Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

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

  1. Curious Always

    Curious Always Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    16,924
    Likes Received:
    13,462
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I'm sure it's been said 1,000 times, so this is just my +1.

    There are an infinite number of things that I don't believe in. None of them are a religion. None.
     
  2. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually I have the actual definition of the word in question. That definition precludes atheism from being a religion or belief.
     
  3. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nonsense, I have the 'actual' definition of atheism:

    atheism
    [ ey-thee-iz-uh m ]
    SEE SYNONYMS FOR atheism ON THESAURUS.COM

    noun
    the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
    disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.


    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism





    supported by stanford university of philoshophy
    1. Atheism
    ‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.
    https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/fall2008/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#1

    How Atheism Became a Religion at Stanford
    https://www.patheos.com/blogs/nonpr...7/how-humanism-became-a-religion-at-stanford/

    supported by university of Massachusetts philoshophy dept
    Neo Atheism and its critics
    Whitley Kaufman
    First published: 07 November 2018
    https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12560

    Abstract
    What is the significance of the Neo Atheist movement? This essay argues that it has hindered rather than advanced the philosophical debate, presenting a one‐sided caricature of religion rather than serious intellectual engagement with the topic.

    NEO ATHEISM EVALUATED FROM A SCHOLARLY PERSPECTIVE

    It is I think fair to conclude, as have many commentators, that the New Atheists have contributed little if anything to the debate from an intellectual or scholarly perspective. [IOW they are dumb asses] 1The New Atheists seem largely uninterested in exploring the philosophical arguments for and against religion, indeed tend to insist that there is no real debate to be had. In fact, the label “New Atheism” is misleading insofar as it suggests a novel set of arguments against religion; the label was first applied in a strongly pejorative sense by the journalist Gary Wolf in a 2006 article in Wired Magazine, called “The Church of the Nonbelievers.” Wolf wrote: “The irony of the New Atheism—this prophetic attack on prophecy, this extremism in opposition to extremism—is too much for me.”2 Wolf criticizes its strident tone, its self‐righteousness, its uncompromising extremism, and its lack of interest in practical, realistic solutions to the social problems in which religion is so heavily involved. Harris, Dawkins, and company however adopted the label in a non‐pejorative and even laudatory sense, though Wolf seems more accurate in that what is new in New Atheism is not its intellectual content but its shrill tone and militant extremism.

    Dr Kaufman is professor of philosophy at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. He received a PhD in Philosophy from Georgetown University and a JD from Harvard Law School. Dr Kaufman's areas of focus include ethics, philosophy of law, philosophy of literature, and philosophy of humor.


    rahl he is saying that lackers have nothing to offer philosophy what so ever, and points out how ignorant they are.

    Our version includes religion.
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2020
  4. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This has been repeatedly proven false. Atheism continues to remain, by definition, not a religion. Just like not playing baseball isn’t a sport.
     
  5. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    atheism
    [ ey-thee-iz-uh m ]
    SEE SYNONYMS FOR atheism ON THESAURUS.COM

    noun
    the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
    disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.


    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism


    so you have proven the definition of atheism is false? :clapping:
     
  6. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope............


    1. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/atheism
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2020
  7. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

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

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,415
    Likes Received:
    2,182
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Heat. Kitchen.

    Sure, we insult people. The difference between us is that we don't squeal like a sissy when we get it back. You do. It's your second staple tactic, the squealing victim routine. It gives you an excuse to run away when your dopey cult hate-rants invariably get ripped apart and laughed at.

    And that's your first staple tactic, throwing an endless stream of ad homs, which is then invariably followed by your second staple tactic, blubbering about ad homs.

    Go on now, scream some more insults. Flop down on your back, get those widdle arms and legs flailing, and throw the biggest tantrum you've ever thrown. You know you can't resist, so just get it out of your system. It's not like you can do anything else. Once you're done, we'll still be here, and we'll wipe your nose and hand you a juice box.
     
  9. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Flew's opinion is not a definition.
    False, your objections were destroyed in my last few posts here
    False, I stated facts, that is your strawman label to distract attention from the facts, and the fact that your basis is keeping the titanic company.
    Thats not my implication, I could give a damn if atheists want to claim they believe in God, they have the right to do that, however they do not have the right to rewrite the rules of logic and reason..
    False, you dont understand that your arguments have been quashed.
    Sure thats easy, atheism everything and anything, I can make that ludicrous word salad stunt to. Now you dont need to worry, no one will be ever be able to argue the point under any circumstances.
    I explained so why do you continue to cram popular usage among a tiny minority down everyones throats?

