Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

Thanks that is really appreciated, but honestly I'd have to drill a hole in my head and drain out a few brains to consider the bastardization and destruction of the english language 'help'.

Im not the one "Saying atheists don't believe there is a God is not the same as saying atheists believe there is no God." that runs 100% contrary to the definitions
posted:

and post 1718 HERE

Sorry you bit off more than you could chew and continued to beat that dead horse relentlessly forcing me to prove you wrong on all counts. The irony is that the most damning definitions to your cause come from the UK.

You also falsely accused me of semantics when in fact it is now proven in the 2 links that it is you and swensson that is pedaling semantics not me, same goes for trolling, not me.

I do thank you however for those occasions where you contradicted swensson....and on those occasions you were right btw

 

It is no different than your logic when you say

If you did not vote yes, it does not mean that you voted no, you could have abstained, and that is 100% logical (source)​

Those all seem like true statements, just none of them are the statement found in the definition of atheist that you supplied. The definition is something along the line of "a person who does not believe in God", the fact that you're having to cram in the clause "and did not abstain" where it doesn't actually exist shows that you're failing to address the thing that actually makes someone an atheist.

Luckily, you provided the version of the statement that doesn't sneak in a bunch of other side clauses (although in the voting example) when you say

If you did not vote yes, it does not mean that you voted no, you could have abstained, and that is 100% logical (source)​

If you did not abstain, then you voted yes or you voted no.
If you did not vote yes, then you voted no or you abstained
The latter translates directly into
If you are an atheist, then you believe God does not exist or you were an atheist.
To say "not choice1" is not a commitment to either choice 2 or 3.

No, it shows that there is nothing illogical about having a logic relation which shows some proposition (p) as an input, but which does not affect the outcome of the logic.

Edited this into the quote above.

So how many Gods do agnostics hold to exist? I mean, if you assert that atheists have to give a numerical answer, don't agnostics also have to?

How many yes votes do no-voters cast? How many yes votes do abstainers cast?

Well, !X is what's in the definition of atheists, so if you're not discussing !X, then you're not correctly discussing atheists as per the definition.

Well, are you applying the shift between the two correctly? The fact that truth values change when you do it suggests that you're swapping between negative and positive logic incorrectly.

I have asked this before, with a resounding silence as a response, but where do you get your info about how these identities work, and why you're allowed to put them into truth tables? It seems to me, identities are in general not exclusive (for instance, you can be a Frenchman and a car-owner, those are not exclusive). So you would have to explicitly show why you think they are exclusive (or why these identities in particular are exclusive) if you want to use that statement.

I agree with those (I cut out the one I didn't agree with). However,

Not voting yes and voting no is possible.
Not voting yes and abstaining is possible.

The latter of those "translates" directly into
Being atheist and agnostic is possible.

Well, I've asked you before, twice (and with particular emphasis):

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.​

It seems to me, the grammar works in the exact same way. One of them, you approve of (indeed, you presented the statement yourself), and the other one you're complaining about.

Are you suggesting we drop the definition that you provided before? I'm already happy with the one below which you provided ages back. My issue is not with that definition, but with how you try to translate it into logic and circuitry.

 

I proved it was semantic -see the definition connections that you just quoted in your previous post, read them this time.

your version is an incomplete series

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 (I do not believe) and not did not abstain -you voted (I believe)

your frenchmen v car = identity is nonsequitur.
If you want to post something with exclusive identities or equivalent try:
left right neither
forward backward stationary-(neither)

Your quoted question has been answered on the previous page:

You cant vote yes AND no at the same time, its irrational, your TT proves you did vote yes and no at the same time, your logic is irrational.

Identities are Exclusive



Amazing!

Voting no and abstaining is not logically possible therefore neither is (Agnostic-Atheist)
Claiming agnostic and atheist is not logically possible
Voting yes and no is not logically possible, irrational (your theist = yes-no = 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 all identities)


The below matrix demonstrates a 'properly' designed logic syllogism and TT for:
1) atheist is someone who 'believes God does not exist'. (see the definitions you just quoted)
2) theist is someone who 'believes God exists'
3) agnostic neither 'believes God exists' nor 'God does not exist'



My logic is flawless.

