Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

you get an a for effort.
yes an agnostic is (not a theist) AND (not an atheist), you are correct.
your post doesnt change anything, not sure what your point is.
you insist that "I do not allow" this is totally false, logic does not allow.
swensson and now you are beating your heads against the wall trying to justify flew and neither of you even know how to create a set of proofs. That simply is not my problem, so you can go on accusing me of 'not allowing' till hell freezes over and its water off a ducks back because you are blaming the messenger presenting the logic you need to defeat and you should be blaming yourselves because you cant 'logically' make it work.

Now you realize you contradicted yourself when you said that Flews absence of belief which = (not theist) = atheist

If its true that not theists are atheist then agnostics are atheists and of course the problem is that agnostics reject atheism.

You and swensson are quoting flew and claiming everyone not a theist are atheist, not me.

You are claiming the negation not theist which is the logical negation of theist.

Ah the web you weave!

 

I was distracted

You and swensson are claiming that the flew definition of atheist is the logical negation of theist.

swensson said many times flew is !x meaning the logical negation of theist ie atheist = (not theist).

You and swensson are defining everyone atheist = not theist, you cant have it both ways, it cant be a negation and not a negation at the same time, sorry.

your logic folds in on itself and self destructs as I predicted flew would before we started arguing about this point.

 

It corrects what you wrote. Both your understanding of "atheist" and "agnostic" include the negation of theist, and neither of your understandings of these words are fully defined as the negation of theist. But some people use the word "atheist" to actually mean the negation of theist.

Logic does not decide what people mean when they use words. You refuse to understand what people say because you insist on reading them as using the word as they explicitly tell you are they are not using the word.

No, I didn't contradict myself. I was using the word "atheist" as you refuse to understand some people use it. I'm also capable of addressing your writing, using your preferred meaning of the word. I'm capable of doing so without equivocating the two, as you kept doing earlier in the thread.

Only if you use the word "atheism" as you insist on doing. For those of us who use the word to mean the negation of theism, there is no such conflict, and you can be both agnostic and atheist.

Everyone who is not a theist is a negation of theist, not a theist, which is an atheist as some of us use that word. Just because you insist on using the word differently, doesn't make us wrong.

Most human beings re able to understand both different meanings of the word and understand what people actually mean when they use it if they are clear enough, which everyone here has been. You are special case. That's on you, not anybody else.

 

yes people have the right to be nutty as a fruit cake, does not change its academically unacceptable for the purposes you and swensson are trying to use it.

Nope it decides how sane they are.

Huh??? I perfectly understand how some people use it, they have the right to call it a turnip if they want abd when they get bad enough society has the right to throw them in rubber rooms.

I told you I do not insist on anything, logic dictates how it must be used under the circumstances it is being argued.
Sorry if you had to take it on the chin, choose your arguments more carefully next time.

Neither is there conflict for those who choose to call it a turnip.

Not under the circumstances being argued here. See you just dont get it.

I know and again that cannot work under these circumstances, feel free to lay out your logic that makes it work, as you can see swensson has failed time and time again. I already gave you the reason it cant work in the terms swensson and yourself are trying to force it, and it always goes zing right past you.

Yep I know how to set these things up.

 

Logic does not dictate your intentional misreading and misunderstanding of the people you respond to in this thread. That is the opposite of logic doing that to you.

You have this weird habit of declaring victory (when there wasn't even a real disagreement) and claiming to prove things you don't prove. I have taken nothing "on the chin". Nor has Swensson, DRI, or anybody else who has posted in this thread.

It is you who doesn't get it. There is nothing illogical or conflicting in what you claim you have "disproved". Your "disproving" is entirely based on your applying labels and reading in meanings people explicitly stated are not what they meant.

Anything that is not A is negation of A; !A. That is what negation means. You haven't shown otherwise. Negation does not mean opposite.

That people label !Theist as "atheist" is just a label they have chosen. It doesn't change the logic one bit. And you wanting to declare that the word "atheist" means more than just !Theist doesn't change the logic either. Your equivocation games don't change the logic either.

You keep claiming you have disproved what Swensson posted... but never even actually address it.

 

emphasis added, no that does not change the meaning of your post any more than the brackets did!

1. 
   ne·ga·tion
   /nəˈɡāSH(ə)n/
   
   noun: negation;
   1. 1.
      the contradiction or denial of something.
      "there should be confirmation—or negation—of the findings"
      
      2. the absence or opposite of something actual or positive.
      "evil is not merely the negation of goodness"

Of course not, still having trouble with your grammar I see.

Seems you have the market cornered on 'misreading' and 'misunderstanding'.

I proved your semantics with references, you simply ignored them and pretend it never happened, you are in denial. I hope crayolaing this for you helps this time!

Keep at it and you will get educated, the hardest way imaginable if you continue arguing the path you are on. I wont back down to political bullshit, logic rules the day.

