Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

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

  1. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,223
    Likes Received:
    3,847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What point? You seem to go out of your way to talk in circles while patting yourself on the back. But I see no point proved by you.
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  2. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It seems to me that if we want to examine the phrase "not believe God exists", it is in fact necessary to remove the word voted, and given that it is also the correct way to translate from the voting example to the atheist example, I see no reason not to remove it.

    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.
    It seems to me, agnostics are defined as rejecting "believe God exists" and rejecting "believe God does not exist", (i.e. having a 0 in both columns).

    You seem to be confusing what it means to reject (or "not") something. If Agnostics answered false to not(believe God exists), then it would logically follow that:
    not(believe God exists) = False
    not(not(believe God exists)) = not(False)
    believe God exists = True​
    (where the only logical step is elimination of double negation).
    Clearly this conclusion is wrong for agnostics, so your assertion that "Agnostics reject the proposition Not(believe God exists)" is incorrect.

    It seems to me, agnostics reject "belief that God does not exist", and that you're incorrectly changing that for not(believe God exists), even though they are different things. So, your argument here shows that you're wrong, my table remains.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2021
  3. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yep!
    Thanks for proving my point, that you are indiscriminately swapping logical notation with grammar.
    Lets see now I remember complaining about that what? 75 pages ago? LOL

    Theist is a choice, atheist is a choice, agnostic is a choice.

    Are you seriousy going to argue that atheists are nonthinking brain dead automatons of the borg collective and have no choice but to be atheist?

    If they are not nonthinking brain dead automatons of the borg collective then clearly they made a choice ie voted to be atheist just like theists make the choice to be theists and agnostics make the choice to be agnostic.

    Looks like we found the source of your confusion.

    Nope like I said on the last page, no full sentences no further review will be necessary as my point is proven.

    Your only avenue of escape at this point Mr Phelps is to prove that an atheist has no choice, (using full sentences not your equivocal short hand that is indistinguishable from grammar ) We need to keep this honest so its necessary to tighten up the rules.

    "I believe God exists"
    "I believe God does not exist"
    or any semantic version version you prefer.
    "I do not believe God exists"

    as long as they are full sentences and you do not interchange grammar and logic as you have in the past.

    So use the word choose or voted, or prove atheists have no choice, otherwise drilling down to the bottom of is not your intent as stated.

    I have no idea why anyone would want a religion of no choice though.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2021
  4. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    corrections:
    unless of course you can grammatically prove the meaning is not semantic.
    that was supposed to read indistinguishable between grammar and logic notation.

    I still cant imagine why anyone would choose borg ideology?

    Oh and it would also be very helpful if you would take a moment and explain the points under discussion to the cheerleaders who are whining that they are having great difficulty following the arguments under review.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2021
  5. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,223
    Likes Received:
    3,847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you choose not to believe you are an elephant?

    If you have no choice, then what you want is irrelevant.

    If you really wanted to, could you choose to believe you are an elephant, and actually believe it? I don't think you could pull that off. I know I can't.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2021
  6. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok now this argument is stretch bordering on the bleeding edge of nutterville.

    I know what an elephant is, just like I know what an atheist, agnostic, and theist is, of course I choose to believe I am not an elephant.

    Yes you could choose to believe and persuade yourself that you are an elephant and that of course would earn you a state provided one way ticket to a rubber room.

    If atheism was inherent to mankind then it would be impossible to claim anything other than atheist, you are severely confusing abstract metaphysical constructs to be equivalent to the natural/physical.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2021
  7. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,223
    Likes Received:
    3,847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. I don't have that superpower to make myself actually believe I am an elephant. If you do have such amazing powers of self deception then I am amazed.

    I can pretend I am an elephant. I can lie and claim I am an elephant. But I can't actually believe it, because I see no convincing evidence it is so.

    I can also pretend, lie and claim that I believe gods, faeries, or ghosts are real. But I can't choose to actually believe any of that, because I see no convincing evidence it is so. And if I did find truly compelling evidence, I would have no choice but to believe it.

