Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

Nope, a proposition is always true when its negation is false. For an agnostic, both are false, so the two lines you have are not negations of each other. I've asked you before, why do you think those things are negations? I've shown you how they can't be negations on several occasions, why do you keep bringing up this idea which doesn't work?

 

Maybe you are using a nonphilosophical definition of negation.

what do you think a negation is?

If you think the propositions are not the negation of each other explain why you think that is the case?

 

Obviously, I don't think my version is particularly nonphilosophical, but yes, I've been pointing out for ages that we seem to have different definitions of negation. I have asked you time and time again to provide your definition and how you use it, perhaps most recently here, but you've never responded with anything useful.

I think a negation is that which is false whenever the thing it is a negation of is true (and vice versa). For instance, it would be false to point at a green object and say "that is black", so the negation must be true "that object is not black".

In logic, negation, also called the logical complement, is an operation that takes a proposition to another proposition "not ", written , which is interpreted intuitively as being true when is false, and false when is true (source)​

This ensures the laws of thought, the law of non-contradiction corresponds to "not P" being false when P is true, and the law of the excluded middle corresponds to "not P" being true when P is false.

The clearest objection is the one I have brought up many times. A negation of a proposition is necessarily false if and only if the original proposition is true, by the law of the excluded middle. However, if we point to an agnostic, we find both your statements to be false, which is forbidden for a negation, so the two cannot be negations.

 

"lack of belief in the nonexistence of god" (believer)
is the precise negation of the
"lack of belief in the existence of god". (nonbeliever)

 

Looks like you're the one using a non-philosophical definition of negation. Well, I presented my definition, and a directly following argument which shows how you're wrong. Your turn to show what you mean by negation, and show how you think your two lines satisfy it.

 

existence and nonexistence are not the negation of each other?

Ok we're done.

 

That's not what I said. Existence and non-existence are negations (follows the law of the excluded middle, everything either exists or does not exist). Two propositions do not become negations of one another just because they include words that are negations.

But you're dodging my actual question. What do you mean by negation, and how do your two lines satisfy whatever criteria you have?

 

Ok good, we agree.

Likewise so is:

"lack of belief in the nonexistence of god"
is the precise negation of the
"lack of belief in the existence of god"

Perfectly meets the requirements of a negation.

Sure they do, (assuming proper grammar) if not this is where you apply some magic

In logic, negation, also called the logical complement, is an operation that takes a proposition to another proposition "not ", written , which is interpreted intuitively as being true when is false, and false when is true (source)

 

Good, we agree.

This seems incorrect. "Eating pancakes with dark syrup" is not the negation of "eating pancakes with light syrup", even though dark and light are negations. Despite including a negation, the two eating-concepts are quite similar, and the vast majority find that neither is true, which means the two do not follow the law of the excluded middle and are not negations.

Nope. As you say, if a proposition is false, its negation is true, and when a proposition is true, its negation is false. However, for an agnostic, both are true (they lack both beliefs) so the two lines do not fulfil the criteria for a negation.

 

yep that is where your boat is sinking.
Now if you want to use 'eating concepts' which is entirely different from the color of the syrup you ae the one dragging the garbage into the propositions, not me.

Sure it is, your syrup is either dark or light, no viloation of the EM
EM doesnt even come into question

 

And similarly, "lack of belief in the existence of god" is also "entirely different" from the existence of god itself. They're related, just like "eating syrup" is related to syrup, but they're not the same thing, and there is certainly no a priori reason to believe that the "lack" lines are negations just because the existence/nonexistence are.

 

yep thats where you boat is sinking alright.
The propositions are the identical in every way but for the words existence/nonexistence which is the operative negation, just like with your crazy syrup example that was identical except for the color dark/light and you bring in the external garbage 'eating-concepts' which is not part of the negation.

As I said you do not understand how analytical logic works, sorry.

 

Oh please. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. A lack of belief in anything is not a religion and requires no faith. Faith is belief despite a lack of evidence. A lack of belief is the skeptical default position. You don't need faith to lack belief in martians, for example, you simply lack belief in martians because you have not seen evidence for them, for example. Your lack of belief in martians is not a religion, it is simply the logical, default position when faced with a lack of evidence that martians exist.

 

but theists 'simply' lack belief in the nonexistence of God. Unless your lack of belief is proven to be a fact you have faith. There is no default position. Not sure what your point is?

