Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

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

  1. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

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

    How can you fail to remember what was said only 2 posts ago?

    you already agreed that both statements are true, I also said a newborn lacks both.

    This does not extend to your throwing the kitchen sink in the mix, that is a fallacy and I will count that as a concession, neither or both result in a contradiction, not a negation of theism as is required to be a logical argument.

    Lack of belief fails the sniff test.

    Theism says:
    God exists
    to be atheism it must negate theism without contradiction and say unequivocally that:
    God does not exist
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2020
  2. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,117
    Likes Received:
    30,613
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You claim it fails the sniff tests, yet you also claim it is your position. Never could reconcile that, huh?

    The only thing you need to go against "God exists" and/or to no accept theism is to not accept the proposal "God exists", whether as an affirmative negation ("No, God does not exist") or as a refusal to accept the proposal (I do not accept the proposition that God exists). Both are a refutation of the proposal of theism. You keep vacillating between being aware of this fact and claiming that any refusal to accept theism is somehow an explicit contradiction of theism . . . despite the fact that you (inconsistently) negate this proclamation of mutual exclusivity.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2020
  3. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you reject that God exists, fine with me.

    Why do you make this about me? Oh wait, cant support your slobber again, I almost forgot.

    At least Swensson has some level of integrity in these discussion.
     
  4. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,117
    Likes Received:
    30,613
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm sorry you can't address the inconsistencies of your arguments, and that you don't see how such consistency is required for some level of integrity. I will now, however, take responsibility for your inability to address these observations.
     
  5. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then yes, a newborn baby who haven't formed any beliefs on the topic would be an atheist.

    I have not introduced anything about a "decision" to believe in a god, the criteria I have presented is only whether one believes in god.
     
  6. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I disagree
    a newborn lacks belief in the nonexistence of God, therefore is a theist.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2020
  7. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually I didnt have enough coffee in me in that post.

    I should have said: I agree.....however a newborn also lacks belief in the nonexistence of God, therefore can equally be said to be a theist.

    This is why courts require affirmative responses to questions, this is why stanford rejects flew.

    You cant have both claiming the middle at the same time. Courts recognize that questions can be phrased such that they can tell the truth and the opposite is real condition.

    law of contradiction, this is why stanford threw flew to the curb, atheism like theism is required to be answered in the affirmative to be an unequivocal position, therefore a fact.

    actually those 2 conditions at the same time would describe an agnostic who neither believes nor disbelieves.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2020
  8. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't think you're writing out whatever point you're trying to make here. Are you implying some particular relationship between the concepts in your list? Unclear. Seems to me, theism is the belief in god, and atheism is the absence of it, what you've written here does not pin down any problem with that.

    I don't think I've introduced anything about a conscious choice, but I think the more pressing point is why do you think atheism requires the same thing?
     
  9. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope, the definition of a theist is still one who believes in god. Being a theist doesn't follow from lacking belief in the non-existence of god, since that is not the definition of theism. Lack of the belief in god is however the definition of atheism (on Flew's view), so being an atheist does follow from lacking belief in god.

    "A theist lacks the belief in the nonexistence of god" is a true fact, but it is not the definition of theism, just like
    "A banana is yellow" is a true fact, but it is not the definition of a banana (so, being yellow does not make something a banana).

    The definition is what determines whether a word applies, your switcheroo logic where you just replace one concept with another is not valid if it is not consistent with the definitions.
     
  10. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    it does not change the fact that both stated conditions are true at the same time.
    again there is no requirement for it to be a definition, the only requirement is that it is true.

    It becomes a definition later when someone puts it in a dictionary in terms of how you are trying to spin it.
    again the only requirement is that the statements be true and a negation, there is no requirement for anything to be in websters

    It is consistent with the condition of a theist, it is a fact that theists lack belief in the nonexistence of God. You already agreed to this.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2020
  11. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Didn't see this until after I had posted the last one.

    Nope, the thing that makes someone a theist is to fulfil the definition of a theist, and the definition of a theist is someone who has a belief in god. A baby does not fulfil that criteria, and thus is not a theist.

    Nope, you still haven't justified why you allow theism to take the definition of lacking the belief in the nonexistence of god. That's an assertion of yours, and that's the addition to the logic which is inconsistent and causes all the problems you bring up.

    If you don't make that unfounded assertion, there is no problem with noncontradiction or excluded middle, the world splits nicely into those who hold a belief in god and the rest, who lack it. Agnostics are caught in only one of the definitions, which can be consistent with atheism, making an "agnostic atheist" to something perfectly plausible.
     
