Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

Hi Injeun,

Yes. If there existed an all powerful being, and that being wanted me to know he exists, I would know he exists. And there would be no need for holy texts, prophets, etc. An all powerful being would simply make me know if he wanted to make me know whatever he wants me to know (if anything), and he would do so with no trappings or limitations of communication between humans. That most religions are spread by word of mouth, holy texts, etc, instead of by solo meditation and God simply making people know the religion, is very strong evidence to me that the claims of these religions are false.

An all powerful being has everything exactly as he wants it, or else he isn't an all powerful being.

If God wanted me to worship in a particular way, God would be making me know that, and I wouldn't instead be hearing that from some priest claiming to speak for God. It is even more suspect when that priest stands to gain something from my worshiping in the way he suggests. Tithing to the church for example, or better yet, the sale of indulgences which was once actually a thing. How people can fail to see that as a scam, I don't understand.

 

Explain how that applies to the discussion comparing ath4ist agnostic and theist?

So theist has to believe is true but atheists can be corpses, completely brain dead, no need to believe anything is not true? Please cite that rule in logical analysis

Because they are brain dead?

So someone can tell you the contents of the moon is cheese and give you the reason they seen mice on the moon, and because they were clear they have a valid point, yes or no?

So you are claiming that agnostic has no distinction to either atheist or theist and is 100% a fusable word is that it?

So you now claim that using my argument to prove an iron clad stronger position in debate is bickers? yes or no?

I proved them, but then proof is meaningless to those who are in denial.
State a qualifying proof that I could use to prove you wrong, I do that all the time to let swensson know what he needs to prove me wrong, so if you really know your stuff as you think you do state the set of conditions.

Swensson repeated virtually the same mantra that I have already debunked and you are walking that same path, I tire of repeating myself.

You have never laid out a usable argument, great lay it on me man, post your argument that will defeat mine.

Sorry you and swensson are the ones moving goal posts, I have said the same identical thing through out the whole thread since 1+5=6 period, I cant change my position, and I will not be forced into a lying because neoatheists demand it.

Cite it, and explain how it was not addressed and what I would have had to respond with to adress it to your satisfaction.

FALSE, I put up my counterargument because I disagree, and until you can come up with a valid argument its all you are going to get because I wont lie to patronize you.

If you think I did not explain and detail how it is unequivocal.

You know what I proved, that neoatheists are defined as dead-brains, crystal clear conclusion. You need no brain what so ever to lack belief.

Pretty 101 simple stuff here you know.

Cite one large philosophical university to support that claim.

 

Im still waiting for you to validate that claim.

You refused to answer so many times I gave up on asking.

Explain the 'linguistics' you used for that claim, dissect the bolded sentence.

Explain how "It is what allows you to be agnostic."

 

It adds additional information. Atheism/Theism is about state of belief, and Agnostic or not is about if you believe it is possible to actually know if God exists. An agnostic theist, under these meanings of the terms, believes in God (theist) but doesn't think it is possible to know if God exists or not, and depends on faith. Other theists actually DO claim that they KNOW God exists. You may not find that rational, but that is a commonly claimed position, especially among Muslims and evangelical Christians.

That depends on what is meant by "person", since an atheist under this definition is a person who doesn't have any belief in God. Swensson just pointed this out to you a couple of posts back. Did you miss that?

No. Why do you think that is analogous to people using words with meanings you don't like? That's an actual claim about an actual fact, not just language choice.

What argument? What argument do you think you have actually made? Bickering over language and thumping your chest is 99% of what I've seen you write. Did you actually hide an actual argument somewhere in there? Please point it out if so. We should be fair to you.

Prove me wrong about what? You can start by disagreeing with a particular claim I made and asking me to say what would prove me wrong about it.

I really don't think so. I think you have gone out of your way to fail to understand him, and many others here who have tried to have conversation with you.

I would have to know what argument you think you have made in order to do that. Mostly you just demand people use your terms, declare other meanings of words "invalid", and thump your chest and declare victory.

I'm not going to quote the entire thread to you. How about you start by answering the most recent questions that Swensson and yardmeat have asked you?

Disagree with what? That agnostics can't be atheists? Under your demanded definitions of the words, nobody is saying they can. But they are using different definitions of the words that you refuse to acknowledge. It is possible that you may not even disagree with what they are actually saying, if you let yourself actually listen to and understand them.

You have before.

Oh? Show your steps there, because I think I see you making the same error the other fellow pointed out you often make. You need no brain whatsoever to lack belief. Ok. And from that you get what? That people who lack belief must have no brain? That would be incorrect, but similar to when you pointed out that some atheists are religious (and some are, such as Budhists), and concluded that atheism is a religion. Do you see the error in that "logic"? Because I honestly can't tell if you can at this point.

 

Thats pretty good reasoning for God, but you fail re: religion.

So what do you call the congrgations of atheiss churches?

 

Still no response!

Im still waiting for you to validate that claim.

You refused to answer so many times I gave up on asking.

Explain the 'linguistics' you used for that claim, dissect the bolded sentence.

Explain how "It is what allows you to be agnostic."

