Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

That's an important distinction that I think is being overlooked.

This seems to be confusing and overlooking as noted above by Swensson. And either way, so what if it is a very broad term? That doesn't make it invalid or completely useless. There are uses for broad terms.

And also, just because Stanford doesn't like something, doesn't make that something wrong. This is a classic appeal to authority fallacy. Perhaps Stanford has an argument why it is wrong, but you don't convey that effectively if at all. You just repeatedly appeal to Stanford's authority.

Again, as Swensson just pointed out, that's how dictionaries work and that's how language works. Words are not handed down from a God. They evolve through popular use, and they change over time. You could not understand somebody speaking English from enough centuries ago.

 

And what is most useful is a matter of opinion.

If there is or is not a God is one issue.

If one believes there is or is not a God is another.

It would be most useful if we had terms that cover each of these. I don't see why it matters which words are used for which.

And as for the umbrella term thing, if atheism means lack of belief in God, then "strong atheists" are still atheists, in that they still lack belief in God, they just also have belief there is no God. So what's the problem? Maybe call them God-deniers or Anti-theist or something if you prefer. The wording doesn't change the logic.

 

Swensson Cited Stanford 3 times in his post but you totally close your eyes to it.

That post is a prime example of a truly biased hypocrite could dismiss their team while complaining about me and demonstrates intellectual dishonesty which is an earmark of trolling. So be sure to project that on to me.

I really cant count how many ways you have and continue to disqualify yourself from a rational conversation.

Yes stanford did explain it, and now you need me to crayloa it for you.

 

You just agreed with what i pointed out LOL

Frivolous opinion with no basis in fact without a CITATION.

CITATION, looks like you think that is a matter of YOUR OPINION.

It would be even more useful if you took a 101 philosophy course and stop badgering me with posts proving how unqualified you are to discuss this.

This has been explained by both stanford and me, cant you read either?

So what, there are uses for bleach doesnt mean you should use it for mouth wash. Again these have the earmark of trolling so be sure to blame me, like you always do.

Since you think you know so much about flew why dont you quote flews atheism for us, tons of refernces out there, think you can handle that?

 

Nowhere in what Swensson quotes does Stanford say what you claim Stanford says. Nor does Stanford explain why the other definition (which Stanford explicitly states is valid) is not useful other than to say it doesn't put atheism/theism into a yes/no answer to does god exist. It is still useful for other purposes, having to do with belief, etc. You have not proved anything whatsoever, other than to point at Standford, who doesn't prove or claim to prove what you claim you prove either.

 

That is hilarious. I point out that just because your claimed authority doesn't like something, doesn't in itself make it wrong... pointing out your appeal to authority fallacy. And your response is to demand a citation, another appeal to authority! Forget citation. Give me logic and reason. Give an actual argument that isn't "so and so said so".

It is funny that you think you are qualified to discuss any such thing, moreso than myself or anyone else. You clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about. Everyone can see that. I can only imagine what Standford would think seeing you misrepresent what you cite.

Actually, it wasn't. In the Stanford article it just dismisses it as not useful because it is broad. There is no more explanation given in the article than that. It may indeed be useful to address yes/no questions (Does god exist or not, etc), but that doesn't make other definitions addressing other things not useful.

I don't know much at all about Flew. Nor do I need to in order to see you constantly contradicting yourself. Anybody can see that. You make claims that conflict. You refuse to address the conflicts. Instead you demand people quote you, and when they do you ignore them, wasting their time and making them less inclined to entertain you further which such requests from your pretend failed memory. We have seen this over and over and over again.

 

Thats not all you dont know much about.

Says the linguistic genius who imagines nonexistent distinctions;
"Saying atheists don't believe there is a God is not the same as saying atheists believe there is no God."
lets see we were up to 12 DODGES from you, truly the mark of a linguistic genius.

False, you refuse to acknowledge the content of my responses.

because people lie (a lot when they are getting their asses handed to them

Yeh depends on my mood, I ignore troll posts, juvenile questions, schoolboi questions, questions that I gave a full response to and people ignore or are too ignorant to realize I gave them the correct answer

 

Never said that, apparently you eed your nose wiped in it?

Crayola'd that means only a hypocrite would accuse their opponent for doing exactly what they just did then pretend it meant in his post. so much disonesty, maybe you should find an easier thread to play in thats not outside your knowledge base, or at least where you can fake people out and get away with it.

Yes everyone got it, we get constant misdirection from you. you call that **** debating in good faith? everyone except neoatheists getting their asses handed to them call those kind of posts dishonest trolling.