 

You lack a belief in martians. Does this mean you have faith that martians don't exist? Does this mean that a lack of belief in martians is your religion? If you tell somebody they're ridiculous for believing in martians without evidence, does that then make it your religion?... Do you get it now?

 

I dont 'lack belief' in anything, I either believe or disbelieve, I have no need to play word games.

If believing or not believing in martians is a religious position then it certainly would be a religion.

Atheists faithfully believe there is no God without any evidence, whats your point?

Do you?

 

Wrong.

The proposition "theists lack belief in the nonexistence of God" contains undefined words. The word "belief" has several meanings. "God" is also too vague, is he/she/it the Christian God, the Chinese water god GongGong, the serpent god Quetzalcoatl, the omnipresent god of the Sufism? Can you find one theist that lacks belief (definition needed) in the nonexistence of them all?

Define your terms.

No.

Belief without proof is faith. Lack of belief due to lack of proof is just lack of belief.

Please explain how lack of belief can be proven.

The default position is the lack of faith. Human beings are born with it.

 

The default position is no expressible thought process.

Every theist lacks disbelief in their God, is there a point here?

ok

False, when propositions are presented its now a conscious decision not to believe

You just said so

You do not know the default condition unless you can read a newborns mind

Another default condition is how arrogant neoatheists are, ever notice that?

 

Those are not the choices. You either believe in something, or you don't. Not believing in something doesn't always mean you believe it's absolutely impossible, but that is one of the options. If we categorize it dichotomously, then it's belief and lack of belief. The a- in atheist means "without." It's not anti-theist. If you want to use three categories you could use belief, non-belief, and anti-belief - I just don't think the distinction between non-belief and anti-belief matters enough. The burden of proof is always on the positive assertion.

No, a lack of belief in something is not a religion. By definition, a religion involves positive beliefs based upon faith. Those beliefs aren't always theistic, but they are always positive beliefs.

No faith is required to lack belief in something without adequate proof. Not all atheists even say it's impossible for gods to exist, just that they do not feel it has been proven to them. Personally, I think some gods could not possibly exist like the Christian one, but that doesn't mean I think it's absolutely impossible for any higher power to exist. I just haven't seen evidence to make me believe gods exist so, by default, I lack belief and am an atheist.

 

This doesn't make sense.

Every theist believes in the nonexistence of some gods.

Only if the presented proposition contains evidence or proof, which is not the case for propositions promoting religious beliefs. Absent evidence, lack of belief is just lack of belief.

This one doesn't make sense either.

Lack of belief can't be proven. Whatever it is that one lacks belief in needs to be proven, not the lack of belief in it.

You'd be amazed at how much is known about newborns' minds.

I don't know any, so no, sorry.

 

In the same way, "lack of belief" is "external" and "not part of the negation". This shows that two lines are not necessarily negations just because the only difference between them is that one word has been replaced with its negation.

 

Propositions, now I am done, when the posts get that far over the top ridiculous you can talk to the hand from here forward. shees

 

Thats not true at all, but its right out of the neoatheist playbook, foolish presumption that everyone who believes in a God 'chose' to disbelieve all other versions. Many people grow up as children and never question if another God exists. Then there are others who believe many Gods exist and choose a single God, and yet others who combine them. Such foolishness you people post when your backs are against the wall.

Oh Id believe neoatheists brains simply shutdown and become autonomaton zombies when that switch is thrown and their preprogramming takes over.
Again more made up **** out of the neoatheist playbook, cite that rule please.

Oh sure you do

 

Sure they are

You just repeated what I said after disagreeing with what I said

No one said that was the case, srawman.

Not included in this conversation.

Thats not an unequivocal negation

however in its application it requires positive rejection

No one said another about that but you

Yes and take note that 'lack' is not in there and anti is the wrong context.

False, do some homework

It is if its a religious topic.

Says who? Which rule book you get that nonsense from rahl?

'Every' conclusion the mind makes is a belief.

Never said it was.

So whats the point? Rejection is rejection.

Thats fine, so you reject the proposition as false.

That may be your default but its certainly not universal.

 

In what was is it ridiculous? The syrup example shows that you can't assume that phrases stay negations of one another when you add stuff to them, and in this case, you're adding "lack of belief in" without justifying that the wordings stay negations. Indeed, the law of the excluded middle shows that you're simply incorrect about your two wordings being negations.