A challenge to Statler Waldorf

[Angrboda]

Once more down the rabbit hole.

Since you appear to be resting on your claim that, "I will stand by my original point, if you can’t demonstrate the correct way to determine what is and is not a religion, then you have no logical basis to say the way I did it was somehow incorrect." I will produce a definitive refutation of this point.

First, since you appear not to know what ad hominem is, Wikipedia says that, "ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise."

A) You claim that I must show the right way to demonstrate 'atheism = religion' if my arguments are to be valid; if I must demonstrate that atheism is a religion in order to show that atheism is not a religion, I prove that atheism is a religion in spite of myself.

B) You'll no doubt claim that my criteria need not show atheism a religion, but we all know if I do show that 'atheism =/= religion', you'll just whine about my criteria being wrong, which again satisfies the premise that I can't show the right way, and therefore all my arguments are wrong (returning us to 'A'); I will trivially satisfy this by claiming that if the majority of a group claiming a particular social group identity believe or assert that belonging to that group implies belonging to a religion, then all who identify as being a member of that group can be considered as belonging to a religion in the absence of other evidence. This is true by the reference to the base rate for the group; if the probability of M being 'religion' is greater than 'not religion', then it follows that the most probable case for any M is 'religion'. (note 1) Since the majority of atheist claim 'not religion', atheism is 'not religion'.

C) If I don't show a correct way to prove that 'atheism = religion', or an incorrect way to show that 'atheism = religion', then you discount all my arguments on the grounds that if I can't demonstrate the above, I'm not capable of forming valid counter-arguments (Non sequitur, Ad hominem); since I can't demonstrate you are wrong, then your claim wins by default, ergo 'atheism = religion'.

D) A, B, or C are my only options.

Conclusion: No matter what, I end up proving that 'atheism = religion' and lose. But if all arguments lead to the same conclusion, it is a tautology, and thus true by definition, not by argument.

If I accept your supposition that I must produce valid criteria to even be allowed a voice, I am denied that pleasure because ALL the options lead to my denial. I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't. If all roads lead to Rome, it's quite insufferable of you to complain that I didn't take you to Paris.

Additionally, since you claim I must prove 'atheism = R' and 'atheism not-equal R', your request is asking me to show that a thing and its opposite are both true. This is forbidden by the law of non-contradiction, as doing so leads logically to the conclusion that ALL claims are true, regardless of content (See The Principle of Logical Explosion). You're asking me to prove a point by blowing up the world, logically speaking.

Note 1: I'm not claiming this is a definitive argument, but it at least has the benefit of not telling atheists that non-atheists know better than atheists themselves. But I have minimally satisfied your criteria, now if you complain about my criteria being wrong, you will have fulfilled my prediction in 'B' and led us right back to 'A'. By all means, feel free to prove me right; again.