Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

It isn't my claim. It is me asking you a question about your claim. And it is a perfectly clear and straight forward question that cuts to the core of the past numerous pages of this thread. And for some odd reason you refuse to answer it.

Again:

1. Believe there is God.
2. Believe there is no God.

Do you or do you not say that no to 1 is the same as yes to 2? Is it a "distinction without a difference" (your words)?

Your past posts have led Swensson and I, and anybody else reading this thread, to think that you were saying this. And that is the basis of the numerous posts from Swensson and myself that you do not appear to understand.

 

ask and answered, again and for the last time.:

 

Ok. So I gave you an opening to correct a possible misunderstanding, and you stubbornly refused to do so.

So it is fair for me and Swensson to read you how we did. You do claim that not "believe there is God" is not different from "Believe there is no God". You said it's a distinction without a difference. And that is your equivocation.

It is like saying not voting yes is the same as voting no, and that it's a distinction without a difference.

Which means you must either vote yes or no, which means you can't abstain. Yet you also say you abstain. So you contradict yourself.

We are looking at your claim, not mine.

 

sorry no quote no claim.

 

Beware of theists pretending to be agnostic.

 

Way back on page 51

This is still wrong.

No to "do you believe in God" is NOT equal to yes to "Do you believe there is no God".

If it was then you couldn't be agnostic.

This is still the core of your inability to understand, and it is amazing how long we have been trying to explain it to you and how long you have been unable or unwilling to understand.

 

Yup, too bad for you that I referenced my meaning.

Hell I even under lined it for you!
Now, did you want to try and make a point in that somewhere?
So much better when things are quoted in context than your quote mining.

 

What you underlined does NOT mean atheists believe there is no God. Your added notation did that. As Swensson wrote at the time, what you quoted from the dictionary and underlined in red (and again quoted here) states merely that atheists don't believe in God, and NOT that atheists believe there is no God. It was referring to X and not Y. It makes no reference to Y. YOU inserted the requirement for Y via your notation.

And that was really weird, because there are dictionary definitions that do state atheists believe there is no God (as you recently showed), but you chose one that doesn't state that, claiming it does.

That is only coherent if you meant:

And that is wrong.

And you did write it. And I later on two separate occasions gave you ample opportunity to correct yourself, and you declined to both times.

And of course if you must either believe there is God or believe there is no God, you can't be agnostic. But you say you are agnostic. Hence the obvious contradiction we've been trying to help you see.

That we have been trying to show you this since at least page 51 (I didn't go back further) and we are now on page 69, and you still don't get it, is just amazing. Twenty pages of trying to help you see something obvious, and you still don't see it.

 

thats what it says
ah ok so atheists believe there is a God then?

I suppose theists dont believe there is a God either right?

what does that have to do with our 3 choices? atheist/theist/agnostic?
nothing!

Your imagination is running away with you again, standing on your soapbox yelling loud 'proves' that you are only standing on your soapbox yelling loud. prove it.

 

No.

Saying atheists don't believe there is a God is not the same as saying atheists believe there is no God. I can see you can't see the difference. But there is an important difference between those two statements. It is what allows you to be agnostic.

 

Of course there is a God. We're her.

"Man is not a human being trying to be spiritual but a spiritual being, trying to be human" Teilhard de Chardin

 

This is the bit I'm most interested in answers to, so I put this in its own post. I will have another post for the rest of the responses.

I see you failed to answer the question I asked. Let me try again.

In terms of logic/grammar, what is the difference between the following two statements?

If you did not vote yes, it does not mean that you voted no, you could have abstained, and that is 100% logical.
If you did not believe God exists, it does not mean that you believe God does not exist, you could have been agnostic, and that is 100% logical.​

If you agree with the first one, is anything keeping you from agreeing with the second one?

 

There is nothing logical about abstaining from voting. It is illogical to say that abstaining is the same as both X and !X being false. Your problem lies not in abstaining, but in identifying what it is you have abstained from.

That's my point. 0,1 is not the negation of X (since there are third options), so you have incorrectly identified atheists as 0,1.