  12. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are very confused and conflate the requirements. All that is required is that the statements being compared are true. It is not a requirement for a definition to state all possible conditions that a theist is and is not. This instance however proves the contradiction and invalidates lack of belief. It really does not matter if you agree or disagree, my ass is backed up by stanford, it did not start that way since I took the position long before I read stanford but because you are being obtuse that will have to be where I leave it stand, because I have already explained it to you covering every angle and there is no place to go but repetition and when you refuse to acknowledge a valid argument its a waste of my time to continue.

    this is why in academics, lack of belief has been kicked to the curb in favor of the unequivocal affirmation. This is why it has been this way for the last several hundred years. This is why it has always been a disbelief or an affirmative rejection of the existence of God rather than simply stating it in the negative as something that lacks because both sides can claim the middle. I am truly happy you are not an editor for a dictionary! lol
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2020
  13. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Care to justify that statement? It seems to me, more is required.

    It is true that "bananas are yellow". However, it is not true that all yellow things are bananas. Thus, being yellow is not the only requirement to being a banana. Showing that something is yellow is not enough to show that it is a banana.
    Similarly,
    it is true that "theists lack belief in the non-existence of god". However, it is not true that all people who lack belief in the non-existence of god are theists. Thus, lacking belief in the non-existence of god is not the only requirement to being a theist. Showing that someone lacks belief in the non-existence of god is not enough to show that that person is a theist.

    The first example shows that your statement that all that is required is that the statements are true is not correct.

    It is a requirement for a definition to state a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for a word to apply (source), so yeah, I'd say it is a requirement for a definition to "state all possible conditions that a theist is or is not". While it is necessary for a theist to lack the belief in the non-existence of god, that is not sufficient in order to identify a theist. However, in Flew's position, the lack of belief in god is both necessary and sufficient to be an atheist.

    See, you keep saying that you've explained it, but it seems I have yet to hear any reason why your interpretation of theism is correct. Your attempt above turned out to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of definitions. If you were right about those statements, you would be able to explain where your understandings come from, but you seem to have reached logic bedrock, where you don't know where your logic comes from or can show that it works.
     
  14. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    very simple,

    you have converted a positive belief statement that requires a conscious decision and illegitimately converted it to a negative to use it in a manner that requires no conscious decision. I have the same argument regarding atheism stated as a lack of belief. Regardless how much someone paid to get flew psuedologic put in dictionaries.

    Stanford was very clear about that.

    The same negative bs can be done for theist, which I did, puts them on par.

    If theist requires a conscious decision the negation of theist must also require a conscious decision.

    Again these are reasons stanford rejects flew bullshit, and stated in no uncertain terms why both must be a positive affirmation.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2020
  15. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Please use the quote function.
    This is probably another of the reasons we keep going on the merry-go around you so often complain about. We've already boiled down your "the same negative bs can be done for theist" argument to your unsupported and seemingly fallacious understanding of definitions and negations, and here instead of meeting my challenges, you just reiterate the original bit, as if we're not going to go right back to where we were.

    You know my responses to all of this. As the Stanford author mentions, Flew's view is legitimate, and the criticism the Stanford article shows is against Bullivant, not Flew. Your "negative bs" makes an untrue assumption about the definitions of theism, and the Stanford article's statement about atheism being the preposition is dealt with by the fact that they acknowledge that there are other meanings too.

    But you have responded to all of those too, so I'd prefer if you answer the posts that are further down the line of argument.
     
  16. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope, I reject it for the very same reason stanford and several other philosophy departments reject it. I have tried to explain it to you and frankly I am beyond giving a damn at this point that you dont get it. All debates with you end up with me trying to decide if this is all too far over your head for you to comprehend or if you are just trolling.
     
  17. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Does it not? The definition of theist is "one who believes in god", which is not true for an agnostic. The definition of an atheist in, on Flew's view, "one who lacks the belief in a god", which is true for an agnostic. It seems to me, exactly one of them is true, which is consistent with the law of the excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction.

    Again, it seems that everything is working just fine. Your objection of replacing "atheism" with "theism" generates a contradiction not because Flew's arguments don't work, but because you have failed to set up the example correctly.

    In order to figure out whether a word applies to a thing, you are incorrect in saying that the only requirement is that it is true.

    It is true that "Socrates is a man", but "Socrates is a man" is not the definition of Socrates. In order to prove that someone is Socrates, it is not enough to show that they are a man.
    In the same way:
    It is true that "theists lack a belief in the nonexistence god", but "theists lack a belief in the nonexistence of god" is not the definition of theism. In order to prove that someone is a theist, it is not enough to show that they lack belief in the nonexistence of god.