 

I only have to point at you, who claims to neither believe there is a God nor believe there is no God as your self-description as an agnostic.

In one breath you say you can both not believe there is a God and not believe there is not a God (your meaning for Agnostic)
In the next, you tell me to prove to you that there is a difference between not believing there is a God and believing there is no God.

Can you honestly not see the contradiction in that? We've asked this many times. Please answer directly and honestly and maybe we can actually get somewhere on this.

Or maybe you do see the contradiction in that and now claim you don't believe one of those two? If so, which one do you believe and which one do you no believe?

You also at one point seemed to be making some weird argument that it mattered if we were talking about just atheists vs theists, or if we were talking about atheists, theists, and agnostics. It seemed like you thought that somehow changes the logic on the above, which baffled me at the time, and you refused to clarify, instead opting to thump your chest.

For the purpose of that sentence, you can simply replace "atheist" with X. That may help since you have so much invested in that particular word. It is a statement about lack of belief something exists vs belief that something doesn't exist.

If the bolded statement is not true, then you can not both not believe there is and not believe there is not at the same time. If the bolded statement is not true, then you must either believe there is or believe there is not. But there IS such room, you can be what you call Agnostic, because the statement is true.

If !X = Y, then (!X,!Y) = (Y,!Y), which is a contradiction.
If not having belief there is = having belief there is not, then (not having belief there is & not having belief there is not) = (having belief there is not & not having belief there is not), which is a contradiction.

And no, we don't need one of your mislabeled truth tables or fancy colouring to see this.

The truth of the bolded statement what allows you to be what you are calling "agnostic" (having no belief there is and no belief that there is not a God).

 

Same as all speculation....opinion. There is only one true God, and consequently, one true religion. All else falls short.

 

Do you even know or understand what 'grammar' and 'linguistics' is?
Truth is not an element or constituent of either grammar or linguistics, you are confusing grammar with logic just like swensson does. Hmm how odd

Please point out what you think in that long winded post has anything to do with grammar or linguistics?

 

The one 'true' religion is agnostic.

We, (agnostics) do not have to lie and substitute beliefs for facts like atheists and theists do.

Along with their associated religion both theism and atheism are compromised and both have defective ideologies, agnostic is not.

 

Your game of being deliberately obtuse isn't working.

I gave you what you demanded and now you shift the posts again. The logic above doesn't have anything to do with language. Your demand we use your chosen meanings of words, and your pretending people wrote what they did with your meanings in mind, when the explicitly stated they didn't, has everything to do with language.

Also when you demand

And then given that, you ignore it and shift to language again, I don't see how you can expect anybody to take you seriously. Its all dodge, equivocate, chest thump, declare victory with you.

 

"Believe There is No God" (what you said is your preferred meaning for "atheist") is not a religion. People can believe that and have many different conflicting views, some religions, some not. This really shouldn't be so difficult for you to understand.

 

4th DODGE

Here it is peeps, yet another DODGE, Still no responsive answer! Just rants.

Im still waiting for you to validate that claim.

You refused to answer so many times I gave up on asking.

Explain the 'linguistics' and dissect the 'grammar' you used for that claim, dissect the bolded sentence.

Explain how "It is what allows you to be agnostic."

When are you going to stop jerking everyone around out here? It looks like you are on a mission to simply spam the thread!

None of what you posted so far has a damn thing to do with grammar or linguistics, the only thing you seem really good at posting is rants and name calling. If you dont know what linguistics and grammar is look it FFS.

 

Agnosticism is self proclaimed ignorance. Ignorance isn't a religion. It's a state of being. Is ignorance greater than knowledge. If it is then say less and pretend to know more.

 

Geez, where do you guys dig this nonsense up anyway?

Agnostic is an 'ideal' representation of how to correctly acquire knowledge using the scientific method.

Which means if you cant prove God exists, dont lie to yourself and believe God exists, likewise if you cant prove God does not exist, dont lie to yourself and believe God does not exist. Both theists and atheists lie to themselves because neither can prove their position.

Agnostic rejects both the atheist religious position and the theist religious position and to be agnostic MUST remain neutral. To not go forward and not go reverse your tranny has to be in a neutral position.

Its the inventors fault frankly that his true meaning is not well understood because he used the word in a book with no definition so dictionaries jumped on it referring to the root meaning of agnostic, which was not the correct representation of an agnostic, his point was remaining neutral if you cant prove it. By the time he had balls enough to publish an explanation it was too late, everone thought they understood his meaning. On the brite side dictionaries are starting to wise up to some degree now days.

agnostic
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Definitions from Oxford Languages

Now combine that with the people of today who cant even read a dictionary and worse grinding an axe with a political agenda you have a real mess on your hands.

Neoatheists think they can combine agnostic and atheist together, to hedge their bet and make them feel better with themselves by adding a safety net in case they are wrong.

Anyone who is literate can see combining agnostic+atheist is a contradiction. Well they can believe the moon is really cheese too, however the rest of us (the literate us) look at that and frown at our failed educational system.

 

Not just neoatheists, anyone can, atheist or theist or neither, under their understanding of the words.

Kokomojo projection.