Logic is perfectly capable of explicitly describing the relationship between things that do not depend on one another.

It's your assertion that it changes to "an agnostic not atheist". I agree that it changes someone to an agnostic, but the idea that that rules out being an atheist is one that you added without support from the definition of atheist. Again, you argument falls with your inability to tie the definition of "atheist" to your tables and circuits.

No, I demand that an agnostic abstains from 1,0 and 0,1, but since I (+dictionary etc.) don't define atheist as 0,1, the thing that gets rejected is not what atheism is. As such, it is perfectly possible to have both.

Nope, I'm saying that if we were to find a person who somehow both believes that God does and does not exist, he would fulfil the definition of a theist. The logic does not state that this is true for every theist, or indeed for any theist. The thing that asserts that a 1,1 state exists is the clock setup that you introduced (that being said, I'm not asserting that such a person couldn't exist, although I don't know how that would be).

Nah, you're still using your dodgy interpretation of the words to form your logic gates and truth tables. Your circuitry reflects the conclusion you want to draw, but it reflects no anchoring in any logic to get there, the most obvious example of which is that our main disagreement is the definition of atheist, yet you have provided no justification for the set of three gates that you use to represent atheism.

Nope, if you rejected X and !X, then you broke the LEM and are illogical.

Of course, there is nothing illogical about abstaining, rejecting both 1,0 and 0,1. What is illogical is identifying your stance of as rejecting theism and atheism, since 0,1 is not what the dictionary identifies as atheism.

I'm not sure the question makes sense. By "have", do you mean "hold to exist"? Or how many gods actually existing would be consistent with the view? How many gods do agnostics have?

I'm trying to be very clear about which statements include agnostics and which do not, I have even colour coded them. Red statements tend to be about the belief that Gods do not exist (which does not include agnostics), green ones tend to be about those who do do not fall under "theist" (which does include agnostics).

Nope, I wrote a direct negation, which by the LEM does not allow for any third options. You swapped it for some opposite, thereby introducing the third option that you then complained about. If you find a third option, then you have failed to correctly apply a negation.

Yes, but not(choice 1) doesn't single out a specific alternative choice, it is a statement which is true both during choice 2 and 3. There may be three choices, but you can easily construct statements that include more than one of them.

Source for such a rule? Here is a counterexample, the two first examples in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table#Logical_true (logical true and logical false) are correctly written down in a truth table to not depend on the truth value of the input. Seems your assertions are made up and incorrect again.

 

So you think the following statement is right:

If you do not believe God exists, it does not mean that you believe God does not exist, you could have been agnostic, and that is 100% logical.​

And we have agreed that "Atheist = does not believe God exists" (source), we can put the definition directly into the statement to make:

If you are an atheist, it does not mean that you believe God does not exist, you could have been agnostic, and that is 100% logical.

It seems to me that all the "it's implied that you didn't abstain" etc. are dodgy, whereas the logic above follows very clearly from two statements you have already agreed to.

 

seriously flawed logic!

try this:
Choice 1) If you did not vote yes and you did not vote no -you abstained
Choice 2) If you did not vote yes and you did not abstain -you voted no
Choice 3) If you did not vote no and you did not abstain -you voted yes

Choice 1) If you did not vote (I believe) and you did not vote (I do not believe) -you abstained
Choice 2) If you did not vote (I believe) and you did not abstain -you voted (I do not believe)
Choice 3) If you did not vote no and you did not abstain -you voted (I believe)

 

huh???? you have not shown any unary operation! LOL They call that throwing **** at the wall hoping something will stick

 

Choice 3 should have read:
Choice 3) If you did not vote (I do not believe) and you did not abstain -you voted (I believe)

Sure hold to exist is fine, if being atheist means you dont believe God does not exist then the only other choice is that God does exist, or agnostic.
Each condition is exclusive.
Agnostics dont hold God to exist or not exist.
So now we have atheists that are not atheists, thats a good one!

I was not discussing x and !x.

I have no disagreement with the definition,
your problem is that you want to defend the indefensible flew and are blaming your inability to do so on to me.