    That amounts to people use it that way with as much value as the toilet paper I flushed down the toilet.
    Yeh that argument works great except when I have used it against you then you sweep it under the carpet as if I never said it and move the goal posts to another strawman.
    Yep get used to it, theists lack disbelief in God, its a fact, not a redefinition, but you cant get that through your head.
    As I explained popular usage versus philosophical, and the popular usage has been debunked as a total fallacy by myself and others on this board.
    So we are back to your aceptance of flew redefining atheism, which is a-ok with you but damned if anyone redefines theism.
    You believe either way, yes is a positive belief, no is a negative belief both are beliefs, aqain you have been told this by countless people, whats the4 problem?
    Not at all, I bail when the points been proven and because your back is against the wall instead of providing an in context rebuttal you devolve in your typical irrational circular deconstructionism.
     
  10. 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 the definition supplied is legitimate and meaningful. People who use it are able to express the ideas that they wish to express, and the meaning is accurately conveyed. The law of the excluded middle remains intact, language behaves as expected (given words like "orange" and words like "asexual"), logic and reason seems to me intact. If it is word salad to you, that seems like a Kokomojojo problem rather than a problem with the word.

    Two reasons, one is that the minority is not so tiny any more. The way Flew's definition appears in a fair bit of dictionaries (although not all) indicate that there is enough people using it that it can't be disregarded.

    The other reason is that language is flexible. If we are clear with what we mean, we don't need words to be consistent. That's why we can use "orange" to mean more than one thing, and still not get them mixed up.

    How so? It seems to me this is the point that the Stanford author makes, it is the most consistent with how we use language in any other situation (I like to use the word "orange" as example). I'll happily consider an argument, as long as you can make it clear what conclusions you derive from it.

    No, I agree with that. It doesn't have very much to do with our disagreement though. Whether a word such as "atheism" or "theism" applies to someone/something depends on the definition. What you've provided is a fact, not a definition, and it is not sufficient to pin the word "theism" on anyone who lack disbelief in God.

    Not really. You've made a bunch of statements about it, but you haven't actually tied it to whether it can be used.

    No, you're allowed to redefine any word as long as you're clear about it. What you're not allowed to do is address and existing argument, in which one has been redefined and not the other, and assume that either both were redefined or none were. I don't have any problems (in this way) with arguments you make in a vacuum, my concern is that you attack existing arguments, but fail to address the points because you refuse to read the argument as intended. It seems to me you have picked up on that some atheists use Flew's definition, so the problem is not a lack of clarity on the atheists' part.

    Well, or like an agnostic, you fail to believe either. You can believe that there is a god, you can believe that there is no gods, you can fail to believe either statement. I'm a bit nervous about your sloppy wording here. I think I agree with the point, but I would say something like "yes is the answer that someone with a positive belief would give if asked whether they believed whatever it is". This distinction might not be important for this debate, but I am weary that you try to substitute something that has a middle ground (agnostics being a "middle ground" between people who believe that there is a god or that there is no god) with something that doesn't (yes/no, true/false).

    Well, then it seems to me you fail to see what information needs to be conveyed for a point to be proven.
     
  11. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The only logical requirement to prove a proposition true or false is that it be a direct negation, it fulfills that requirement. sorry, no amount of tears and spin will change that.

    LoB violates LEM
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2020
  12. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't understand your wording here. "The only logical requirement to prove a proposition true or false is that it be a direct negation". Consider two propositions that are negations of each other (like "Socrates is a man" and "Socrates is not a man"). They fulfil the "requirement" of being direct negations, but that doesn't to me seem to be the only logical requirement to prove that either is true or that either is false. Especially since the proposed logic can't tell the difference between the two.

    I suspect that you have a better argument than this, but that it got lost in your phrasing.

    How so? Consider the following setup: Theism is believing that a god exists. For some people, it is true that they believe that a god exists (we call those theists). By the law of the excluded middle, all other people can be said not to believe that a god exists (it is a direct negation, it obeys the LEM since nobody falls between the chairs, the phrasing is also a direct negation, the clause is negated in full, not just the part of the clause that presents the proposition believed, but the act of believing it too). Flew calls those people atheist.

    We can as you say, apply the logic the other way around. If we adhere to Flew's definition, an atheist is a person who lacks that belief. The negation of that is anyone who has that belief, which leads us back to the definition of a theist. The LEM holds.

    I think an easier way of visualising the LEM is that every proposition splits the world in two, that which is consistent with the proposition and the rest. On Flew's opinion, the separating line splits theists from the rest. The rest must then be the negation of that which was split away.

