Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

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

  1. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry but your two actual belief systems have supernatural or supernatural states of being. Try again!

    https://www.world-religions-professor.com/shintobeliefs.html
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2020
  2. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Always interesting you people cannot actually debate what atheists believe. Hiding behind imaginary neo- atheists demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty.
     
  3. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your posts prove its you that is posting wacked out delusion.

    Neo-atheism


    Neo-atheism is the polemic of writers like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens who disparage and refute the Bible. Unlike their atheist predecessors, they exhibit a ferocious antagonism towards religion. Neo-atheism promulgates a zeal for evolution and Darwinism, exemplifed by Dawkins being described as Darwin's rottweiller.

    The difference between other atheists and neo-atheists is that the former rarely push their views on anyone, whereas the modern neo-atheists are essentially anti-religious activists.


    Hmmm......imagine that.....





    Again human secularism, in fact the state even recognizes them as a religion.


    Even atheists believe in the supernatural.

    [​IMG]


    Conclusion: Most (if not all) atheists are hypocrites.

    Prove that atheists do not believe in anything supernatural.


    Several years ago, Theos conducted a much smaller and more local survey into what UK unbelievers believed, which we published as Post–religious Britain?: The faith of the faithless. This reported that:
    • Around a third of people who belong to no–religion, over a quarter of “Nevers” (i.e. those who answered “never” in response to the question “How often do you participate in a religious service as a worshipper?”) and 15% of atheists said that they believe in life after death;
    • One in five “Nevers” (21%) said they believe in angels as did 7% of atheists;
    • More than two in five “Nevers” (44%) believe in a human soul, as do almost a quarter (23%) of atheists;
    • A quarter (24%) of the non–religious believe in heaven and 15% in hell; and
    • A fifth (20%) of non–religious people believe in the supernatural powers of deceased ancestors, compared to 23% of the total sample.
    More generally, the proportion of people who are consistently “naturalistic” – meaning that they don’t believe in God, never attend a place of worship, call themselves non–religious, and don’t believe life after death, the soul, angels, etc. – was very low, at 9%.

    There are lots of ways one might read this. No matter what some atheist polemicists say, thoroughgoing atheistic naturalism is extremely rare, and not even the default position among atheists themselves. Even among those who reject God, there linger persistent beliefs about the supernatural or numinous; the sense there is more in heaven and earth than we dream of in our naturalist philosophies nags away. Atheism is much more variegated and interesting, and atheists are a lot less dogmatic, self–assured or certain, than some public advocates might lead us to believe. https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2019/06/06/what-do-unbelievers-believe


    hypocrites
    LOL
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2020
  4. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    nah I wont, I proved my point, Oh and dont try to bs me by telling me its an active belief because the same was true for atheists before flew and is true for neoatheists after Flew, despite their militant incredultiy.

    All the older dictionaries before the Flew hysteria say it straight up, but I am sure you will ignore that.

    Johnsons̓ Dictionary of the English Language, in Miniature: ...
    Found inside - Page 23
    Atheism: the disbelief of a God atheist, i. one who disbelieves the existence of a God

    A Dictionary of the English Language Volume 1
    atheism
    Disbelieving the existence of a God; impious; applied to persons; as, an atheistic writer.

    .
    The statement is 100% true that 'theists lack belief in the nonexistence of God' identical negation to 'atheists lack belief in the existence of God'.

    If atheism has no thought process associated with its lack then neither does theism require thought associated with its lack, point being of course that you will gloss over and ignore is that to express a lack expresses a belief, or in the case of an atheist disbelief, the proof they claim to have no God.

    The whole logic stream flew uses is frivolous on its face.
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2020
  5. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You certainly proved that your understanding of how dictionaries work isn't consistent with how I, or the dictionaries, think that dictionaries work. You showed that you were unwilling to look closely at the differences between negations and opposites, or look closer at what happens to logic when you add bits (like in this case "say" or "believe") in front of it.

    Not sure what you mean. A lack of a belief that there is no god is not an active belief, however the belief that there is a god is an active belief. The definition of theism demands that theists hold the active belief that there is a god, but Flew's definition of atheism does not demand that atheists hold the belief that there is no god. You insist that there is some symmetry between them (you call that symmetry a "negation" but that's also wrong) but your best attempt at showing it was "it goes without saying", which is basically what people say when they don't understand their own beliefs.

    Well, what do you think I should conclude from it? English dictionaries from 500 years ago will insist that "thou" is a standard word, yet that is not true for us today. Clearly, relying on old dictionaries does not guarantee a correct understanding.

    Nope. What makes you think it would be? There are rules for when these word flips are true and when they are not, and they are based on definitions. In this case, Flew's definition does not allow for your flip.

