Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

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

  1. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    1,783
    Likes Received:
    484
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...f-anti-science.349804/page-17#post-1071369965

    My post #414 in this thread describes in detail what you are not understanding here.

    I suggest that anyone who is confused about my position (or anyone who simply wishes to learn more about religion, science, and logic) should take a look at it.
     
  2. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    1,783
    Likes Received:
    484
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    So, "extraordinary" is a synonym? So anything that's extraordinary (remarkable?) is "supernatural"?

    So, being associated with "forces we don't understand" (ie, not understanding something) makes something "supernatural"?

    What makes, for example, the Christian God "supernatural" as opposed to instead being natural?
     
  3. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,801
    Likes Received:
    484
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Sure it does, why would you post something so crazy as that? The ledge neoatheists walk getting a bit too narrow? :roflol::roflol::roflol:
    polemics not religious?

    Maybe neoatheists post that garbage because they are in 20,000 leagues over their heads?

    Religious Polemics
    Papers presented to the Second International Conference of the Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions (LISOR) held at Leiden, 27-28 April 2000
    Series:
    It just got a lot narrower!

    :lol:
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2020
  4. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,169
    Likes Received:
    4,767
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not in any logical sense it doesn’t

    just because all religions have idiots doesn’t mean all idiots are religious.
     
  5. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    7,221
    Likes Received:
    630
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Seems to take you a while to answer. Gives me time to go back to some of the posts I haven't yet answered.

    Read the excerpt again. This paragraph is about theism. The Stanford paper points out that the "lack of belief" interpretation of theism is bunk (which is your argument, not Flew's). Flew however did not state anything about the definition of theism, he introduced a "lack of belief" interpretation of atheism, which is not covered by the paragraph you quote, but is shown as a legitimate, usable definition of atheism, later in the same article.

    That's not really true, Flew's argument is not just a restatement, not just a different way to say the same thing. His argument amounts to a redefinition of atheism, i.e. the words no longer mean the same thing (just like orange at some point was redefined to mean a colour).

    Nope. An agnostic can be said to lack the belief in the nonexistence of god, but cannot be said to believe in the existence of god. If one phrasing is true and the other is false, they cannot mean the same thing.

    As the Stanford article pointed out, that is true for theism (making your redefinition of theism invalid). However, Stanford points out that on Flew's view,
    '"atheism” should be defined as a psychological state: the state of not believing in the existence of God (or gods)' (source).​
    Again, it seems you are identifying assumptions that are true for theism, but in defiance of the Stanford article (and my arguments) apply them to atheism without justifying it. If you're talking about the content of belief rather than the psychological state, then you have failed to read the argument correctly.

    The problem here is that you add extra assumptions to the logic to try to Flew's logic, when actually, it's your additional logic that breaks. Flew's logic works because he presents a context in which the "lack of belief in god" is the definition of atheism. His logic does not stretch to call theism the "lack of belief in the nonexistence of god", that's an addition that you have made and which is the source of the errors. The idea that the rules are identical is an (underlying) idea that breaks in the same way.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2020
  6. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,801
    Likes Received:
    484
    Trophy Points:
    83
    for laymen only. not philosophy, or sorting out the lack of belief fraud as I have said how many times now.
    what a load of manure! This is the point where crayolas dont even work!
    glancing down the page they prove you wrong:
    Unfortunately, this argument overlooks the fact that, if atheism is defined as a psychological state, then no proposition can count as a form of atheism because a proposition is not a psychological state......[IOW flew is a dumb ass]........This undermines his argument in defense of Flew’s definition; for it implies that what he calls “strong atheism”—the proposition (or belief in the sense of “something believed”) that there is no God—is not really a variety of atheism at all. In short, his proposed “umbrella” term leaves strong atheism out in the rain.

    false atnford said flew is it bogus

    atheists lack belief in existence......
    theists lack believe in nonexistence.....

    or if you prefer to keep it in line with stanford

    atheists lack belief in existence......
    theists lack disbelieve in the existence.....


    You are the one bringing in everything up to and including the kitchen sink.

    theists lack believe in nonexistence.....

    is a standalone proposition that requires only a true or false response. Neither are dependent on flew. You want to pretend and demand it needs Flews permission to be a proposition, a false premise. Where you come up with all that pseudo-logic is beyond my imagination.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2020
  7. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    7,221
    Likes Received:
    630
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fundamentally, I disagree that there is only one context in which philosophy can be discussed (philosophy usually prides itself on being able to discuss new ideas and discussing ideas from new angles). However, more to the point, at the end of the day, you responded to arguments made by atheists, and they were writing in a context. It doesn't matter how usable you think you can argue that your context is, if you take the atheist arguments out of their original context, you're most likely getting it wrong.

    I don't have a need for crayolas, I need careful and step by step logic, so I know which pieces to point to.

