Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Kokomojojo, Nov 24, 2019.

  1. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, you are perfectly aware what you just posted is an intentional falsehood. You’ve been given the definition of atheism hundreds of times. That definition precludes atheism from being theism, and precludes an atheist from being a theist. This is reality.
     
  2. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have nothing that defeats the proposed proposition.
    'theists lack belief that God(s) do not exist',
    you did not affirm that God(s) do not exist by answering 'NO'
    as required by the proposition
    therefore you are a theist, the default condition is theist.

    The only way you can falsify that statement is to find a material error, and there are none, its as rock solid as flews now contradicted and debunked diatribe.

    Thats a wrap!
    jojo rules! :winner:
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2020
  3. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sure, here is the citation of the quote I'm addressing:

    "For theism and atheism to be properly reviewed in philosophical terms one must be a negation of the other that is a direct response to the question 'does God exist', and in those terms requires a straight up yes or no" (my underlining)(source)
    There is nothing saying that atheism needs to be a straight yes or no answer to the question "does god exist". In Flew's definition, it needs to be a straight yes or no answer to the question "are you a theist?", or "do you believe/affirm/hold that god exists?", because atheism is a negation to theism, not to gods existence.

    If there is one thing the Stanford article makes abundantly clear, it's that there are several meanings, the bit you quote is hardly the only relevant bit.

    I would use agnostics as examples to illustrate the logic. You seem avoidant though.

    You're being sloppy with your wordings, and as a result, you're losing out on the logic. Flew's definitions says not only that atheists lack belief in god, but that it is the lack of belief in god is sufficient and necessary to be an atheist. Flew, however, does not make the equivalent change for theism.

    The basis of my argument is only that you cannot disregard arguments that are made with any specific set of definitions. Many of the arguments you quote or address explicitly use Flew's definition of atheism but not the "lack of belief in there not being a god" definition of theism. If you want to address those arguments (and you often do), you will have to stick to the same definitions, or acknowledge that you're avoiding the argument they're trying to make. You can then go on to define theism however you want, it just won't have anything to do with the words that "neoatheists" are using.

    It only turns into a contradiction when you apply your personal logic.

    Now, by definition, in "neoatheistville", atheism is the lack of belief that God(s) exist, and theism is the belief that God does exist. The introduction of "theism is lack of belief that Gods don't exist" is an conjecture on your side, and is not represented in Flew's definition or in the logic of "neoatheists".

    Flew defends his definition of atheism in terms of the greek a- prefix, any equivalent argument cannot be made for redefining theism as you suggest. The Stanford article ascribes legitimacy of the Flew definition due to usage, the same argument cannot be made for redefining theism as you suggest. So there are plenty of reasons to define atheism as Flew does, but there are no reasons to define theism as you suggest. Turns out Flew's logic holds up just fine while destroying the "lack belief that God(s) don't exist" logic.
     
  4. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes there is something, I already posted it, maybe you should reread it.
    THey also make abundantly clear that the the bit I quote is the only relevant bit for the for the proposition I have been talking about for the last 100 pages of your quagmire.
    You wont get a response from me because you dont understand simple negation much less more complicated logic.
    Thats flews opinion nothing more, that I have debunked and stanford backs me up.
    You ae the one that is disregarding legitimate arguments.
    How many more times do I need to post it? There is absolutely NOthing materially incorrect with: "lack of belief in there not being a god" definition of theism. It is 100% materially and logically correct.
    It contradicts their bunk 100% between the eyes, bit of denial I see.
    So you want to gag me from posting counter arguments the are 100% negation to flews garbage, is that it? Nice try wont happen.
    See what I mean you dont even understand that I used flews 'personal' logic, puhlease! :rolleyes:
    Bullshit, then its conjecture on flews part too, identical logic, identical reasoning 'negated'.
    Bullshit, it does not redefine theism it restates it, nothing more than your opinion that you cant therefore wont back up.
    Turns out that "lack belief that God(s) don't exist" holds up equally as well you have shown no different, and as I said you cant, NOT without destroying flews argument, as it is a direct negation!
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2020
  5. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How many times do I need to repeat myself before you get it?

    Stanford is crystal clear on the matter:
    Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. (They just threw you pal flew under the buss!) It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/


    Stanford points out Flews opinion 'lack of belief' is bunk, nonsequitur, I have proven flews opinion is bunk.

    All flew did is restate atheism negatively, that can be done with 'any positive statement, and vice versa. My major bitch is that neoatheists are linguistically challenged and do not understand how to properly apply these concepts to come up with a correct answer, as I have shown time and time again.

    Theists lack belief in the nonexistence of God, is simply restating the positive 'theists believe in the existence of God' as a negative, it means exactly the same thing.

    So stop ignoring that we are talking about the content of the belief not the act or psychological state of believing.

    Likewise atheists believe the nonexistence God, (positive) versus atheists lack belief in the existence of God. (negative)

    Yardmeat nailed this one.

