I don't get it. You can do better than this blind claim.
As opposed to your blind claim that opposes fact and definition?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I don't get it. You can do better than this blind claim.
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?
No, no, my friend.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.
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.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?
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.
That doesn't make sense to me. Can you clarify by stating it another way?
What does this have to do with anything?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.
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?
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.
Premise 1: Who is an Atheist?
- Pure Agnostic: God's existence and non-existence are exactly EQUIPROBABLE.
- Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists, but I'm declined to be SKEPTICAL.
- De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain, but I think God is very IMPROBABLE.
Premise 2: "Equiprobable, skeptical, improbable" means:
- Disbelief in God(s)
- Belief in God(s)
- It does not mean without belief in God(s)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Atheism is a religion with 320,000,000 Gods
---------------------------------------------------------------
You really didn't, as already pointed out and explained. More than once.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.
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?
Premise 1: Who is an Atheist?
- Pure Agnostic: God's existence and non-existence are exactly EQUIPROBABLE.
- Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists, but I'm declined to be SKEPTICAL.
- De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain, but I think God is very IMPROBABLE.
Premise 2: "Equiprobable, skeptical, improbable" means:
---------------------------------------------------------------
- Disbelief in God(s)
- Belief in God(s)
- 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?
Who is the high priest that determines what pure natural belief is?
Okay so all you have to offer is more repetitive spamming?
Buh bye.
Who is the high priest that determines what pure natural belief is?