Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

this thread is about philosophy, not bible quotes, there are plenty of threads that welcome bible quotes, in this thread its off topic junk

could have saved you from making a frivolous post, that has already been covered, more like beat to death in this thread, please feel free to read it, then if you have something 'new' to offer and contribute to the thread that has not already been beat to death in the 80 pages you never read, I will be happy to discuss it, otherwise we have nothing to discuss.

 

80 pages or not, your thread commences with a false premise.

There is no “atheist worldview”, any more than there is a ‘dentist’s worldview’, or an ‘athlete’s worldview’, or a ‘housewife’s worldview’….

Each person’s worldview will vary according to the particular topic under discussion; eg:

Your view on capitalism vs socialism
Your views on war and peace
Your views on education
Your views on the environment

Etc, etc, etc…..

There is no common atheist position on any of these viewpoints. The ONLY thing that atheists necessarily have in common is the answer to one specific question…’do you believe god/s exist?’

 

Nevertheless, Atheism remains antithetical to belief in God. And your wishy washy Agnostic neutrality in the matter is counter to Gods command to repent, be baptized and born again. So Agnostic procrastination is hardly the seat of judgment. Especially in light of Gods counsel thru John, that if ye are neither hot nor cold, but lukewarm, he will spew you out of his mouth. Not that he was speaking of you or agnostics per se. But the principle I believe applies. You cannot sneak into heaven by pretending to be invisible. At least Atheists have the courage not to attempt to fake it. And in so doing, they honor the truth in firm declaration. Your positive, adamant, firm, and certain uncertainty is nearer to a childs tantrum, than to anything due respect. Frankly, I'm tired of it...tired of listening to you glory in what you don't know and ridicule others who bend over backwards to appeal to your sense of reason. A sense which they accredit you as a gift to you in charity, which you neither deserve nor have the good judgment to value. You do neither yourself nor Agnosticism any favors with your self righteous judgmentalism.

 

It’s impossible to be neutral about God.

 

Personally, I think maybe they got this all backwards. doG is awesome. Most dogs are better friends than most humans. Praise be to dog. Bow wow. Wow indeed.

"If there are no dogs in heaven, when I die I want to go where they go." - Will Rogers

 

I would say that applies to Koko, but not to agnostics generally, under either definition of the term. If a person admits they don't know and have no belief for or against, that's just honesty, and if they believe it impossible to know, that's just a belief, and I think it is arguable and a respectable belief.

That's definitely Koko. But again, not agnosticism itself, as I think you are pointing out in your last sentence there.

 

swensson used flew to prove neoatheists are braindead, cant expect the braindead to think.

So your plan is to come in this thread and preach the gospel to me? Does that mean you took back the like you gave me about 6 months ago for my genius?

They couldnt if they wanted to.
Otherwise that is a typical attitude I hear when the subject matter is outside someones comfort zone.

Yes sadly things that come easily for some is impossible for others. True agnostics (not too many of us out there) I have found to have both superior intellect and reading skills than neoatheists.

 

Wow, just look at all that animosity and hatred toward nice people like me and all I did was debunk and prove the neoatheist's atheology is foolish absurd nonsense pedaled by a bunch of bent out of shape cranks.

Neaoatheists need to upgrade and find some new material!

 

You said it cough up the explanation, your fans if there are any left are waiting or you going for neoatheist DODGE 8!

Im still waiting for you to validate that claim.

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 long past the time to concede that you lack grammar skills for advanced analytical discussion.

Why should anyone out here take your posts seriously when you post nonsense that you dont understand and cant explain?

 

Let me take a crack, by way of an analogy…

I meet you in the street and I see from your shabby presentation that you’re probably a homeless person living in poverty. You tell me that you have $10,000 in your pocket. I reply that, based on the evidence I see before me, that I do not believe your claim.

Note that I do not say that you definitely don’t have the 10 grand, or that it is impossible, but that I would need greater proof to be convinced.

You then pull out the notes from your pocket. Faced with this strong evidence, I become a ‘believer’….

So it is with the atheist. The atheist withholds an acceptance of the claim that gods exist, because he has seen insufficient evidence for that claim. Produce the evidence and you create a theist…

 

Yep, another grammar genius wants to play word footsie with me,

This includes citations for statements made without support.

You posted no citations, no support.

Same dirty debate tricks a certain bird uses.