State what you believe the difference is, I believe I have answered your quoted questions several times by example.

The above tables proves the flewism opinion is nonsense.
flew did not produce a definition he produced an opinion nothing more.

 

Damn whats up with this **** another typo

Correction:
your version is an incomplete series

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 (I do not believe) and did not abstain -you voted (I believe)

.

 

Your logic is based on the flawed premise that your definitions are the only way to view the matter.

 

thats not the qualifications for a flawed premise. A premise is flawed when there is something wrong with the premise itself, not because you think there should be more options.

My structure is based on long standing agreed upon definitions from the dictionary, each is exclusive with a unique set of parameters for each, no 2 are the same and no 2 overlap or create a contradiction. I chose definitions I did because they are not assailable. Flew on the other hand doesnt stand up to logic or reason hence the floor is open to anyone that wants to put up a truth table demonstrating how the flew nonsense can fit in! I will applaud them if they can legitimately do it, because I dont see it. That said if you feel more options should be incorporated by all means help swensson out since his whole approach has been incorrect so far.

So if you think there is anything that is actually a logical flaw in my premise articulate with your own TT so we can allsee what you are talking about. In other words I posted the logic that supports my position, I have no need to prove anyone elses position for them, what fun would there be in that?

 

That is/was (I now have him on ignore finally) Koko's issue, yes.

I think the rest of us would be happy to work with whatever other definition you may want to work with. I think Swensson here is using the above definitions because those are the definitions Koko cited from a dictionary (and then very oddly insisted it meant what it doesn't on its plain reading).

There ARE definitions of "atheist" that specify it means belief there are no Gods, and there are also definitions that only say it means no belief there are Gods. Koko thinks the two are the same. A "distinction without a difference" as he put it. But there is a difference there.

As I've said before in this thread, you can use whatever meaning for whatever word you want to use, so long as both the speaker and understand what is meant by it.

"Turnip" could indeed mean car, atheist, donkey, whatever, so long as we all know what the speaker means when they say "turnip". We just have to make sure we are speaking the same language with the same meanings, etc.

 

Yeah, you are still wrong because you are using a flawed definition. Sorry mate.

 

I’m not sure how I ended up back in this thread lol. I chose to ignore it!

 

Yes, you just know it! You have no explanation what so ever but deep down inside you just know it has to be twu!

Same here, you just know its a fact! You have no explanation and despite not only me telling you more than once, and even posting a page of definitions to the contrary proving you are wrong like DRI you just know that somehow you just have to be right! Well too bad so sad. Im not backing down to flawed grammar or flawed logic. Like DRI you can stand on your soapbox all day screaming nah nah neener neener while I sit back and shrug. Otherwise yes the meaning you 'think' you are conveying does exist, if you get lucky enough to stumble across the right version we will cross that bridge when we get to it. For me it will be the 3rd time because you people continue to regurgitate the same nonsense. Like I said you bit off more than you were prepared to chew, and blame your inability to prove your point and other failings on to me. I explained that as well, more than once. There is nothing I can do in a discussion where my opponents are in denial and in over their heads. Sorry, I tried explaining and if the best you can do is put me on iggy then you do what you have to do for your health and sanity, and of course never forget to blame it all on to me!

 

Oh I can explain but you are too monolithic in your thinking to hear what I have to say.

 

Are you arguing that we should use those definitions instead of Flew's (if so, any problems you find are not with Flew, but with those definitions)? Or are you arguing that we should use more than one of them (thereby committing the fallacy of equivocation)? Or are you arguing that the definitions are the same, despite the fact that the truth values come out differently when we apply them? What "connections" are you claiming there are?

I'd argue mine isn't a series at all, it is only the statements that correspond to the definition of atheist. The definition of atheism as quoted does not include a "and you did not abstain" clause, it includes only one statement ("does not believe God exists"), so what relevance does your series of statement have?

The Frenchman v car-owner example shows that it is not a general rule that you cannot have more than one "identity". Some sets of identities are exclusive, others are not. Merely calling something an identity does not force us to conclude that they are exclusive. Your statement "Identities are Exclusive" (source) is not necessarily true. You would have to show it in each particular case, so far you have not.