 

You would never know it from all the folks claiming to know God's word.

I don't see the point of this conversation .. There are very few true "Atheists" IMO .. a whole lot of agnostics who merely claim not to know .. but very few who claim defacto "God does not exist" ... which is both fallacious and silly .. even more so than the reverse claim .. but not much.

 

1. I was referring to scientific proof.
2. There's nothing fallacious or silly in stating soberly and truthfully that I know that God lives. Because when he visited me in spirit, in answer to my prayer, I recognized and remembered him. Otherwise I could not say that God lives. I am not given to lies or vain imaginings on such important matters as the eternal welfare of my soul or of others. It is a truth that one must discover for oneself if one is inclined to know, and if God deems it appropriate to his purposes.

 

Look .. we are talking "Defacto" here - meaning true for a Fact --been proven true.

We can neither prove God exists "defacto" or that God does not. For example - there is no way to prove that the spirit that visited you wasnt from Sataniel.

 

Yes, defacto, proven true to me, moreso than I know that I am real. I recognized and remembered him when he gave me a revelation. His spirit filled my whole heart and soul and molecule with peace, my mind with light, and heaven opened from where my living room ceiling had been, from which poured out his pure white light, which gathered to the missionaries sitting on my couch. And his holy spirit told me, not by voice but by conveyance, that the missionaries were his laborers. This was all between myself and Gods holy spirit, and also the missionaries who were likewise enveloped in his spirit. As a result, after 26 years of no religion, I was baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. But my conversion or testimony came straight from Jesus Christ. That's why I've previously said that my testimony isn't scripturally based or built from doctrines or the preaching of others. And why I say I don't merely believe that God is real or lives. But that I know he lives. And not by any righteousness of myself, but by his mercy. He has swept away my amnesia and opened my eyes.

 

No .. you know that you are real .. and what every your memory of God was .. could have been something else .. and even if this memory was really God (something you don't know for sure) .. you don't know that the revelation you recieved came from this God..

Jesus is not God ? Well . I mean ... he could be a God -- given some divine powers by the Most High .. but ..where did you get the idea that "Jesus" was God .. if not from the deciever ?

 

To question is to question. And to know is to know. Now I know in perpetuity. But who's to say that to not know is the deception, and that to know is the truth.

When you dream, you think it is real. But when you awake, you recognize and remember your life, and know your dream was only a dream. Therefore I've awoken to life in God by his will and mercy, and for my rescue. Such is any man who would know for a right cause. I referred to Jesus Christ as God because we belong to him. He has overcome everything and redeemed us. He said that the Father is in him and he is in the Father. Also he said, if you have seen or heard him, you have seen and heard the Father. We call our Fathers Father, even though they are their Fathers Son. Yet we distinguish our Fathers in obeisance to Fatherhood. Therefore, Jesus Christ, by his mighty sacrifice, has become our God, and Husband of our conception and rebirth.

 

No .. you don't know defacto -- is self deception to think otherwise. You may be 99.9% sure .. but is the 0.1% that is problem.

1) you don't know for a fact that it was the Most HIgh God that visited you the first time .. nor the second .. nor do you know that the first entity that visited you was the same as the second .. once again .. the great deceiver is not going to show up in horns and a tail

2) you don't know that anything in the Bible is true .. and you misunderstand the passage you quote .. even if it was

3) now you seem to be back-tracking on your God visited you claim .. but perhaps not .. are you claiming Jesus visited you and that Jesus is the most high ?

 

It's one hundred percent proven to me. As I said, like from a dream to waking up, you recognize your life that your dream was a dream. So is my recognition that God lives. And yet I remain in this dream of life, but awakened, like a dream walker. So I tell you that you are dreaming and you push me away, questioning my certainty, so that you may have the bliss of sleep. And yet it is fitful for all that is to be considered in life.

No, no personage attended my vision. It was pure spirit. But the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in spirit and purpose. The only thing I saw was heaven open, and pure white light flood out, gathering to and encompassing the missionaries. The same spirit filled my heart and soul with peace, also filling my mind with light, shushing away all the darkness in my heart, mind and soul. And I knew instinctively in the spirit of truth, that God sealed and called them as his laborers. The bottom line is that I recognized God in the peace and clarity of the spirit. Otherwise it would have been a supernatural event as likely evil as one might imagine and that you suggest. But I recognized and remembered Gods peace and spirit. And that is the key. His divinity in contrast to this mortality was also astonishingly apparent. Would the devil fill you with peace, chase away the dark, and call you to repent and put away your sins and be baptized in Jesus Christs name?