    Flew says: atheists lack belief in existence......
    I said: theists lack believe in nonexistence.....


    Identical rules apply to both LOL

    Straight up bullseye counterargument. Wooden stake through the heart, BLAM! :winner:
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2020
  6. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have the definition of the word atheism, and theism. Atheism by definition is not theism. An atheist, by definition, is not a theist. This is reality. Sorry.
     
  7. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL!
    you think I said something different?

    "Does God Exist"? Yes or No?

    1) theists lack belief that God(s) do not exist',
    2) you did not state that no God(s) exist, as required by the proposition
    3) the default condition is theist, you are a theist.

    playing in the neoatheist word salad is great fun! :bounce:
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2020
  8. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't know why you keep trolling this moronic claim in thread after thread. Atheism, by definition, is not a religion. Atheism, by definition, is not theism. An atheist, by definition, can not be a theist.
     
  9. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would love a detailed explanation of that bit of “ reasoning”
     
  10. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I though theists had to believe in god? So now anyone who doesn’t actually have a position is a theist? Agnostics are now theists? Babies are theists? Dogs and cars are theists?
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2020
  11. Goomba

    Goomba Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    10,717
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Your former idea of god failed to remain in your mind as a source of ultimate identity. This makes sense, as you can’t do much with “old man in the sky;” especially when juxtaposed against modern concepts in understanding the universe.

    This concept of god that once existed in your mind was replaced with an idea where ‘reason’ was the only mechanism whereby one can know everything. In consequence, you perceived the world and acted upon this idea, all the while not realizing that your life events are a reflection of your own overarching views of existence.
     
  12. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I also thought that the same was true to be an atheist, that atheists had to disbelieve in God, until the neoatheists set invented new rules of definition which uses the negative. I dont see a problem with it since it achieves the same answer, if you lack belief God exists then according to their rules you are an atheist, and again according to their rules if you lack believe in the nonexistence of God then you are a theist. Its their grammar and lexical rules, not mine.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2020
    gfm7175 likes this.
  13. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you will have to point out where atheists claim that lack of belief in the non existence of god makes you a theist. Particularly since in your past you have claimed that believing in god is not a requirement for a religion.
     
  14. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    nice bit of babble. Why don’t you tell me exactly what my former idea of god was ( and it wasn’t an old man in the sky) and what it is now and then of course just for laughs why don’t you define your concept of god.

    oh, and my life without believing in god has been just about as perfect as one can imagine except of course for losing my wife after 35 happy years of marriage.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2020
  15. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I never said: "atheists claim that lack of belief in the non existence of god makes you a theist" :confused:

    This example has nothing to do with the subject matter per say as you may think. It has everything to do with reason, logic, and constructs. If it works in one direction it has to also work in the other direction.

    It goes without saying that when:

    Someone lacks belief that God exists they are atheist,
    then
    [when]Someone lacks belief that God does not exist they are theist.


    cant get more simple that that!

    Therefore the default condition is theist.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2020
  16. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No your previous position was that atheists had to believe that god does not exist. And you continued claim that neoathiests speak for atheists is sophistry at it’s worst.
     
  17. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    nonsense. Omits of course the position that existence or non existence is unknown. And also a logic change from your previous position that atheists had to believe that there is no god. Your logic is faulty and your positions are fluid. You have no firm ground to debate on!
     
  18. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    its not sophistry its illiteracy.
    but if it makes them happy, hell Im easy to get along with we can use that same goofy wordsalad with the logic that proves just how over the top ridiculous neoatheology really is.
    Otherwise I am totally on board with stanford u, that to be an atheist one must make an affirmative statement otherwise its bullshit, but Im easy to get along with now the default condition is theist, its their bed they can sleep in it :D
     
  19. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    well I wouldn’t actually say you are illiterate! And the default condition being theist has in no way been proven. You failed of course to address my objection to your fallacious argument!
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2020
  20. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thats for them to work out not me, its their stroke of genius that I warned them would come back to bite them in the ass, well that time is here and now.
    Good luck proving that my logic is faulty.
    The irony here is that if you can prove that my logic is faulty then you also prove their logic is faulty so by all means take your best shot and kick my ass! LMAO
     
  21. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    already proven!
     
  22. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You failed to post an objection, but see below, I will prove it anyway :cool:

    Sure when you are born you have no belief in the nonexistence of God, none what so ever, therefore theism is the default condition.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2020
  23. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh, please show me, and inform rahl that you debunked his lack of belief rhetoric LOL

    Unless of course you mean I proved it?

    Rocks, water, birds, none of them have a belief in the nonexistence of God, it goes without saying then that theism is the default condition.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2020
  24. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you are getting more pathetic in your arguments all the time. If you cannot actually discuss what I said you should go home to mama. You probably need a warm teat!
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2020
  25. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And of course pretending to take you seriously since you have no belief in the existence of god than not giving rat’s ass is the default position.
     

Share This Page