    Definitions are (by definition) what we use to determine whether something requires a thought associated with its position. The definition of theism is something like "the belief in god", belief being a thought (arguably an act, or an assertion etc.). Flew's definition of atheism, "the lack of a belief in god" does not specify that it is a thought.

    I agree, theism has no thought process associated with its "lack of belief that there is no god". However, theism is not only the "lack of belief that there is no god", it is also the belief that there is a god, and that is a thought process. In Flew's definition, atheism mirrors the lack of belief (which indeed also is not a thought process), but does not include the additional "belief that there is no god". So, based on Flew's definition, theism is a belief, atheism is not.
     
  6. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,163
    Likes Received:
    30,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Years of this stuff and you still can't explain why you accept some defintions as sacred and reject others as meaningless. For years you've been asked and challenged, and for years you've dodged. If you can't accept the fact that multiple definitions exist (and you have proven that you can't), then you can't accept natural language.

    Agnostic atheism has been a thing for centuries. If you can't grapple with the reality of that fact, don't go blaming us. One second you claim that the terms are mutual exclusive, the next you claim that they are indistinguishable. You've argued both, and you refuse to reconcile your contradictory statements. You've been offered years to produce an internally-consistent position, and for years you've refused.
     
    Jolly Penguin likes this.
  7. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Science IS falsifiable theories (a set of them). ALL theories begin as circular arguments, as I have described.

    For starters, heat is NOT 'thermal energy'. Heat is the FLOW OF thermal energy. Heat cannot be trapped. Coats work because our bodies act like a thermostat in a house and the coat is acting as a coupling reducer, reducing the coupling between a person's body and the outside air. This coupling reducer allows for our bodies to consume less energy to maintain our body temperature. In no way is heat getting slowed or trapped. Rather, heat is getting reduced.

    Heat is not getting trapped in this example either. Here, insulation acts as a coupling reducer between the air inside the house and the air outside the house, akin to the above coat example.

    Yes, I do. However, YOU do not realize how they work. A greenhouse works because the closed transparent roof and walls allow sunlight in to heat the greenhouse and everything within it, while also reducing heat due to limiting convection to the outside air. Heating by the greenhouse to the outside air is decoupled akin to wrapping a blanket around yourself.

    The Earth's atmosphere, unlike a greenhouse, is an open convective system. There is no coupling reducer. There is no heat reduction.

    Inversion Fallacy. YOU are the one creating the "fantasy versions"; YOU are the one denying reality.

    Scientists don't determine what a law means. The law speaks for itself, and the law itself is the only authoritative source.

    Again, this is you. Inversion Fallacy.

    I am well aware of that.

    No, what is magick is claiming that it can somehow "trap" or "slow" heat. What is magick is claiming that it can somehow warm the Earth's surface using the IR emitted from the Earth's surface.

    Nope, YOU are the one not grasping it. Inversion Fallacy.

    There is no such thing as "greenhouse gases"; there is no "greenhouse effect".

    Scientists and "educated persons" are not science. False Authority Fallacy.
     
  8. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How you are not realizing that you are agreeing with my definitions within your very post here.

    Theists believe that God exists. It doesn't matter whether they are a "strong/affirmative" Theist or an "agnostic" theist. It doesn't matter whether they feel 100% confident or 1% confident. They are, either way, asserting that God exists.

    Atheists believe that God does not exist. It doesn't matter whether they are a "strong/affirmative" Atheist or an "agnostic" atheist. It doesn't matter whether they feel 100% confident or 1% confident. They are, either way, asserting that God does not exist.

    Not believing in God, but not denying his existence (ie, not believing either way), is called Agnosticism.
     
  9. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,163
    Likes Received:
    30,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Reality disagrees. Good luck in your fantasy world. If you'd like, I'll send you a simple science experiment that disproves your superstitions. No scientist treats your religion seriously, and for good reason. Until (and, let's face it, unless) you are willing to talk about evidence instead of your religious belief, that's tata for now. Might want to ask yourself one day why Venus is warmer than Mercury. But that reality would challenge your dogmas, so must'nt think about that too hard.
     
  10. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,163
    Likes Received:
    30,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Read your last sentence a few times. Then review the errors in sentence that precedes it. Not believing in a thing =/= asserting that thing does not exist. What aren't you understanding about that?
     
  11. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ahhhh, choosing denial I see. Got it.

    Nope, they are all religions that ascribe to what you asked for.

    BTW, I'd be interested in your definition of "supernatural". What makes, for example, the Christian God "supernatural" as opposed to instead being natural?
     
  12. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have repeatedly proven this claim of your false in several threads now. I even linked you directly to several science experiments showing how green house gasses trap heat, which were done by 7th graders. You have no idea what you are talking about, and you have no idea what science is or does. You think "nuh uh" rebuts proven science and experimentation. It's ****ing hilarious.
     