 

Not pushing you away from anything mate .. merely questioning the validity of the claim that because you had a dream .. 1) the fellow you met in that dream was God 2) that you still have direct communication with this God.

1) I had a dream too member .!? met God .. but still I can not claim to myself that this is defacto proof .. maybe your dream was different - but it was still just a dream .. "Or was it" .. you simply don't know .. and can't prove either way .. can not rule out all other possibilities 100%

2) Even if you did meet the head honco .. as I believe I may have .. regular direct communication is a whole different matter - and it is this on which I question your certainty .. as you make claims on this basis .. such as "One in spirit and purpose" the truth of which you do not know .. but more to the piont .. is a bit vaccuous .. "One in spirit and purpose" is not the question .. the question is .. Is Jesus God .. AKA the Most high ... what are you claiming in this respect.

1) what part of "Devil is not showing up with horns and a tail" is not sinking in ???
2) we see devils doing this exact thing all the friggen time mate .. you need to think a bit further
3) a more sensible question .. is if God communicates directly to people .. then why not just show up .. have more direct communication in general. The problem is that this defeats the purpose of the experiment .. non intervention is key .. or at least very limited.

but - if you do have such communication - that makes you a Prophet - one of the "Chosen Ones" .. thus far however .. you have not been real great at "Prophetizing" ..

 

So here is the crux of the dilemma between the Agnostic/Atheist (slash added to appease Kokomojo who needs them to be separate categories) and the Gnostic/Theist.

Injeun is a gnostic in the sense that he claims to have a personal experience which is evidence of god to him. He knows God exists because of personal experience which does not comply with the rules of empiricism or rationalism. The personal experience is not evidence to the Agnostic/Atheist who did not share that experience and the experience leaves more questions than answers for the Agnostic/Atheist.


It can never be resolved as long as the Agnostic/Atheist does not experience a similar revelation and as long as the Gnostic/Theist continues to adhere to the assertion that their experience is valid evidence. The Agnostic/Atheist will not have a similar experience because they continue to be skeptical. The Gnostic/Theist will not digest the skepticism because they are focussed on the experience.

The Agnostic/Theist is aware that personal experience cannot always be trusted because human perception can be deceived but does not acknowledge that sometimes our reason can guide us astray.

The Gnostic/Theist acknowledges that sometimes reason can mislead us but fails to acknowledge that personal experience can lead us astray.

At the end of it all the question we should be asking ourselves is “what effect does either belief system have on us?” If believing in God produces a person who, over time, becomes a fulfilled, actuated person with great understanding and a sense of peace then that system has worked well for them. If being an Agnostic/Atheist causes a person to have these same qualities then that system has worked well for them.


At the end of it all, both camps can ask the question “why?” and both be correct and both be incorrect because the question can have more than one answer.

 

^ Amen to that (says an atheist).

 

I'm not unique. We all know God. We knew him in eternity, outside this mortality. But something about mortality has given us all a form of amnesia. So when heavenly Fathers spirit visited me, my amnesia was removed and I was able to recognize and remember him. That doesn't make me a prophet. The entire matter was to ensure my trust and convey to me the necessity of repentance and baptism. That is all. It is baby steps.

You say that because it sports neither horn nor tail, that it could be evil. But one knows good from evil by ones conscience and spirit. Just as one recognizes ones friend, child, or wife. Life is brimming with deceit. But there is none in God.

When you awake from a dream, you recognize and remember your life, and know that the dream was merely a dream and your life is real, so you go to it. So when Gods spirit visits you and awakens you to a remembrance and recollection of him, you know that life was nearer to a dream. And that real life is in God, so you go to it and leave your old ways behind like you leave a dream behind.

The chore resides in making your heavenly Fathers honor and glory, front and center in life. And while he is exacting. He is also patient, understanding, merciful and forgiving. He knows and understands everything about us. And his entire purpose in our regard is our eventual eternal happiness. So you can believe that it is impossible to know that God is real. But I disagree because I know he is. Is that so odd...to know a thing?

 

So you are claiming to be aware of your past life ... and in this past life were well aquainted with "GOD" .. call it Big G - God - but, 1) you still havn't clarified whether or not you think this God is Jesus nudge nudge... "well aquiainted" means direct communication in this case.

That you have such memories is one thing. Claiming a bunch of things about God on this basis is another .. your latest
2) "God does't have any Evil" .. a ridiculous claim that you can't possibly know defacto . and from previous
3) you can't possibly know 100% if your second visitation was the same entity you remembered from your past life.

and last but not least 4) which goes with 3) you are not able to process the idea that the Devil is not showing up in horns and red cape.

