Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

Hate to break it to you but all atheists no matter how convinced they are that they are correct in their position believe it on faith and faith alone.

I have detailed this before to explain it to you, even Russell agrees with me:

In his 1953 essay, What Is An Agnostic? Russell states:[69][70]

Are Agnostics Atheists?

No. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial.

You bought into the Smith rabbit hole since you cannot be both atheist and agnostic at the same time.

To properly state your position is that you are an atheist but reserve the right to change your mind, on the other hand if its more of a faith issue fo you then you might want to consider being an agnostic which neither believes NOR disbelieves in Gods

The conditions for agnostic are that you choose neither.

You have chosen atheist so you cant at the same time be agnostic, just me as an agnostic I cant be claim either theist or atheist because the second I would do something like that I would cease to be agnostic.

Then again you can always turn to the guy that actually made the word to see the intended meaning:

Huxley discussed his views extensively:[55][56]
I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man.

Russel got it right.

 

In what sense is it a destruction of the language? Languages do evolve. We stopped saying "thou" over the last few hundred years, yet the language wasn't destroyed, it merely changed, as languages always do.

The atheists have a context and a point that they're trying to convey. By insisting on a definition that they're not employing, you're shoehorning the debate into a context where it wasn't intended. No wonder it isn't making sense to you.

 

Which definition and whats the problem with it?

Its my thread, do tell what debate was intended?

People who disbelieve in God get shoehorned in atheist regardless what they imagine themselves to be.

People who believe in God get shoehorned into theist regardless what they imagine themselves to be.

People who neither believe nor disbelieve in God get shoehorned into agnostic regardless what they imagine themselves to be.

Ive excluded the rare such as people who are born on another planet and never heard of God that would fall under no knowledge which is not up for discussion unless someone can prove such people exist.

 

The definition of atheism as holding the position that there are no gods. There is nothing problematic about the definition as such, what's problematic is applying that definition to arguments that were constructed using a different definition.

My usual analogue is the word "orange". There is nothing wrong with using either the fruit or colour definition of orange, but there is something wrong with taking a statement made using the colour definition (like "this wall should have orange on it") and interpreting it using the fruit definition.

 

Oh? Which? Im not aware of other valid construction

 

heeeeeeeeheeeeeee.

Gee. You mean atheists have faith in their belief despite lack of evidence in the affirmative? Got it in one I see.

I have detailed this before to explain it to you, even Russell agrees with me:

I see you are having a terrible time in grasping this very simple concept. I have spelled this out to you before but it just doesn't seem to penetrate.

I am an agnostic because I realize that there are insufficient grounds to either affirm or deny.
therefore I am left to my own judgement about my place and purpose within this sweet paradise.

And through a rather deliberate, lengthy and rigorous process complemented by the vicissitudes of life, I conclude that I reject the notion of an omnipresent, omnipotent supernatural God/Creator that exists outwith of time and space and all the religious dogma that surrounds such an entity in its manifest forms.

I also believe that everyone is entitled to their own philosophy of self and if that needs a god and a soul and an eternal identity - well cool for you.

 

you do not deny

and you do deny

at the same time, as I said, and apparently you dont see a problem with that?

 

I AFFIRM that I don't know for sure but in the absence of confirmation I CHOOSE to believe there is no god.

The only problem I see is that you cannot grasp this very simple logic chain.

Funny how despite the mountain range of academic evidence to support the notion of agnostic atheism in its various denominations, some true believer theists choose to engage in petty semantic games.

I have found such an underlying intellectual perspective in flat earthers, anti-vaxxers and holocaust deniers, so I should be surprised to find it in religious "true believers".

 

Sorry, didn't see the edit.

When you say

Neoatheists simply excuse themselves from providing the same level of proof they demand of theists by claiming its too hard and too much work which is not even a good excuse much less justification.​

you are interpreting the atheists to say that the stance "there is no god" requires no proof, whereas the interpretation I think they intended is merely that pointing out flaws in religious arguments does not require you to provide an alternative and the accompanying proof.

It is not about this thread, it is responding to or addressing arguments made in a specific context.

That's fair, I don't think arguments that rely on such people existing are particularly relevant to this discussion.

I guess my previous question ended up answered in a sense, so we can get back to this discussion if we want to. I'm referring of course to the lack-of-belief approach that you have often denied works.

For each person, there is a statement "this person believes in a god". For some people, this statement is true. Those people are unsurprisingly theists. By the definition of statement, a statement is either true or false, so for the rest of people, the statement is false. We say that those do not believe in god, and that they are atheists.

Your usual retort, I seem to recall, is that to an agnostic, the statement is neither true or false. Since by definition, a statement is either true or false, the notion you are talking about is not a statement.

 

Your version does not represent the meaning of agnostic however.

Think of it like this, you just started listening to all the evidence pro and con regarding God et al.