  13. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I already presented my argumentation. Your pretending that it doesn't exist doesn't make it go away.
     
  14. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. It is not an active belief. Theism is the belief in a god or gods. It is an active belief.
     
  15. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    don't bother. I've linked him to several junior high science experiments which show how green house gasses trap heat. His rebuttal has been "nuh uh".
     
    yardmeat likes this.
  16. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I will first note how you edited away all of my argumentation presented in post #807 without providing any counterargument. See post #807 for my argumentation.

    Argument of the Stone Fallacy. You dismissed my argumentation in post #807 as "absurd" without providing any counterargumentation.

    Void Argument Fallacy (among numerous other fallacies).

    Might wanna ask yourself one day why the sunlit side of the ISS is WARMER than Earth, even though it doesn't have any atmosphere like Earth has...
     
  17. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,163
    Likes Received:
    30,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He thinks heat can't be reflected, and yet he claims that anyone who disagrees with him on that point must believe in "magick." I'm note sure if anything could surprise me at this point.
     
    rahl likes this.
  18. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,163
    Likes Received:
    30,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Multiple dodges noted. If you'd care to join me back in reality some time, I'd be happy to chat. Meanwhile, my greenhouse is warmer than the yard, which you claim would require "magick" so I guess I'm a ****ing sorcerer.
     
  19. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    RQAA. (Repetitious Question Already Answered)
     
  20. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,163
    Likes Received:
    30,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then you should be able to link to an answer, which you've refused to do. The English language has acknowledged what I'm telling you for centuries, and you still can't come to grips with it. Wonder why.
     
  21. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    YOU are the one dodging, not me. Inversion Fallacy.

    Buzzword Fallacy. Define "reality".

    You seem happy enough with our current chatter.

    Correct, for the reasons that I explained in POST #807, which you IGNORED... Your greenhouse is a higher temperature than outside your greenhouse because your greenhouse has a transparent roof/walls which allow the sun to heat the greenhouse and all within it, while the transparent roof/walls also limit convection with the outside air. The roof/walls are acting as a coupling reducer between the warmer greenhouse air and the colder outside air. Heat is being reduced, NOT "slowed" or "trapped". Overnight, without the sun shining on it, the greenhouse will eventually return back to the temperature of the outside air. It just takes longer to do so because of the coupling reduction.

    I am making no claim to "magick". See above, as well as my post #807.
     
  22. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Science is not a "holy link". False Authority Fallacy.

    The only authoritative sources are the theories of science themselves.

    Inversion Fallacy.
     
  23. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    These were the religions you claimed had no god or supernatural component.
    Big Bang Theory
    Theory of Evolution
    AGW Theory
    Shinto
    Buddhism

    First of course the first three have nothing to do with religion. Perhaps the meaning of theory escapes you. And the second two clearly have god/ supernatural components.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2020
  24. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113

    supernatural
    [​IMG] su·per·nat·u·ral
    Use supernatural in a sentence


    adjective

    1. The definition of supernatural is extraordinary or is something associated with forces we don't understand or that cannot be explained by science.

      1. The existence of ghosts is something that would be described as supernatural.
      2. When someone is very very strong and can lift up a car, this is an example of a person who would be described as having supernatural strength.

    noun
    1. The supernatural is defined as events or things that cannot be explained by nature or science and that are assumed to come from beyond or to originate from otherworldly forces.
      Ghosts and witches are an example of the supernatural.
    YourDictionary definition and usage example. Copyright © 2018 by LoveToKnow Corp
    • Link/Cite
    Link to this page
    supernatural" style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 10px; margin: 0px; color: rgb(76, 76, 76); width: 361px;">

    Cite this page
    MLA Style

    "Supernatural." YourDictionary. LoveToKnow. www.yourdictionary.com/Supernatural.
    APA Style

    Supernatural. (n.d.). In YourDictionary. Retrieved from https://www.yourdictionary.com/Supernatural

    supernatural
    1. existing or occurring outside the normal experience or knowledge of man; not explainable by the known forces or laws of nature; specif., of, involving, or attributed to God or a god
    2. of, involving, or attributed to ghosts, spirits, the occult, etc.
    3. exceeding normal bounds; extreme: skating with supernatural grace


    Origin of supernatural

    Medieval Latin supernaturalis: see super- and natural


    supernatural Idioms
    the supernatural

    supernatural beings, forces, happenings, etc., esp. ghosts, spirits, and the like
     
  25. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Gee when I read that it clearly spells out that neo atheism is a polemic not a religion and that nowhere does it claim that it represents a majority or even a significant number of atheists.

    Care to try again?

    oh and your assumption that just because some atheists believe in the supernatural makes atheism a religion is ridiculous. The fact that all religions have a supernatural component does not mean that anyone with supernatural beliefs is religious.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2020

Share This Page