    This example (rehashed from the banana example to avoid any issues like green bananas) and ones like it show that your argument does not hold up. The idea that both theism and atheism makes claim on the middle ground (including agnostics) fails because you fail to correctly identify theists using your logic.

    We are both frustrated over how often points go missing and we end up restating already existing arguments. I would say it is things like this, when you make up logical steps, that cause us to keep going back to it. You also often fail to respond to it, so even when I point out that this is where you fail, you start arguing some other point, or just reiterating your point even though I have already challenged a central point.

    This also is incorrect. A definition is not a definition just because Webster's or some other dictionary says so, a definition is a definition is a statement of the meaning of a term. Dictionaries are just convenient lists of various sets of them.

    Flew's logic works because he suggests "one who lacks the belief in god" as the definition of atheism, not just because it happens to be true that people who believe that there are no gods also lack belief that there is a god. Thus, if you want to mirror the logic with theism, "one who lacks the belief in the nonexistence of god" would have to be the definition of theism, but it is not, so your counterexample fails.

    Yes, but theists are not the only ones who lack belief in the nonexistence of God. The condition of being a theist is not only to lack the belief in the nonexistence of god, but also to believe in the existence of god.
     
  18. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just because you can create a set arguments does not make them philosophically rational.

    The whole point of stanford is that for the puposes of philosophy, to be a legitimate negation, if theism requires an affirmed belief then so does atheism require an affirmed disbelief to be philosophically rational.

    Lack of belief fails the rational sniff test, but dont take my word for it, there are literally thousands of articles on how and why it fails.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2020
  19. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The issues you have struck out won't go away because you strike them out.

    I agree, and we can determine whether the arguments are rational by challenging various parts of them and see if they hold up. Currently, your assertion that "lacking the belief in the nonexistence of god" is enough to be identified as a theist is the last assertion which has not been shown to be true.

    That doesn't seem to me to be the point at all. It seems to me the point (at least as it pertains to the definition of atheism) is that there are many definitions, and the understanding you suggest is only one of them. But of course, you have objections to that etc, and if we follow them, we end up having to answer the questions I posted in my last post but that you were too scared to attempt to answer. Again, you complain about the merry-go-round, but in this case, you've explicitly avoided the real core of the discussion in favour of arguments that we already know where they lead.

    There are plenty of articles in either direction, and given how you merrily insert your own interpretations without support, that's hardly a point in your favour.
     
  20. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I said academic, not the rogue antiphilosophical responses that you post. Both stanford and I have given you all the reasons why flew is rejected for the purposes expressed, it goes without saying your arguments are junk. I am no longer willing to deal with your conflated strawman arguments. They have heard it all before and have addressed it thoroughly but be my guest, take your conflated junk theories and argue to your hearts content with stanford, you may even as many as 'one' chance if they respond to you at all, good luck
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2020
  21. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What’s the matter Kokomojojo can’t debate actual logic.
     
  22. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you don't want to discuss it, I can't make you. You should just be aware that if you don't, the problems you see with the "neoatheists" you quote are not actually with them, but with your disinterest in getting to the bottom of the issue.

    Would seem so.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2020
  23. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you need to understand that when you said lack of belief in the nonexistence of God does not define a theist, that was an autoconcede. Discussion over.
     
  24. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How so? Doesn't seem like it to me. It seems to me, the definition of a theist is one who believes in god, and given that agnostics do not fall in that category, but they do fall into the "lack of belief in the nonexistence of god" category, the two are not the same statements, so the lack of the belief in the nonexistence of god is not the definition of theism. This is all fully consistent with mine and Flew's ideas, I don't see how that is a concession.

    It seems to me you don't see how the logic flows and can't be trusted to determine what is an "autoconcede" and what isn't. To me, your bringing up posts in several threads about the "irrationality of atheism" and then suddenly finding it uninteresting when your position gets torn apart looks more like conceding.

    Of course, it'll all boil down to the question that I've already asked (but when I asked it, you conveniently though it was time to bow out). You seem to have some "requirements" which you won't spell out and which brings you to erroneous conclusions, such as the "theism is defined as the belief in the nonexistence of god", and you can't seem to justify it. You have said it's obvious, that "it goes without saying", etc., but those seem to me more like you don't have a good justification. I have provided a Socrates example which shows the logic you presented to be unsound.
     
  25. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    but it has to be because the "lack of belief in the nonexistence of god" is the precise negation of the "lack of belief in the existence of god".
     

Share This Page