I know, shifting between negative and positive logic seems to trip you up every time.

There, see now that disqualifies you to even discuss the matter.
Proof you do not understand what truth tables are designed to do.

 

You cant vote yes AND no at the same time.
Identities are Exclusive



Amazing!

Voting no and abstaining is not logically possible
Claiming agnostic and atheist is not logically possible
Voting yes and no is not logically possible, irrational
Claiming a theist can both believe in God and not believe in God is not logically possible, (that would be a condition of insanity and registers false for a theist)

 

Still trying to convince people that rejecting religion is a religion? Is self defense a crime?

 

I thought I was talking about atheist/theist/agnostic, do you have a reference, I have no clue what post you could be referring to since you are not referring to the immediate discussion at hand.

Whats your definition of religion?
How are you connecting self defense to religion or whatever that is supposed to mean?

In its most simplified broad terms rejecting a deity certainly results in another religion by some secular name.

What is it called when you reject religion?
Generally atheism is a denial of God or of the gods, and if religion is defined in terms of belief in spiritual beings, then atheism is the rejection of all religious belief.

atheism | Definition, Philosophy, & Comparison to Agnosticism

 

Continued:

Secular religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A secular religion is a communal belief system that often rejects or neglects the metaphysical aspects of the supernatural, commonly associated with traditional religion, instead placing typical religious qualities in earthly entities. Among systems that have been characterized as secular religions are capitalism, nationalism, nazism, fascism, communism, Maoism, Juche, progressivism, transhumanism, Religion of Humanity, Jacobinism and the Cult of Reason and the Cult of the Supreme Being that developed after the French Revolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_religion

So which definition of religion are you talking about?

ps: if you are a theist you should be very unhappy right now since swensson is claiming a state of insanity would the correct assignment and definition of theist. He has labeled somone who believes in God and at the same time refuses to believe in God a theist. Now I dont know about you but afaik all theists believe in God, and that describes a condition of insanity.

 

Oopsie! Theres those damn grammar issues cropping up again!
Sure it does!
Semantics, you are making distinctions without no different, that is known as semantics

1. 
   Dictionary
   Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
   
   believe in
   phrasal verb of believe
   1. 1.
      have faith in the truth or existence of something.
      "she admitted that she believed in ghosts"
      h
      Similar:
      be sure of the existence of
2. believe in the existence of
3. 2.
   be of the opinion that something is right or acceptable.
   "I don't believe in censorship of the arts"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What does it mean to not believe in something?

disbelieve. verb. to not believe someone or something.

To not trust or believe someone or something - Macmillan Dictionary
https://www.macmillandictionary.com › british › to-not-tr...

disbelieve
verb
to not believe someone or something

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

believe
verb
Essential Meaning of believe

1 : to accept or regard (something) as true
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/believe

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does it mean to not believe?

1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable
broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.
2 : a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something
political agnostics.

Definition of agnostic - Merriam-Webster

Sorry swensson and birdie, atheist is not invited to the agnostic party!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
be·lieve

verb
verb: believe;
1.
accept (something) as true;
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
atheist
An atheist believes there is no such thing as god, or any other deity.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/atheist

Definition of 'atheist'
atheist
An atheist is a person who believes that there is no God.

atheist in American English
a person who believes that there is no God

(source),

Ok time to forget about semantics and lets jump back on swenssons and birdies grammar merry go round!

 

I tried to get through to him but I'm pretty sure he's intentionally confused and playing an act for us at this point.

 

truly a force to be reckoned with!

Maybe you should take the time to read the couple of posts above yours

See post 1722 HERE for proof that you are wrong.

 

Both that graphic and the fact you posted it tells us a lot about you. You see everyone as opponents and "forces" arrayed against you, when really all anyone here was trying to do was help you. People (especially Swensson here) have been very polite towards you, and you have been nothing but rude. You are clearly uninterested in actual discussion and out to fight the good fight, and you are unable to admit small errors (like your misreading of the table a couple of pages back) so you can protect your fragile ego.

A lost cause, or a troll. Either way, I'm finally done with you.