    As you see, they write "This undermines his argument in defense of Flew’s definition" (my underlining), in other words, they're not challenging Flew's definition but someone's argument in defence of Flew's definition, in this case Bullivant's argument. It does nothing to touch Flew's definition itself. Again, it seems that your heavy handed crayola-ing led to an argument that wasn't enough to make the point you were arguing and most likely to a conclusion that is simply incorrect.

    I don't see any way in which either of your theist-lines are in line with the Stanford article. It doesn't state either of the lines, indeed, it never uses the word disbelief at all. Again, the addition of "theists lack disbelieve in the existence....." is your addition and isn't supported by the Stanford article or Flew. You have as of yet failed to explain why it has any relevance or bearing.

    I accept that it is true that "theists lack belief in the nonexistence of god", but Flew's argument does not rely on "atheists lack belief in the existence of god" simply being true, so if you want to produce a counterargument that mirror's Flew's argument, it is not enough that "theists lack belief in the nonexistence of god" is true.

    You seem to have misunderstood (shocker). I agree that the statement is a proposition, a standalone proposition, and that it has a true or false answer. I don't think it requires Flew's permission to be a proposition. Again, the pseudo-logic you criticise is not mine, it is the straw man of my position that you have conjured up.
     
  8. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,801
    Likes Received:
    484
    Trophy Points:
    83
    not
    Ok that was my point before it got magically deflected around the world a few times.

    As I have pointed out several times now the statement "theists lack belief in the nonexistence of god" is incontrovertibly true which is a direct and precise negation to neoatheists 'lack of belief'.

    The point being that it hilights the fact that flew and his neoatheists lack of belief theory violates the laws of the excluded middle.
     
  9. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,801
    Likes Received:
    484
    Trophy Points:
    83
    but it is, if someone is born into a theist family they will be a theist by custom or practice, no thought process required because its simply the way life is for these people, the same for atheists.
    The stanford article was to point out a group of your errors, it not required that my argument fall lock step with the whole of the staford article, only for the points I am making..
    I never said it was supported by stanford, I told you it is a stand alone precise negation, see here we go off on your merry go round and I have repeated the same **** how many times now because you misapply what I say regardless, then whine that I took something out of context.
    I just did how many more times you need the same thing explained?
    Thats right because Stanford dimissed flews lack of belief argument for the philosophical purposes as a legitimate negation to theism which is the way it is being used by the militant neoatheist proponents on this board. At least until they get caught and busted. Again I repeat what I said countless times.
    I never said it did, flews argument is disqualified it for any academic use as a negation to theism, again as I said said countless times, but you dont get it.

    I went to prove beyond a shadow of even your unreasonable doubt it blatantly violates the law of the excluded middle.
    I disagree, it did help, though very little, but it was still progress.
    yes you do, and a need for large text, underlining, and different colors as well. If you did not there would not be a need for me to say the same damn thing for 10 pages of your quagmire before you realize your mistakes if at all/
    I never said that is the case, and I typically do not have to crayola the easily deduced fundamental presumptions of an argument with exception to you of course, with others those presumptions go without saying, and do not need to be crayola'd
    I took nothing out of context.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2020
  10. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    7,221
    Likes Received:
    630
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're right, it was not a shocker.

    I have already agreed with that on several occasions. It's the next couple of steps I disagree with, but instead of showing your logic, you go back to try to prove the thing I already agreed with.

    Nope, those are not negations. The negation to "theists lack belief in the nonexistence of god" is "theists have a belief in the nonexistence of god". It follows the law of the excluded middle, in that exactly one of the statements must be true. In this particular case, it so happens that "theists have a belief in the nonexistence of god" is false, so by the law of the excluded middle, "theists lack the belief in the nonexistence of god" must be true. Everything checks out.

    It seems you have misunderstood what a negation is. What you have presented are two statements which include negations, but that are not negations themselves.

    Of course, I have asked you to write out exactly what you mean by a negation, and how it applies to the statements you use, but I guess you know it's not going to go your way, so instead, you do things like the previous quote, where instead you get on the merry-go-round and argue stuff that we've already agreed on.
     
  11. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,801
    Likes Received:
    484
    Trophy Points:
    83
    ?
    :popcorn:
     
  12. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    7,221
    Likes Received:
    630
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What is it that is confusing to you?

    Please write out exactly what you mean by a negation, and how it applies to the statements you use.
     
  13. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,801
    Likes Received:
    484
    Trophy Points:
    83
    State your problem exactly. Just saying I have a problem with no details doesnt cut it.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2020
  14. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    7,221
    Likes Received:
    630
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I want you to write out exactly what you mean by a negation and how it applies to the statements you use, so that I can put my finger on exactly which bit I think is failing.