Another option is to prove you are up to the task, see if you can dissect the meaning using linguistics/grammar of the bird below to grammatically prove out the the meaning and if you get even close to the correct meaning I will accept your challenge:

Saying atheists don't believe there is a God is not the same as saying atheists believe there is no God.

All I have gotten is name calling and of course no quote since he knows his claims are patently FALSE. Stands by what he said but cant prove its meaning LMAO

This is up to a 10 times DODGE already, Save your comrades titanic!

 

Sounds like you boys got yourselves into a gun-fight at the OK Corral ... dissecting grammar ... and typo's

The two statements are equivalent .. A) negation of God B) Negation of God -- different words -- same negation of God.

 

It means that God hides the truth. Therefore Atheists reasoning is that by saying they believe there is no God, they are actually accommodating him, rather than to say he doesn't exist. Because to acknowledge God is to betray or risk betraying his will, which is to remain hidden. It is like a game of hide and seek. Consequently, this God who is and is not, must present himself, and thus find them, to win the game. Therefore one must assume that Atheism, in this case, is the want of revelation to know, rather than a sign to believe. To be surprised is an Atheists greatest joy, as they are already versed in the mundanity of reason. And the pleasure of God is their greatest reward......the one who is and isn't of course. (wink, wink)

 

Which two statements?

And negation of God isn't the same thing as negation of belief that God exists. God could exist and a person could not believe he does, or vice versa.

 

It makes perfect sense for the atheist to wait for God to reveal himself and to withhold belief until that point. As I said earlier, if God does exist and wants me to know him, I would. If he doesn't either exist or want me to know he does (for some weird reason), then I won't. That's the thing about being an all powerful being. My own efforts to "know" him are irrelevant if he is an all powerful being. He has exactly what he wants. Otherwise he isn't all powerful.

 

Saying atheists don't believe there is a God is not the same as saying atheists believe there is no God.

A) Atheists don't believe there is a God
B) Atheists beieve there is no God

A) is equivalent to B)

 

Exactly. A isn't equivalent to B. Again, all this requires is a Venn Diagram.

Maybe it would help these folks to understand if they just exchanged the word "believe" for "positively affirm." That might help them understand where atheists are coming from.

"I don't positively affirm that aliens exist" =/= "I positively affirm that aliens don't exist."

 

Not affirming God =/= positive negation of God.

 

A) Atheists don't believe there is a God
B) Atheists beieve there is no God

1) Both believe there is no God .. 2) neither A or B affirms nor negates God

The groups are equivalent in both 1 and 2.

 

B does negate God. It says there is no God. That's explicitly negating the existence of God. 1 does not require an affirmative belief that there is no god. Again, all it takes is a Venn Diagram to see that, no, the two are not equivalent. Read post #2217. An absolutely neutral agnostic would still fall into A.

 

It could be argued/claimed that it is not possible to not have a belief regarding God, and that you must either believe God does exist or that God does not exist. But that would be a claim contrary to Koko's frequent claim that he (as what he calls agnostic) neither believes there is a God nor believes there is no God (neither theist or atheist as he defines those words). Hence his self-contradiction that he refuses to address.

 

You are missing the word "Believe .. to say someone "believes" there is no God .. is not negation of God .. if we were talking about a person saying "There is no God" this is negation .. but that is not what is stated.

What is stated is from a third person perspective stating Group B - "Believes" there is no God. so there may be one .. but these folks "Believe" otherwise.

That should sort it out methinks .. was the conflation of third person with first person ..

 

There are folks who believe, affirmatively, that there is are one or more gods. There are those who affirm that there are none. There are those who do not affirm either way and could fall into other categories.

 

Sorry for the delay.

I see the answer here is no longer necessary, but for completeness, here it is

"In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist"​

(Source)

You've still to show that anything other than Bullivant's view has been rejected (more on that below). The only remaining verdict is that the definition is certainly legitimate. Indeed, it is its popular usage that has made it so.

Just like the only reason that "orange" refers to a fruit is that it is common for people to use the word "orange" to refer to an orange. Had it been generally understood to have some other name, then that other name would be the correct word for orange. You disparage that idea often, but you have yet to provide any good argument against it.

I haven't claimed that you claim that people do not use it in that way. I only claim that Flew was justified in using it his way, and that if you actually use it in his way, there are no inconsistencies.

Nope:

"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"​

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

Flew's definition is mentioned as one of other related meanings of the word "atheism". The idea that only "there is no God" is the correct interpretation of the word atheism (even within philosophy) is explicitly rejected.