When you start you are completely undecided which way to choose, so you are 100% neutral, sitting on the fence no decision either way.

Then after hearing all the evidence for both sides you are still undecided and choose not to make a decision either way and you remain sitting on the fence. That is agnostic.

On the other hand, if you slip off the fence and slide either way then you are theist or atheist respectively, no longer agnostic because you slipped out of neutral position and made a choice.

It does not matter your reason for choosing theist or atheist, either one pulls you off the agnostic fence and logically forces you to be atheist or theist which ever your choice.

That said, what applies to you and would be correctly stated is that you are an atheist because you found no evidence to support a God, however its open for further consideration.

What smith did is reversed the method of agnostic which completely changed the meaning which is illogical but these guys dont care.

The agnostic label can only properly be applied when the person claiming it is neutral and abstains from both sides of an argument or position, or in the case sits on the fence for the question does God exist.

 

No, when someone claims to be an atheist they have decided no Gods exist, no interpretation required.

However when they accept the position of atheist, they do so without evidence, which makes it faith based and without question a religion.

There is no requirement for these people to label themselves atheists if they merely want to point out flaws, they could even be Christains and point out flaws. If they want to label themselves atheists then they should expect to own the label.

The atheist neo or otherwise mantra is they have superior logic and reason, a position we can see has serious flaws, and is not true.

 

Why does Agnosticism need to involve any of the Gods we have created over the centuries? It seems to me it simply means you are leaving open options for what you do not "Know". You can still "Know" if something is not there.

 

Load your questions much?
You can be agnostic on any proposition, however its common usage is with regard to theism and atheism.

It simply means you were not provided sufficient evidence to go with either side, so you sit on the fence.

No you cant, I can say is the jar empty, yuo say yes, then remind you that there is air in side, no you cant know, not without sufficient evidence.

Atheists by their own design require hard facts and hard facts require proof, proof that atheists do not have prior to making the decision and claiming to be an atheist.

 

you continue to default to your narrow semantic argument.

Nope agnostic in that scenerio is that there is insufficient evidence to determine definitively one way or another.

At this stage, it's up to the individual to determine what exactly they personally feel most comfortable believing.

In my case, being an empiricist my confirmation bias is towards no god and when I couple that with an analysis of ancient "holy scriptures" upon which the arguments for god's existence are extent, I conclude that such ancient factless interpretation of existence is yet another type of classical mythology.

It seems your arguments are trumped by accepted philosophical and religious academia from waaaayyyyyyyy back. Maybe you belong to a young church who's still trying to figure it all out for themselves instead of doing practical applicable research.

 

Thats ridiculous! It works the same way in court: Insufficient evidence and the court dismisses without judgment , they dont go into johnny feel good mode and pick one or flip a coin, the court is 'forced' to be agnostic by the rules of law to dismiss, (make NO judgement, agnostic)

 

We are talking about a personal philosophy adopted by the individual to deal with their purpose and place in the universe and society as well as dealing with the knowledge of their own mortality.

How dare you think that you are right and everyone else is wrong when it comes to dealing with this fundamental human issue.

I do not claim to have definitive proof of anything but in my examination the facts in front of me and the sum total of my life experiences, I find there is nothing compelling to support the OPINION that any god exists.

Rules of law? are you serious? You are going on about supernatural entities and you want to apply the rules of law to it?
Most amusing.

 

Nothing could be more false 2 completely different belief structures, if Ingersoll said that hes a quack.

Looks like your arguments that are equally outdated, not only that you are using the word improperly for this sense the same way Ingersoll did.

Using your logic its perfectly legitimate to be an athe-agno-thiest!
Because you have insufficient evidence to believe god exists [atheist] and you dont know for sure [agnostic] and god might exist [theist]

Which of course is ridiculous reasoning in whole and in part.

Stanford recognises my version to answer the question does god exist, which is the only version that does not bleed over into the absurd.

Roughly, Huxley’s principle says that it is wrong to say that one knows or believes that a proposition is true without logically satisfactory evidence [so you are wrong to claim atheist without sufficient evi9dence] (Huxley 1884 and 1889). But it was Huxley’s application of this principle to theistic and atheistic belief that ultimately had the greatest influence on the meaning of the term. He argued that, since neither of those beliefs is adequately supported by evidence, we ought to suspend judgment [sit on the fence] on the issue of whether or not there is a God.

Nowadays, the term “agnostic” is often used (when the issue is God’s existence) to refer to those who follow the recommendation expressed in the conclusion of Huxley’s argument: an agnostic is a person who has entertained the proposition that there is a God but believes neither that it is true nor that it is false.
Wed Aug 2, 2017 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
Information (CSLI), Stanford University Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

You can have your own beliefs philosophical and otherwise but you cant have your own philosophy.

 

Sure you can have that, but it doesnt save it from examination the rigors of logic and reason. Supposedly the same rules you used to come to your conclusions?