Under your preferred meanings of the words.

 

Honesty is better than deception, usually.

 

orange paint is not orange fruit, there is only one specific meaning that applies to either, (barring an idiot that paints an orange) I always 'prefer' the meaning that properly 'applies', too bad neoatheists make up and try to pedal their own fallacious definitions.

DODGE NUMBER 5, AFAIAC, after all that chest pounding and foot stomping you did, calling me names its pretty clear to everyone based on your dodging proves no clue what so ever how to demonstrate that there is any truth what so ever in the nonsense you post.

I even quoted you HERE, I dont have to cheat like the neoatheists SOP.

Still waiting for a response to your claim HERE, or do we go to DODGE 6 now? The laughable thing about arguing with neoatheists is they actually believe they can say anything they want and not lose credibility. I wish them the best of luck with that.

 

The meaning that "applies" is the meaning the two people find best to convey the information they are exchanging. Your refusal to acknowledge and engage in honest communication by pretending they mean one thing when they clearly mean another is entirely on yourself.

I directly addressed your question. You decided to ignore the answer and shift goal posts, shifting back and forth and constantly dodging yourself. Everyone here can see it. I don't know why you don't realize they can.

And I stand by that quote, and expanded on it and answered your questions on it, which you ignored. That's your own mental illness, not anybody else's.

 

Oh didnt you get the memo?

All posts without quotes are lies, you did not quote, therefore the above post has to be considered a lie.

You post accusations with no quote, you and I both know why, they are false claims, it does not exist! LOL

See how I quoted you below, its really easy all you have to do is select the text and push the little quote button, do you know how to do that or do you need someone to take you by the hand step by step?

your inability iow your failure to break down the grammar proves my point, you lack the necessary grammar skills to understand what you read! Bravo!

Here lets try again, maybe you can crack a book and come up to grammar 101 so you can tell us htf you came to that cockeyed conclusion, this is really simple **** you know!

You said it cough up the explanation, your fans if there are any left are waiting or you going for DODGE 7!

Im still waiting for you to validate that claim.

You refused to answer so many times I gave up on asking.

Explain the 'linguistics' you used for that claim, dissect the bolded sentence.

Explain how "It is what allows you to be agnostic."

Otherwise I think its time you concede that you lack grammar skills for this lind of discussion.

 

"...Stephen Bullivant (2013), defends it on grounds of scholarly utility. His argument is that this definition can best serve as an umbrella term for a wide variety of positions"​

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/ (my bolding)

Only Bullivant says anything about an umbrella term, and that is the only thing that the Stanford says fails. Once that has been rejected, Flew's definition in its original form stands, and gets called certainly legitimate.

This in no way addresses my argument. The idea of an umbrella term is Bullivant's, not Flews, you've omitted that distinction from your quote (dishonestly, not even adding an "[...]" for omitted text). This is why we keep going around in circles, I have a refutation, but instead of arguing around it, you've posted the argument again, as if that resolves the objection.

Bolding and crayolas won't help anything, what's missing is where you get the idea that rejecting it as an umbrella term is a problem, when Flew never used it as an umbrella term.

Sure I did, I posted a link to the Introduction to logic page (reference), and the example of the English language. If English had not been popular, nothing would be keeping us from rejecting it altogether and picking another language (as exemplified by the fact that many people use other languages altogether).

 

I cant imagine we didnt beat that horse to death countless times, however lets start with your percise quote using flews exact words that you believe is his definition.

 

had a moment to take another look at this, scratch my last post 2197

I forgot Stanford covered it and summarily rejected it outside 'popular usage', which means in so far as definitions in a dictionary is concerned its a legitimate definition because that is what dictionaries do, report popular usage.

That said you have no argument, since I never claimed people 'do not use it that way' and since as Stanford infers it has little to no use in philosophy because it is not a negation to theism. (as I have said countless times only to be accused of making up my own definitions)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“atheism” should be defined as a psychological state: the state of not believing in the existence of God (or gods).

This view was famously proposed by the philosopher Antony Flew and arguably played a role in his (1972) defense of an alleged presumption of “atheism”.

if atheism is defined as a psychological state, then no proposition can count as a form of atheism because a proposition is not a psychological state.

Antony Flew proposed atheism” should be defined as a psychological state.

Stanford goes on to point out that if we accept Flews definition; [atheism] "as a psychological state", "then no proposition can count as a form of atheism ........

........because a proposition is not a psychological state."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What that really says, is that bullivant was arguing Flews "psychological state" definition as a matter of utility, umbrella is only a metaphor stanford used to refer to Flews attempt at making up a universal or broad definition, then the last nail in the coffin is that in that process Flew also wipes out what is often referred to as strong atheism.

Seriously it seems there is virtually no end to how many ways Flews theory can be argued as nonsense. I think we are up to 4 so far. LOL

The thing is this **** is super easy reading compared to federal law. How many more times do we need to sink the Flew titanic before you concede that absence and LOB fails on its face?

 

Rev.3
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

 

Could have saved you eighty-something pages…

Atheism isn’t a religious “worldview”. It’s the answer to a single religious question…