    My problem is your statement
    "As I have pointed out several times now the statement "theists lack belief in the nonexistence of god" is incontrovertibly true which is a direct and precise negation to neoatheists 'lack of belief'." (source)​
    It seems to me those statements are in fact not negations of one another. However, you haven't provided your reasoning for thinking that the statement is true. It also seems to me that even if it was true, you have not spelled out why that would be a problem for the arguments I'm making.
     
  15. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,801
    Likes Received:
    484
    Trophy Points:
    83
    after repeating myself with the same **** countless times you pick the one post I make that contains a typo, bravo!

    Thats what so much fun about debating with you, you turn off all deductive reasoning when it comes to understanding what is being presented and plaster the thread with countless rabbit hole diversions rather than addressing the points made then when I make a typo you use the typo to address the point. lame

    Do you think you can piece the below together to come up with the point I am making, and address it appropriately or do I need to crayola it for you as always? Concessions work well.

     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2020
  16. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    7,221
    Likes Received:
    630
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm happy to pick whatever post you think is strongest, I just picked that one because it's the most recent post with anything to address in it.

    My comments are largely the same as it was last time, your assertion of what my point is is simply incorrect. I don't demand Flew's permission for something to be a proposition.

    Also, I don't see how any of this supports your position. You have listed a bunch of statements, but you have not written out how you think they relate to one another, and how you are using them to come to any further conclusions. I agree that atheists lack belief in the existence of god and that theists lack belief in the nonexistence of god, but I don't see how that addresses Flew's or neoatheists' views.
     
  17. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,801
    Likes Received:
    484
    Trophy Points:
    83
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2020
  18. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    7,221
    Likes Received:
    630
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, I disagree that this highlights any problem with Flew's position. Would you care to spell out how that would work?

    For instance, the law of the excluded middle pertains specifically to negations, but the quote you gave above doesn't say anything about negations. Given that the problem I often have with your line of logic is that you misidentify negations, spelling out your logic should probably include an explanation of how you identify the negations that you apply the law of the excluded middle to.
     
  19. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,801
    Likes Received:
    484
    Trophy Points:
    83
    ah, that was intended to say, its sister law, the law of noncontradiction.
     
  20. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    7,221
    Likes Received:
    630
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No problem, but that still doesn't answer my questions. What propositions are you suggesting are negations, and how do you confirm that they are indeed negations? What are the logical steps in which you apply the law of non-contradiction (or law of excluded middle)?
     
  21. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,801
    Likes Received:
    484
    Trophy Points:
    83
    lack of belief in the existence of G/god, is the negative of belief in the existence of G/god, you confirmed it is a true statement

    lack of belief in the nonexistence of G/god, is the negative of lack of belief in the existence of G/god, you confirmed it is a true statement

    Rocks lack belief in anything at all, therefore rocks belong to the group lack of belief in the existence of G/god and lack of belief in the nonexistence of G/god

    Therefore rocks are atheo-theists
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2020
  22. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    7,221
    Likes Received:
    630
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Agreed.

    Agreed.

    Disagree. On Flew's view, the criteria to be an atheist is to be a person who lacks the belief in god, so qualified yes, if rocks were persons, they would be atheists. However, the criteria to be a theist is to have the belief that there is a god, which is not true for a rock, so even if it was a person, a rock would not be a theist.
     
  23. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,801
    Likes Received:
    484
    Trophy Points:
    83
    FALLACIES OF YOUR RESPONSE
    Ignoratio elenchi
    Complex question
    Bandwagon
    False analogy

    I have already responded with why you cant use all that.

    We can change rock to newborn.

    No you do not have to make a conscious decision to believe in a God, kids born into families that believe in God never give it a second thought, they believe in God because their parents believe in God.

    Im not arguing flews critera, I am proving the the take away point of flew, lack of belief in God is absurd on its face, which incidentally is precisely why stanford rejects it.

     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2020
  24. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,801
    Likes Received:
    484
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The point that wings right over your head is that:

    Absence God
    Absence belief in God
    Without God
    Without belief in God
    Lack of belief in God
    Running low on God
    God gas tank empty
    Ran out of God
    God out of stock

    None of that garbage can be used to negate theism, that was the take away point from the stanford article.

    You want to claim that theism requires a conscious choice to believe, thats fine, then atheism requires a conscious choice to be a legitimate negation and none of the above accomplish this.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2020
  25. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    7,221
    Likes Received:
    630
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Something went weird with my last response. I also commented this, but it seems to have gone missing.
    Disagree. If I have said that, I must have misread. It seems to me, an agnostic, or a rock, or a newborn baby etc. could lack both beliefs, like your rock analogy. As such, it is possible for neither statement to be true, therefore, it does not follow the law of the excluded middle, therefore, they are not negations.
     

Share This Page