Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

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

  1. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,158
    Likes Received:
    30,621
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, anyone with a junior high or higher level of grammar and logic skills can easily see this is bull ****. Just because there are religious baseball players does not mean that baseball is a religion. You've never been able to respond to this fact.
     
  2. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Scipture? since when do you need scripture to be a religion?
     
  3. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So what happened to you, did you flunk out?
    never said they were, dont forget to blame your fabrications on to me on the next page ok.

    So hows that "I dont know" workin for ya? :boo: LMAO
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2022
  4. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,158
    Likes Received:
    30,621
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In order to claim that atheism is a religion, you've pointed to atheists who are religious. If that logic were true, then that would make baseball players, redheads, etc. religions, based on the same logic. It's called a counterexample, bud.

    There are atheists who are religious =/= atheism is a religion
    There are atheist religions =/= atheism is a religion

    Yet these are the arguments you offer.

    This ain't rocket surgery.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2022
  5. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    false, all atheists are religios. :mrgreen:
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2022
  6. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,158
    Likes Received:
    30,621
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just like all people have a god, which you've also claimed in the past? Or is this going to be another claim that you can't make up your mind about and keep switching positions on so that you can constantly contradict yourself?
     
  7. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope thats your turf, leave me out of it.
     
  8. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,158
    Likes Received:
    30,621
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So now you are denying that you have claimed that everyone has a god?
     
  9. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I dont contradict myself, you keep looking in the mirror and accusing me of what you see.
     
  10. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,158
    Likes Received:
    30,621
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You've claimed that everyone has a god, making everyone a theist. You have claimed you are not a theist. This is a contradiction. And it's hardly your first one.
     
  11. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Huh? where?

    So hows that "I dont know" workin for ya? :boo: LMAO
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2022
  12. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We have not agreed on what disbelief means, and as argued in since like the beginning of the thread, you're using it in two different ways, creating the fallacy of equivocation.

    Nor would Flew agree that you have identified the correct criteria for being an atheist. What you're testing here isn't my theory, it's my theory plus two mistakes of yours. Your first line here is fallacious, your attempt at checking my logic has failed, since you introduced other errors.

    Your second line though seems fine:
    "I do not disbelief that God exists, therefore !Atheist
    I do not belief God exists, therefore !Theist"​
    I'm happy to accept your second line. Remember the first definition you posted:
    "Definition of atheist noun from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
    atheist noun
    a person who does not believe that God or gods exist"
    (dictionary source, PF source)​
    So in fact, you do fulfil the exact condition that makes one an atheist. It conflicts with your first line about whether you are an atheist, and that is because you've got the criteria for being an atheist wrong in your first line. (Of course, this is matched in Flew's definition "someone who is simply not a theist", which is expressed in your second line as "!Theist")

    Well, your logic check failed, so this remains the situation:
    • If "Kokomojojo is a theist", you would know, i.e. we can rule out this being true.
    • Therefore, "Kokomojojo is a theist" must be false. (Principle of bivalence) (This is the bit that is written in your second line)
    • Therefore, "Kokomojojo believes God exists" must be false since being a theist is the same as believing that God exists (if we ignore the possibility that Kokomojojo isn't a person)
    • Therefore, the negation of "Kokomojojo believes God exists" must be true (again LEM).
    • Therefore, "Kokomojojo does not believe God exists" must be true, since it is the negation of "Kokomojojo believes God exists".
    I don't follow this. How can koko both align and not align with the definition of blue (the two underlined sections)?

    In the atheism example, Flew's definition is equivalent to "someone who is simply not blue", and it seems to me that for anyone who is green, it is true that they are not blue (unless you're alluding to colour mixing or anything like that, it's kinda unclear).
     