 

Consider:

An abstainer is one who neither votes yes nor votes no.
An agnostic is one who neither believes God exists nor believes God does not exist.​

Clearly to translate between the two, the full string "vote yes" gets replaced with the full string "believe God exists".

1. If you did not vote yes, it does not mean that you voted no, you could have abstained, and that is 100% logical.
2. If you did not believe God exists, it does not mean that you believed God does not exist, you could have been agnostic, and that is 100% logical.

Line 2 is an exact copy of the logic and grammar of line 1, word for word, except that it is translated from the voting example to the belief example. If the first one is true (which we agree it is), then so is the second.

It seems to me in fact those who vote "I believe God exists" are exactly the same as those who believe that God exists (if we don't take into account misvoting or anything like that), so those who do not vote "I believe God exists" are exactly those who do not believe God exists, which by your statement above could be agnostics. (That being said, my main point is still that "voted" does not stay when you translate into the belief-context)

Actually, it is the definition that determines what makes one an atheist, or what you state about yourself by labelling yourself an atheist. Of course, we're still disagreeing on what the definition means/entails, but it is telling that you're having to divert from the agreed upon and dictionary-supported definition to make your logic work.

Nope, those who call themselves agnostic-atheists do not assert that atheists are defined by "believe the proposition that God does not exist is true", so the irrationality again lies in your asserting that that is what people must mean, when in fact they don't.

 

Back to rewind repeat I see

First I do not see complete sentences please use complete sentences so I can consider it.
Second if you dont like vote change it to 'choose'/'chose'.

False you removed "voted"

I told you that you need to understand this in full sentences to examine content.

Theists, atheists, and agnostics are people, people are referenced with a pronoun.
First Person Singular I my
Second Person Singular you your
Third Person Singular he/she/it his/her/its
First Person Plural we our

Please respect proper grammar.

"I believe God exists" <--complete sentence
"I believe God does not exist" <--complete sentence

if you did not vote I believe God exists, b=1=T, it does not mean that you voted I believe God does not exist, db=1=T, you could have been agnostic 0,0, b=0=F,and db=0=F.

if you did not choose I believe God exists, b=1=T, it does not mean that you chose I believe God does not exist, db=1=T, you could have chose agnostic 0,0, b=0=F,and db=0=F.

agnostic = nor function, how many more times are we going to do this?

 

*personal pronoun

 

If you insist.

This is not a proper sentence because it is lacking a period at the end of it. Periods are used at the end of complete sentences. The word "and" is also needed between the words "rewind" and "repeat".

Other punctuation marks include question marks (?) used to ask questions, and exclamation marks (!) to add emphasis and seem like you are shouting. We shall save colons and semicolons for the more advanced pedantic patronizing Kokomojo lecture.

This is not a proper or complete sentence. There should be a comma after the word "First", and a period after the word "sentences". The word "please" needs to be capitalized, as it starts a new sentence. The capitalized version of "p" is "P". Please note this for future reference.

There should be a comma after the word "Second", and also after the word "vote". There is also inconsistent use of quotation marks (").

This is again not a proper sentence. Please respect proper grammar and syntax.

 

wow, Im so sorry.
It was perfectly clear my reference was to what swensson wanted considered
I guess you missed the point 'again'.
I could give a **** less otherwise.
Hope it brought happiness into peoples mundane worlds and gave them a moment of feel good pills.

 

when and 'if' I ever see proper grammar and properly constructed truth tables with proper analysis, I will happily concede flew is legitimate for this argument. Until then you and everyone else are wasting font ink whining about about me insisting its all done according to hoyle.

So lets see some complete sentences so we can avoid your usual equivocation and move this in a positive direction.

Ok cheerleaders, your turn!

 

Sentences should begin with the first letter capitalized.

This needs a period at the end to make it a complete sentence.

That means you care, at least a little. If you don't, you should say you don't give a ****.

This pedantic patronizing correction is a service to hold a mirror to the face of a Mr. Kokomojo, who has routinely done the same, pretending it is an argument, the most recent example being him explaining to a Mr. Swensson what pronouns are, as if Mr. Swensson was not already aware.

 

too much effort for the rewind repeat junkies out here
youll see, swensson aint gonna like that, and your side will have another opportunity to whine that I just dont use it the way you want me too.

 

All you do is rewind and repeat. Others here have made numerous efforts to reach across to you and you have made zero effort in return, instead insisting on misunderstanding them, and declaring you disproved what they didn't actually say.

 

time to replace that broken mirror
no one (on your team) has come up with a rational truth table or syllogisms
your team cant deal with the fact that I predicted your atempts will fail 200 pages ago because it defies logic.
Look how much fun you are having cheering for swensson and calling me names, I should charge admission.

 

With your constant need to misunderstand what everyone else writes so you can think you proved them wrong, you can't actually know if anyone came up with anything rational or not.