So .. like this is a big exercise in avoidance of the old questions -- supplimented with some new unsubstantiated claims about God ..a number of which I did not point out from post above .. kind of pointless for me to do as you have yet to manage answers to the above.

getting a bit tedious mate .. your zonging out and preaching rather than thinking about the question at hand.

I already believe in past lives so no preachign required - it is your claims about God that are in question.

 

Tedious is right. Appealing to your sense of reason is vanity on my part. As for the guy in horns and cape, you best ferret him from your beliefs.

 

Im not the one avoiding every question -- and yet you cry "tedious" due to my "vanity" demonizing the messenger cause you can't handle the message

I am not the out making defacto claims about God - and you are accusing me of vanity ? --- now if that isn't a big log in own eye .. in this case being projected onto others.

So leaving the question of if God is Jesus aside - and the fact that you can't defacto know the second visitation was from same entity as first.

2) "God does't have any Evil" .. a ridiculous claim that you can't possibly know defacto .

Which you now add .. "ferriting out belief in evil - The Devil" = you don't believe in evil - have a concept of an evil force.. OK .. so by circular logic .. of course God would not have any evil .. because there is no evil..

Thanks for that liberating addition to what you figure is "The Truth"

 

Please use the quote function.

Words don't get rejected because they're too broad. "Object" is a very broad term, but that doesn't mean it's not valid.

Luckily, the Stanford article spells out exactly what the problem with the umbrella term is:

"Unfortunately, this argument overlooks the fact that, 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."​

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

As the quote above shows, the Stanford article explicitly rejects Bullivant's idea because Flew's definition (!theist) isn't broad enough to be an umbrella term. Flew's definition covers people who believe that Gods do not exist (among others), but it does not cover the belief itself. That's of course not a problem for Flew's definition in itself, but it is a problem if you're trying to use it as an umbrella term, as Bullivant does.

Your idea of rejecting Flew's atheism because it includes agnostics is not supported by the Stanford article. They're very clear about what they think the problem is, and it's not the thing you suggest. Read the quote above carefully, it says nothing about agnostics.

So the question becomes why do you think such usage is "technically incorrect"? We've asked many times, but all we get is dodging. Dictionaries report on popular usage because popular usage is generally what makes definitions correct, if there was a higher authority, dictionaries would look there instead, but they are concerned with the actual definitions of words and therefore turn to popular usage. The Stanford article supports this too, they come to the conclusion that Flew's definition is "certainly legitimate" and they use only the popular usage in order to do so.

I think it is crystal clear that they are talking specifically about Bullivant's shoehorning of Flew's definition into an umbrella term (in a way that Flew never suggested). This is supported by the fact that the rejections only are phrased in terms of the "umbrella term" (a term and idea introduced by Bullivant only) and "his argument" (directly referring to Bullivant, rather than Flew).

I have not cited Stanford as an authority on the topic of the matter asserted, I'm only quoting the article because you quote them and because I don't agree with how you interpret the article. (It just so happens that I agree with what I think the Stanford article says, but I wouldn't have a problem with challenging them if I didn't).

 

I've told you the truth, though maybe not so well, to my regret. Still, the truth is my refuge and solace. God is real, he lives and is divine.

I have referred to Jesus Christ as God and Father in deference to his excellence and rightful place in the order of things. We refer to our earthly Father as Father, even though he is the Son of his Father. Do we insult our Grandfather by referring to his Son as our Father? So I refer to Jesus as God and Father even though he is the Son of his Father who is God. They are alike in spirit and purpose. But Jesus is our Father because his Father has given us to him: Isaiah 53:10; "when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed,..."

For Jesus to have set aside his omnipotence, suffered all things unto the laying down of his life, we see in the entirety of it, the heart of God and his love for us. This is supported by his doctrines and sermons and pleas to our better natures. God the Father is in his Son Jesus's words and works. Jesus said: John 14:10 "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."

I know that my vision via Gods spirit in testimony to me that God lives, to be real and valid, as well as you know that you live, and that your life is real and valid. I also know there is no darkness, deceit or evil in God. Just as you know that there is darkness, deceit and evil in yourself. So please don't project your rightful distrust of yourself on the God that I know harbors no ill will.

You speak in ignorance when you say that no man can know whether there is or isn't a God. I know better. I realize that saying what I say, is like throwing a monkey wrench into your batter. So be it.