  13. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just shorthand way of saying:

    1) Koko does not believe there is no God
    AND
    2) Koko does not believe there is a God

    It is not true to claim koko believes there is no God
    AND
    It is not true to claim koko believes there is a God

    It is false to claim koko believes there is no God
    AND
    It is false to claim koko believes there is a God

    Its a logical abortion to claim "I dont know" is an agnostic like professor dodge claims.

    A psychological state is not a proposition.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2022
  14. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hmm just what we thought! you made it all up again.

    So hows that "I dont know" workin for ya? :boo: LMAO
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2022
  15. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can always run with the rest of professor dodges screwball logical misapplications!

    A and B therefore B,

    Green:

    Blue and Yellow therefore Blue (Green is not blue)
    Blue and Yellow therefore Yellow (Green is not yellow)


    Only nutterville logic claims Green is blue or Green is yellow!
    Green is an inseparable composite.

    !theist and !atheist therefore atheist (Agnostic is not atheist)
    likewise:
    !theist and !atheist therefore theist (Agnostic is not theist)
    Agnostic is an inseparable composite.

    Trying to reduce green to a dingle color is complete nonsense, green cannot be reduced to a single color any more than agnostic can be reduced to a single value.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2022
  16. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,158
    Likes Received:
    30,621
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And yet another one of your contradictions. You seem to collect them. You claim that there's something wrong with "I don't know" while claiming that you don't know. It's bad enough that you refuse to produce sources to your claims, that refuse to answer any questions, that you demand work from others that you never actually respond to, but you could at least be consistent. Apparently that is too much to ask for. Enjoy the tomato. Meanwhile, ask one of your other personalities how "I don't know" is working out for them.
     
  17. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,158
    Likes Received:
    30,621
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Still struggling with the concept of conjunction elimination, I see. Yes, "A and B, therefore B" is a valid argument. It's in every intro text. I've linked you to several sources. Even the Wikipedia article you referenced (though tried to hide the source of) agreed with me on this. Your fake "green" straw man makes no *******n sense.

    "Blue" is not a proposition/statement. "Yellow" is not a proposition/statement. "Blue" is neither true nor false. Neither is yellow. Now, you can try thinking about this a little harder and fix your fake argument with a little work, but I'll do it for you.

    "Blue exists" is an actual proposition/statement. It can be true or false. Same for "Yellow exists."

    So, a correct formulation would be: Blue exists and yellow exits, therefore blue exists." Which is true and valid.

    Or, since you are obsessed with green:

    Green contains blue pigments and green contains yellow pigments, therefore green contains blue pigments.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2022
  18. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,158
    Likes Received:
    30,621
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No one has argued that "a psychological state is a proposition," and you have, for years, denied that "Koko does not believe there is a God" is true. You, once again, contradict yourself. You've repeatedly said that not believing there is a God and actively believing that a God does not exist are the same thing.
     
  19. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,216
    Likes Received:
    3,847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which is all fine and good until

    3) Koko then tells you not believing there is a God is the same as believing there is no God, the difference merely semantic.
     
    yardmeat likes this.
  20. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,158
    Likes Received:
    30,621
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And self-contradictory.
     
  21. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,216
    Likes Received:
    3,847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh but it's me being stupid pointing that out you see, because it isn't a contradiction, because... Reasons.
     
    yardmeat likes this.
  22. Injeun

    Injeun Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    12,832
    Likes Received:
    5,961
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Atheism isn't a belief system. It's an acknowledgement of the self evident truth that we live, and that when we die, we cease to live. That is not a religion. It is simply observation of the physical world in which we live. As such, it is rational.
     
  23. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    strawman, you changed the argument.
    Green is the composite of yellow and blue
    I did not say green material. Another PLONK! Bravo
     
  24. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hmm I know Neoatheists are lacking in their logic but are you trying to say their belief that God does not exist has no other processes? May as well claim they are deadbrains, which of course we know 'lack of belief' fits that definition perfectly, and I am finding out the same goes for some agnostics.
     
  25. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    no its not.
    :roflol::roflol::roll:.
     

Share This Page