You are indeed a fun troll.

 

Yes typically do respond to trolls, even if only to demonstrate they are trolling and falsifying the situation.

Flew is absence of belief in God, your claims that I misunderstand is and always has been bullshit on its face. I crayola'd it for you, hope that helps toward a more honest discussion.

You came in right on Q too lol

If I ever saw an atheist thread without incessant diversions and name calling by atheists that would definitely fall under a miracle and then I would be forced to convert to theist.

 

Well yeah, your critiques aren't valid, so of course the argument as presented remains the thing to discuss.

Seems to me there are nothing but complete, full sentences in the post you quoted. Even "Consider" is a complete imperative sentence. Is there any particular sentence you think is not complete?

I don't have a problem with "vote".

Removing "voted" is a part of correctly translating the phrase into the "belief" context. Just like the word turned up when you introduced the senator context, it goes away when we translate out of the senator context. Are you saying you were wrong in introducing the word "voted" when you started talking about the senator example?

The fact that "voted" does indeed correctly get replaced when translating between the contexts is illustrated nicely by the following two equivalent sentences.

An abstainer is a person who neither votes yes nor votes no.
An agnostic is a person who neither believes God exists nor believes God does not exist.​

Clearly to translate between the two, the full phrase "vote yes" gets replaced with the full string "believe God exists".

So we are back where we were, line 2 (below) is an exact copy of the logic and grammar of line 1, word for word, except that it is translated from the voting example to the belief example. If the first one is true (which we agree it is), then so is the second.

1. If you did not vote yes, it does not mean that you voted no, you could have abstained, and that is 100% logical.
2. If you did not believe God exists, it does not mean that you believed God does not exist, you could have been agnostic, and that is 100% logical.

Not sure what you think this addresses. Most of the time, I refer to a theist as "a theist".

 

You will admit that until the moment you address the statements made by people using that definition. Then you switch it. You have been doing that equivocation since the start and show no signs of stopping. And that means that while you pretend to disprove these people, you don't even address what they actually said.

I have seen and participated in such threads and conversations. That you have not tells us something about you. If you act with disrespect, don't expect to be respected. Swensson here has actually been amazingly restrained in the face of your constant rudeness towards him. I bit back a bit more, and you more than deserved it.

 

I proved both the absence of belief theory and its consequence the equivocation theory that both swensson and you hold wrong, twice in the last 2 pages, and both of you whizzed right on past it like it never happened.

Nah you just arent being very creative, its not necessary to remove voted at all, so lets not remove it, See:

If you did not vote I believe God exists, it does not mean that you voted I believe God does not exist, you could have been agnostic, and that is 100% logical.

It would sound better I suppose if you said

If you did not choose I believe God exists, it does not mean that you chose I believe God does not exist, you could have been agnostic, and that is 100% logical.

So since you like and see the value in the voted analogy lets stick with voted or choose.

 

What theory do you think you disproved? No such theory has been presented in this thread. Only a definition you don't like has. That and your claim many pages back that not believing there is a God and believing there is no God are the same, which instead of proving, you disproved by pointing out agnostics.

It is necessary if you want to switch back from the voting analogy and talk instead about if and what people believe.

Or do you think belief that Gods exist is itself is a choice? If you do, then we finally have our first actual disagreement that goes beyond your bickering over mere semantics. I never chose not to believe God exists. It wasn't a vote I made.

There is value in analogies only if you can see the parallelism in them, which you keep refusing to acknowledge to Swensson. He even "crayola'd" it for you.

 

so you are totally without knowledge of any G/gods what so ever.

Let me help you sort that dilemma out.

You have 2 choices, yes or no, refusal answer is concession.

Have you ever heard about G/god(s), yes or no? ___________
Do you believe G/god(s) exist, yes or no? ___________
Do you believe G/god(s) do not exist, yes or no? ________

Dodge it is automatic concession.

now you claim to not know what you are defending? seriously!

semantics? See below:

yes those are semantics you are bickering over.

There is absolutely no difference between "I do not believe there is a God" and "I believe there is no God".


What is that 4 shots to the foot in one post?

 

No, that does not follow.

I don't believe any Gods exist, but I never chose not to believe any God exists. I am aware of claims made regarding Gods.

Do you think belief that Gods exist is a choice people make?

Can you will yourself into believing Gods exist? I can't.

I also can't will myself into believing I am an elephant. Can you will yourself into believing that?

I've not defended anything in this thread, other than the fact that you contradict yourself and intentionally misread what others write.

You have not given any argument to establish that odd claim, and you keep contradicting it when you point at your preferred definition of agnostic.

You've told us that the agnostic says yes to the first statement and no to the second, and then in the next breath you tell us there is absolutely no difference between the two statements. You contradict yourself.

 

Thanks for proving my point.