism is a religion with 320,000,000 Gods
---------------------------------------------------------------

atheism. n. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Therefore:

1. Religious claims about Gods
2. Disbelief in Gods
3. Without belief in Gods <- your only argument
4. Belief in Gods (Richard Dawkins)

The definition #1 #151 Atheism is a Religion . #6 #32#37 #41 #205​

See? You ignore point 1, 2 and 4 and that includes them as an Atheist. It is #Strawman Fallacy.

So what is your answer?

Read here: #205

(The definition #1 #151 Atheism is a Religion . #6 #32#37 #41 #205 #223)

 

[Matheist]

IF no religion

THEN natural ways of life (pure natural belief)​

ELSE religion

#201

 

[SkepticThinker]

Prolonged with irrelevant issues and which not in any way whatsoever change this fact:





Read here: #205

(The definition #1 #151 Atheism is a Religion . #6 #32#37 #41 #205 #223)

Okay so all you have to offer is more repetitive spamming?

Buh bye.

 

[lukethethird]

IF no religion

THEN natural ways of life (pure natural belief)​

ELSE religion

#201

Who is the high priest that determines what pure natural belief is?

 

[Matheist]

Okay so all you have to offer is more repetitive spamming?

Buh bye.

I am spamming when you're doing the strawman fallacy?

 

[Matheist]

Who is the high priest that determines what pure natural belief is?

Anyone and for self-preservation of ecological order (ecological justice vs. forced justice).

That is the criteria for being non-religious:

Self-preservation is the first law of nature.​

 

[Matheist]

Forced Justice (Religion) vs. Natural Justice (No Religion)

Christian Animism… earth-based, creation-focussed spirituality, God's living prescence within all matter