    The only failures of the LEM is introduced by you when you impose the idea that theism is the lack of belief that there is a god (in particular, when you introduce it to a context in which Flew's definition of atheism and atheism being the negation of theism is already established).
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2020
  13. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How so? Consider the following setup: aTheism is believing that no god exists. For some people, it is true that they believe that no god exists (we call those atheists). By the law of the excluded middle, all other people can be said to believe that a god exists (it is a direct negation, that obeys the LEM since nobody falls between the chairs, the phrasing is also a direct negation, the clause is negated in full, not just the part of the clause that presents the proposition believed, but the act of believing it too). koko calls those people theist.

    We can as you say, apply the logic the other way around. If we adhere to koko's proposition, a theist is a person who lacks that belief. The negation of that is anyone who has that belief, which leads us back to the proposition of a atheist. The LEM fails.

    I think an easier way of visualising the LEM is that every proposition splits the world in two, that which is consistent with the proposition and the rest. On koko's opinion, the separating line splits atheists from the rest. The rest must then be the negation of that which was split away.

    The only failures of the LEM is introduced by flew when you impose the idea that atheism is the lack of belief that there is no god (in particular, when you introduce it to a context in which koko's proposition, of theism and atheism being the negation of atheism is already established).


    glad to see you are working through it.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2020
  14. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    oopsie, made a typo there


    The only failures of the LEM is introduced by flew when you impose the idea that atheism is the lack of belief that there is *a god (in particular, when you introduce it to a context in which koko's proposition, of theism and *theism being the negation of atheism is already established).


    See how slick that works when its all turned around back on you and makes the same identical case in reverse? :mrgreen:
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2020
  15. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    See in your version, you ended up saying that there are people who believe that God doesn't exist, and all other people believe that god exists, so even regardless of the definitions of theism/atheism, you've ended up saying that agnostics can't exist. Seems incorrect to me.

    But more to the point, you can probably produce a setup that works, and I have no problem with it. What I have a problem with is you assuming that others use this setup, when they've told you they don't (and, for completeness, when their logic makes sense in their context, and not when you take them out of it).

    You have yet to show why turning the context around is an argument in your favour. For instance, in the orange example, this is equivalent to me saying that "orange can be a colour", and you saying "orange has to be a fruit". You can produce a context in which "orange is a fruit" is true, but that does not mean that we have to reject the idea that orange can be a colour. Similarly, if you put some thought into it, you can make a correct switcheroo as above, but it does not follow that others had to have been using that switcheroo, and you are not justified in assuming that they did, as you do in the OP.
     
  16. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    yeh, amazing how its ok with you for flew to wipe out agnostics and when its reversed you get all bent out of shape about it.
    its a fallacy in their context, no one to date has done anything to demonstrate otherwise.
    they use their context to respond to my context, you are trying to defend their fallacy. "just like playing baseball is not a sport"
    It demonstrates yours and others fallacy on the matter, if one is true the reverse also has to be true, and its not, just listen to yourself argue about it.

    If I am an atheist I am not a 'none', not an 'agnostic', not an 'unknower', not a 'lacker', I actively, as in positively believe no Gods exist, and theists to the contrary.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2020
  17. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Because Flew doesn't argue they don't exist, just that they could also be called atheists under his definition. Your explanation above states that they can't exist, even before we start talking about what to call stuff.

    For some people, it is true that they believe that no god exists... By the law of the excluded middle, all other people can be said to believe that a god exists​

    It seems to me your statement is incorrect, and that people like agnostics can exist. Thus it seems to me you have misapplied the law of the excluded middle.

    It is a fallacy in some of the logic which you impose on the context, not anything that is wrong with the context as it is. The idea that the context is required to allow the reverse to be true seems unjustified to me, or rather, you reverse only half of the equation.

    The reverse is true, we suggest "theism is believing in god, atheist is everyone else, i.e. not believing in god", and the reverse stays true "atheism is not believing in god, theism is everyone else, i.e. believing in god". LEM and law of non-contradiction stays true, no problem. The problem arises because you set not believing in something as the same as believing the opposite of something, which isn't true.
     
  18. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He argues they are something other than what they are, therefore defining them out of existence.

    Still squirming around at this trying to wiggle out of being proven wrong I see.
    yep
    except of course when its used to prove you wrong, then you throw it all out the window.
    It seems to me that is precisely what I have been saying and agnostics do not violate the LEM, which is a topic I will not debate with you because it considerably more complicated, until you show me you are up to the the task by first conceding this one.
    Nope not at all, which is a topic I will not debate with you because it considerably more complicated, until you show me you are up to the the task by first conceding this one.
    LoB fails in its own context. That that has been proven to you.
    when someone rejects a proposition they express the fact that they belief its not true, and this is about LoB not rejection unless you are here to shift the goal posts again?

    Here we are again, in literally the same sentence you stand on LEM and throw it out the window all at the same time, which way do you want it? :psychoitc:

    What is not believing/rejecting something in your LEM world? You just stated its the opposite, therefore it has to be believing if what you said is true, the opposite, acceptance.
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2020
  19. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just to be perfectly clear, despite the fact I said this many times, due to the complexity, any discussion of agnostics with you is off limits, until we get the simple one put to bed.
     