    I don't have these amazing powers of self deception you claim to have, enabling you to choose to believe whatever you want to, even that you are an elephant.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2021
  8. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sorry for taking a while to reply.

    Not sure what you mean. I'm not doing anything to the grammar or logic that we didn't do when we introduced the senator example. The phrases below show that in order to translate between the two contexts, "votes yes" gets replaced with "believes God exists":
    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.​
    Do you think the two are not equivalents in the two examples? Doesn't the word "votes" correctly get replaced when we move from one example context to another? If you think "voted" can't be taken out of the sentence (when translating between the contexts), how were you justified in introducing it?

    Using the correct "translation" between the two contexts as shown above, you get that these two sentences have the same grammar and logical structure:
    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.
    If one is true, then so is the other.

    No mention of this in the definition that we agreed upon. It only specifies that it would be false to say that the choice "I believe God exists" is being made, it does not specify whether the person chose to take an opposite position or chose to refrain from answering altogether (or somehow ended up not answering without having chosen so). Again, you introduce things that aren't actually a part of the words we're discussing.

    Nope, the definition makes no reference to this choice you refer to. Some may have made a choice, others might not, the definition does not demand that all atheists have gone through the same process in that respect. The definition only mentions ones stance towards believing God exists, it makes no reference or requirements regarding the proposition that God does not exist (or belief in that proposition).

    All my sentences are full sentences.

    Nope, the definition of atheist that we agreed upon makes no reference to there being or not being a choice, nor does it follow from the definition.

    You start out not having made any choice, and you may or may not end up making a choice that a god exists, you may or may not end up making a choice that a god does not exist (of course, you can also change your mind along the way). Either way, to "not believe God exists" is the phrase that is true whenever "believe God exists" is false, not a bad rewording of "believing God does not exist".
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2021
    Jolly Penguin likes this.
  9. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of that I have no doubt!
    You posted in another thread NOT using the quote function to quote me, clearly with the intent of defaming me with your fabricated quote, stating the exact opposite of what I said, in an attempt to slip it under everyone's radar.
    BUSTED
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2021
  10. Black Irish

    Black Irish Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2021
    Messages:
    460
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Atheism is a "religion" for people who have no moral compunctions about raping, murdering, sodomizing, torturing and so on. It's the "religion" by which feral and primitive beasts live by, and eventually society should "deal" with it the same way that other mental or physical defects in the human condition are dealt with.
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2021
  11. The Last American

    The Last American Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2021
    Messages:
    815
    Likes Received:
    692
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Hahahaha! :winner:
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2021
    WillReadmore likes this.
  12. The Last American

    The Last American Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2021
    Messages:
    815
    Likes Received:
    692
    Trophy Points:
    93
    I haven't seen this thread till today - pretty good!

    Comical posts aside, I've still never heard any theist become as angry and insulting as atheists seem to, whenever topics like this arise. Makes no sense whatsoever.
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2021
  13. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,223
    Likes Received:
    3,847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Confirmation bias. You posted the above immediately after a post you cheered for, that you would have cited as evidence to support your claim here had it read "religion of Christianity" instead of atheism.
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2021
  14. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Look at post #1960.

    I haven't seen any atheist get upset over these claims that they are "religious" simply because they are atheist.

    The part that hits me is that to be a theist, one surely can not avoid including their god as an active part of their decision making. One can't claim to be a theist, yet ignore the god they claim to believe when making their life choices.

    An atheist has no such god to consult, no such god to worship, etc. Saying/thinking "god" is a totally empty gesture - it couldn't be less meaningful.

    When I make decisions, I do have a philosophy that I consider. But, suggesting I'm informed by "no god"? Or, that I worship a "no god"? Or that my ideas of philosophy are predicated on there not being a god - that's just stupid. I don't even know how to further convey how totally ridiculous it is for someone to claim that I consult "no god".

    What I'm informed by just doesn't happen to be a god. After all, I'm an atheist.

    How could I be informed by something that just plain doesn't even exist?
     
    Jolly Penguin likes this.
  15. The Last American

    The Last American Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2021
    Messages:
    815
    Likes Received:
    692
    Trophy Points:
    93
    I should have said some atheists. ;)

    I enjoy reading your posts!
     