I don't see that that is an answer to the question. 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.​

The logic seems to me identical, you seem happy with one, but you hit a mental roadblock when we perform the exact same logic on "not believe".

Nope, some identities are exclusive, others are not.

I agree that voting no and abstaining is not logically possible, but that is an incorrect interpretation of what it would mean to be an agnostic-atheist.

Not voting yes and abstaining is logically possible, as you mentioned here:

If you did not vote yes, it does not mean that you voted no, you could have abstained, and that is 100% logical.​

Note how latter statement matches the phrasing of the definition of atheist much better than your "voting no and abstaining" example.

I maintain that it is your clock setup that asserts the 1,1 state. Here is a cutout of your addition, it shows the 1,1 state. My logic has done nothing other than found a label for such a person. It hasn't claimed that such a person is rational or non-contradictory, or even that they exist.

If you abandoned the Oxford definition "does not believe God exists" which you have been touting over and over for "believes God does not exist", then yes that's what you get. You can't however use that definition to evaluate Flew's logic, unless you commit the fallacy of equivocation.

I haven't been asking for examples, I've been asking specific questions. Your examples of things that may or may not fit, and that may or may not be general have largely come across as deflections. Mostly, your examples are examples of logic that doesn't match what I'm asking about.

Just as "not voting yes" doesn't specify whether you voted no or abstained, "not believing" a proposition doesn't specify whether you believed the opposite or abstained from either of those beliefs. Atheism, with Flew's definition of "not believing" is therefore consistent with either believing the opposite, or believing neither.

No, it just shows that despite your protestations, you have in fact been equivocating all along, as we've been pointing out. The fact that you're having to backtrack on the definitions in order to make your logic work shows that you have in fact failed to read Flew's definition, and mixed up things he claims which things he hasn't claimed.

 

Almost. I use those definitions because Kokomojojo addresses Flew's arguments, and Flew's arguments uses those definitions (that just happens to agree with the definitions Kokomojojo quotes, just not the definitions he uses in his truth tables).

When we understand an argument, we must use the definitions that were intended in that argument, otherwise you get "oranges are tasty"/"I will feed you orange paint" issues.

 

Paint made from oranges sounds delicious

 

I posted dictionary citations that demonstrate 'your interpretation is flawed' and of course it continues to go ignored. FWIW, Flews arguments have been discarded by stanford dept of philosophy as not compatible in the comparison of athiest/theist/agnostic. I am not suprised that none of you can logically make it work. The fact remains that someone who claims to be atheist has made the decision to reject the existence of a God, not simply lack belief. Cognitive dissonance LOL

 

The fact remains that someone who claims to be atheist has made the decision to reject the existence of a God, and accept the belief that God does not exist, which at that point is no longer lack of belief. Belief in atheism has been fully established by the claim of atheism it cant be unestablished once established. Doublethink. Cognitive dissonance LOL

 

The logic here is faulty. Lack of belief in God does not equal religion. It's too ridiculous to take seriously.

 

you actually have to read the thread to confirm it most certainly does, but like others you are entitled to call it a turnip if you like..

 

Thanks that is really appreciated, but honestly I'd have to drill a hole in my head and drain out a few brains to consider the bastardization and destruction of the english language 'help'.

A lobotomy would probably do you a world of good, actually.

 

Absolutely. Does the core belief that gods exist form a worldview? Of course not. Which god or gods forms the worldview.

 

I don't have to read anything. The logic is faulty. Lack of belief =/= belief. It's absurd. I have no idea what you're trying to prove in the first place.

I have no need for the supernatural.

 

Help me understand why you felt it is important to post in this thread and ask such a question.

Yeh, I'd fit right into the modern irrational world by lowering my IQ at least 90 points.

You took a religious position, it certainly does.

whats absurd is you demanding that your expression of belief somehow magically becomes lack of belief.

 

You snipped my reply. A sin, according to your religion.

 

So then you admit this argument is outside your knowledge base but you want to argue it anyway.

So what that makes it a secular religion, that does not exempt your beliefs from being a religion

Im agnostic, what is sin?

 

How many IQ points does it take to realize that atheism isn't a religion?