Nope:

"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 (more on this below). The 'a-' in 'atheism' must be understood as negation instead of absence, as 'not' instead of 'without'."​

Source https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

The above is the only mention of "negations" in the article, and it is under the condition that we've defined theism as the proposition that God exists, rather than the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, a conditional that simply isn't true in the case of Flew's definition.

Nope, it is specifically Bullivant who calls it an umbrella term and specifically argues that it can be used as an umbrella term:

"The utility of such a broad definition, taking atheism to be an ‘umbrella concept’ that admits of a range of subdivisions (e.g., ‘positive’ and ‘negative’), is then explored and defended at length"​

Source Bullivant & Rose 2013

The text you quoted doesn't mention Bullivant at all, you left the line out, without marking it:

"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"​

Source https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

Bullivant shoehorns Flew's definition into an umbrella term, and it is that shoehorning that gets rejected by the Stanford article. Flew's definition is not an umbrella term by itself, the rejection of Bullivant is not a problem for Flew's definition in its actual form.

I'm not sure what you mean by wipes out, strong atheists are still there. Either way, you have yet to provide a reason why that would be a nail anywhere.

 

No legitimate university philosophy department will ever be capable of accepting flew as a technical position any more than they are capable of accepting absence, without etc, as they explained serve the same. As stanford points out black hole definitions used to suck everyone such as agnostics (who reject atheism), nones who are typically agnostic under one 'umbrella' term does not work. You cant go backward in sophitication, ie you cant go from more specific to vague when it tramples over other legitimate definitions. Flew admits that is what he tried to do.

Umbrella term
A term used to cover a wide-ranging subject rather than one specific item. In many cases, umbrella terms are more marketing oriented than technical. https://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/umbrella-term

Wikipedia
Umbrella term

An umbrella term is a word or phrase that covers a wide range of concepts belonging to a common category. For example, cryptology is an umbrella term that encompasses cryptography and cryptanalysis, among other fields. Similarly, an umbrella organization is a central and coordinating body representing a number of smaller, separate bodies. A blanket term is a closely related word or phrase that is used to describe multiple groups of related things. The degree of relation may vary or have a minimal relationship, but blanket terms often trade specificity for ease of use. In other words, a blanket term, by itself, gives little detail about the things that it describes or the relationships between them, but it is easy to say and remember. Blanket terms may originate as slang but eventually become integrated into the general vocabulary.
https://www.definitions.net/definition/umbrella+term
What does umbrella term mean? - Definitions.net

Why is it called an umbrella term?
umbrella term (plural umbrella terms) A term used to cover a broad category of things rather than a single specific item. quotations

Synonyms: blanket term, (technical) hypernym. “Cryptology” is an umbrella term that encompasses cryptography and cryptanalysis.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/umbrella_term
umbrella term - Wiktionary

Umbrella term Examples:
Peter Campbell:
We have shown that AML is an umbrella term for a group of at least 11 different types of leukemia, we can now start to decode these genetics to shape clinical trials and develop diagnostics.

Sara Kelly Keenan:
It was wonderful. It was the first time I saw 'intersex' in print related to my name, when I applied in court, I chose 'non-binary,' because that's an umbrella term that would also include gender variant people.

Kaye Marks:
' Equine-assisted activities and therapies' is an umbrella term, and all of the different types [ of activities ] fall underneath our umbrella.



HomeDictionary Meanings Umbrella-term

Umbrella-term meaning

A term used to cover a wide-ranging subject rather than one specific item. In many cases, umbrella terms are more marketing oriented than technical. Umbrella terms might be buzzwords for a while, but they often fade into the woodwork. See buzzword.

1 A term used to cover a broad category of functions rather than a single specific item.

“Cryptology" is an umbrella term that encompasses cryptography and cryptanalysis.

https://www.yourdictionary.com/umbrella-term

!theist is the largest possible umbrella term conceivable, simply another way of saying 'absence' of God, 'without' God, 'Lack' of God, etc etc all of which have been rejected as too broad for anything that resembles a 'technical' definition, they simply do not work.

Nothing stops people from using it technically incorrectly just like the agnostic-atheist crowd, its in the dictoinary not because its technically correct, its in the dictionary because a certain group 'use' it that way.

Flew fails on all counts, its crystal clear they are talking about flews definition as argued by bullivant, unless of course you can prove flews definition is a 'specific' variant of atheism.

Good luck with that, since flews definition includes variants that do not belong in the atheist category.