My point is an examination of your logic, you cant have a usage that so horribly bleeds over you can be atheist, agnostic, and theist at the same time, or any 2.

The facts in front of you would force you to be pure agnostic, since those facts end when you get to the point of providing evidence, you have none.

Yeh same construction for both yeh

 

Yep absolutely same rules. Rigor away.

No you cant be all three at the same time and there are two you can be at any time. I suggest you actually examine tthe logic before you start spouting nonsense as it.

No, you see in crafting a life philosophy one must go beyond proof as you have so eloquently stated. So in accepting the CONDITION of agnostism, I must then go beyond that to satisfy those "individual purpose/identity/mortality" questions we all have.

In order to do that I weighed the ancient religious dogmas against current scientific knowledge. I observed the world around me and the events that clearly showed no sign of any divine plan or presence. I came to the conclusion after many years that I cannot believe in the existence of any god.

True to my agnostic condition, I accept I could be wrong, in which case I hope I get the opportunity to let the Biggest Dickhead in the Universe what I think of what he has done to us.

Same construction? Made up by man you mean? I agree.

 

Every time you have heard someone say that the position of atheism doesn't require proof, or that it is a lack of a belief rather than a belief in itself, the interpretation you provided here is wrong. It is an interpretation, even if you do not acknowledge it, and an incorrect one.

Well, there is a need for a label for people who considers themselves to have seen no good arguments for the existence of any gods. That concept rules out Christians, but makes no particular distinction based on for instance the idea that exactly no gods exist. They own the label they have created. It would be misleading if they claimed to believe no gods exist when in fact they only reject religious claims, but they have consistently and vocally explained the distinction, so that's not a problem, just like it's not a problem that the word orange means two things.

I mean, you also claim to have superior logic and reason, and while I have my logical objections against atheism, the flaws you display seem far more serious to me.

 

I highly recommend and suggest that you review stanford since I have explained this and you simply refuse to accept its logical validity. You are back to trying to use your same inappropriate approach to the question 'does God exist'.

Definitions of “Atheism”

“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists. The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Stanford Philosophy Dept thoroughly explains why you and all others claiming and substituting a state of mind (the lack) for a question that requires a propositional position are in fact are dead wrong.

Id say I do, since I found my position to be in line with stanford u philosophy dept.

 

I have reviewed it plenty, and I don't agree that your view is any more in line with it than mine.

The article you quoted goes on to say things like:

While identifying atheism with the metaphysical claim that there is no God (or that there are no gods) is particularly useful for doing philosophy, it is important to recognize that the term “atheism” is polysemous—i.e., it has more than one related meaning—even within philosophy.
[...]
Although Flew’s definition of “atheism” fails as an umbrella term, it is certainly a legitimate definition in the sense that it reports how a significant number of people use the term. Again, there is more than one “correct” definition of “atheism”.​

As such, it seems to me the article goes out of its way to point out that we are indeed justified to use other definitions, it even explicitly calls the definition I'm talking about legitimate.

The idea that we cannot use definitions other than the one you suggest is clearly at odds with the article. That idea is one that you add to the mix, without declaring it and seemingly unwittingly.

 

that would be disingenuous and pretentious to suggest you can legitimately apply your citation to my discussion since stanford makes it 'perfectly clear' spelling it out with crayolas that it cannot be used in any other context than the context I have used it in this type of discussion, the same context I use in all discussions I have ever had on the topic. Unless of course you want nonsense for a result, is that your goal?

 

I grabbed a couple posts to demonstrate bald opinions on this board that the posters are not capable of backing

Its about religious belief.

If you express a religious belief you certainly are religious.

Like like saying a decision not to eat chocolate ice cream is not about chocholate icecream.

Charles Manson chose not to accept that he did anything wrong it does not make his argument correct, which is why he will rot in prison for the rest of his life. What you see yourself has no bearing on what other see you as.

Here is another example of complete misuse of the language, that is not strictly speaking that is as broad as this galaxy, and in this thread you can see it does not apply as a valid response that answers the question 'does a god exist'

No again that is not correct, who would claim to worship the god koalemus? It dont work that way, you do not have to claim a god to have one. People in the good ole days assigned a god to your actions. If you did evil **** they said you worshiped the devil as your god and burnt you at the stake.

Neoatheists have all these magic rules that they make up as they go along with no basis in the real world.

 

What do you mean by "apply"? I only use the citation to show that there are several legitimate definitions of the word, and therefore, showing the correctness of one definition (as you successfully do) does not mean that other definitions are not legitimate.

I am not trying to apply a context to the argument you make, I'm saying you cannot take arguments made in one context and place them in another context and expect them to make sense. For instance, you can't take the argument "atheism doesn't need proof", which is made in the context "atheism is a lack of a belief" and shoehorn it into the context "atheism is the belief that no gods exist". I'm not trying to retrofit a context onto your post, I'm saying you were not justified in shifting the contexts to begin with.