  20. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

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


    Paul Tillich
    "Religion is the state of being grasped by an ultimate concern, a concern which qualifies all other concerns as preliminary and which itself contains the answer to the question of the meaning of life."

    Swidler
    …"an explanation of the meaning of life and how to live accordingly."

    Aldous Huxley
    “Religion is the price we pay for being intelligent, but not as yet intelligent enough.”

    J. Miltion Yinger.
    "Religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggle with the ultimate problem of human life."
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2021
  21. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2021
  22. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    For some reason didn't see this when you posted it, I guess. I don't know that we'll want to break this one open again, but there's nothing tricky about the post, so I figured I'd write the response.

    No, he would still call them agnostics. On Flew's definition of atheists, nothing is keeping you from being an atheist and an agnostic at the same time (such as the agnostic atheists you often complain about). They haven't been defined out of existence, they've simply picked up a new label.

    I had already thrown that out the window. I don't think your reversal of my argument is correct. You took my statement (differences coloured)

    For some people, it is true that they believe that a god exists (we call those theists). By the law of the excluded middle, all other people can be said not to believe that a god exists (source)​

    and you reversed it into

    For some people, it is true that they believe that no god exists (we call those atheists). By the law of the excluded middle, all other people can be said to believe that a god exists (source)​

    (which I do not agree with). To properly reverse my statement, I would say:

    For some people, it is true that they believe that no god exists (Flew would say they are a subset of atheists). By the law of the excluded middle, all other people can be said not to believe that no god exists.​

    (which I do agree with). In my reversal, I simply replaced one belief with another, whereas in your reversal, you replaced the absence of a belief with belief in the opposite. There is nothing contradictory about my setup (indeed it derives directly from the LEM), it only becomes contradictory when you introduce your unwarranted idea that not believing something is the same as believing the opposite (which incidentally shows once and for all that that's not logically allowed). That's why you can only find your agnostic-removing contradiction in your rephrasing, it isn't actually present in my wording, nor in my reversal.

    The difference is that you had to introduce the "not believing is the same as believing the opposite" idea for the violation of LEM to appear. My statement does not include that, and is derived directly from the LEM, and so includes no contradictions.

    Oh, how very convenient that you're not interested in debating the area where your mistake lies.

    To have a belief in something is to hold that something as true (source). If you hold something as true, then you believe in it, you have/hold that belief. Other stances towards the statement (such as ambivalence, explicitly believing that it is false, believing it is not a statement, being unaware of it, etc.) do not fulfil the definition of a belief in that statement. (Of course, they can be beliefs in other statements, and they can be beliefs *about* the statement, they can be held at the same time as holding or not holding the belief in the statement, but unless the statement is being held as true, that is neither here nor there for the purposes of the definition).

    Thus, belief is something you can have, and it only applies if you believe it is true. If you do not have it, you lack it (to pre-empt your common question of "how much do you have to lack", belief is a unit, you either have it or you don't, and this instance is covered by the definition of lack, "the state of being without or not having enough of something" (source)). Thus, the belief that "It is true that God exists" is not present in an agnostic, so he lacks it. Of course, it would be false to say that an agnostic believes that there is no God, so clearly, believing that there is no God cannot be the same thing as lacking the belief that there is a God.

    I'm a bit hesitant to talk about "rejecting", because I think the word can be used both believing that something is false, and believing that an argument is false (thereby remaining agnostic about the proposed conclusion). We'll be able to introduce/define rejection later if we want to, but the point of my argument does not rely on it.

    The Law of the Excluded Middle holds. However, many of your examples surrounding it also include other assumptions which do not hold.
     
  23. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Its called denying the correlative fallacy in todays world.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2021
  24. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    For reference
    ...denying the correlative is an attempt made at introducing alternatives where there are none (source)​

    Of course, your assertion that there are no options is a conclusion of your line of logic. Using it to support your argument would be circular logic.

    I say "Some people believe A. Everyone else do not believe A". This follows directly from LEM. You then apply Kokomojojo-logic (which I do not agree with) and morph the above statement into "Some people believe A. Everyone else believes not A". If that statement was true, agnostics would be impossible (as you indeed have pointed out, and since agnostics do exist, we know that the red statement is false).

    However, I argue that the green statement follows directly from the LEM, and is by construction true. Therefore, it is your assertion that "believing that A is false = not believing that A is true" is what introduces the error.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2021
  25. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    true thats you
    Please quote where I assert there are no options?
    huh??? there is no such thing as circular 'logic'! citation?
     

Share This Page