  16. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    when a person does not choose either side that is defined as agnostic, not atheist.
    Atheist by definition makes the choice; atheist.

    agnostic
    noun
    a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic

    Thank you for 'finally' admitting that the default condition is agnostic
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2021
  17. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure. In fact, I'd suggest that all atheists are agnostic, in that surely they know there is no way to be absolutely positive about there being no god.

    On the other hand, agnostics don't consult a god in their decision making, don't worship a god that they don't even know exists, etc.

    I'd suggest that agnostics actually behave pretty much EXACTLY as atheists.
     
  18. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you can suggest atheists are turnips since based on your suggestion they both are absent belief in G/god(s)

    You can suggest whatever you like, until you can logically prove your point you have nothing.

    Atheists accept wooden nickels as fact agnostics do not.

    Agnostics do not believe God does not exist, thats the definition of atheist. Like others here you seem confused and trying to force atheist believf structure on agnostics just like your atheist pals have been trying (unsuccessfully) to accomplish.

    In fact the atheist position has gotten so lame they are now claiming people are brainless automatons and cant choose what they believe or disbelieve! I mean ****ing seriously? :brainless:
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2021
  19. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What I've said has been demonstrated many times.

    Let's remember that this thread is about religion - and thus how atheists and agnostics make decisions is the issue here.

    Agnostics make their decisions the same way atheists do - without the consultation of a specific god they believe exists.

    There may be people who claim to be Christian agnostics, but Christianity certainly does not accept that, and it seems most likely that they would be following some definition of philosophy if it is more than a social decision. There may be atheists who take this direction, too! It's not as if atheism is socially popular.
     
    Dirty Rotten Imbecile likes this.
  20. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FALSE, as in agnostics do NOT, as in agnostics REFUSE to accept atheism as a valid premise period therefore do not conduct themselves the same as atheists.

    Atheists act much the same and accept the same logic as theists therefore they are really theists LOL

    [​IMG]
    0,0 atheist is 5000% unsupported in logic!

    I even made extensive efforts to show you how to set up flew
    This is how you do it right:
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2021
  21. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL!!!

    I stand by what I said.
     
    Dirty Rotten Imbecile likes this.
  22. The Last American

    The Last American Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2021
    Messages:
    815
    Likes Received:
    692
    Trophy Points:
    93
    You are a far more tolerant man than I am. I will try to learn from you.
     
  23. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't particularly have a problem with that, as agnostics on Flew's view are a subset of atheists. If you do not believe God exists, then you are an atheist by Flew's definition. If you in addition (not "instead") do not believe God does not exist, then in addition to being an atheist, you are also an agnostic.

    If you take a person with the default position (for instance a baby who hasn't considered, perhaps can't consider, the existence of God), it would be false to say that they believe God exists. Therefore, it is not(false) that they not(believe God exists), i.e. it is true that they do not believe God exists. There is no "choice" invoked in that logic, just as there is none in the definition of atheist that you agree to.

    And since you seem to prefer avoiding the questions I ask, here they are again.

    The phrases below show that in order to translate between the two contexts, "votes yes" gets replaced with "believes God exists":
    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.​
    Do you think the two are not equivalents in the two examples? Doesn't the word "votes" correctly get replaced when we move from one example context to another? If you think "voted" can't be taken out of the sentence (when translating between the contexts), how were you justified in introducing it?

    Using the correct "translation" between the two contexts as shown above, you get that these two sentences have the same grammar and logical structure:
    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.
    If one is true, then so is the other.
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  24. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't believe there is a god. I operate on the premise that there is no god. Do I absolutely know there is no god? Of course not. How could anyone know that?

    I just don't see much of an operational difference between atheism and agnosticism. (I hope that wasn't a term of art back there.)

    Does anyone actually say, "I'm going to do X instead of Y, because maybe there is a god and who knows, maybe that god would want me to do X."? I don't know how someone could live like that.
     
    Jolly Penguin likes this.
  25. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good way to learn mostly what not to do! lol
     

Share This Page