Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

Well Im sorry but its impossible to have a 'reasonable' discussion with anyone that has already proven they dont understand fundamental convention replacing it with your private gaslighting narratives at the same time ignoring legitimate academic reference citations dismissing them as authority fallacies every time they prove that what you are posting is nonsense.

While such people should not be labeled theists, it is counterintuitive in the extreme to call them atheists. ~Stanford

In addition to busting flew and Bullivant, Stanford also busted Oxford for trying to dish out very similar nonsense.

 

you simply dont comprehend what you read and you have no clue respecting convention.

The only plausible explanation for his failure to provide justification is that he expects his readers to construe the term “atheism” in its metaphysical sense and thus to exclude from the class of atheists anyone who suspends judgment about whether gods exist. [Damn! Looks like a reason to the rest of the world!]

Another sign of how dominant the standard definition is within the field of philosophy is the frequent use of the term “non-theist” to refer to the broader class of people who lack the belief that God exists. [Damn! Looks like a another reason to the rest of the world!]

Like I said its not possible to have a reasonable discussion when you fail to comprehend what is being said in combination with rejecting theses intended to teach as mere authority fallacies.

Neoatheists are the ones trying to insert and legitimize their private definitions and accuse me of inserting the 'standard' definitions I use to cover the fact that its their game NOT MINE! My usage is the standard usage assumed in philosophy and the bulk of the neoatheist arguments are based in nonsense and word games as PROVEN above.

 

According to the Bible, God ORDERED these things. ORDERED them. So, yes, it would have to reflect on him.

 

Yes I do.

So you agree he fails to. You are making progress.

That isn't a reason or an argument for anything. That's just a word preference. He wants to use these words instead of those words to mean the same thing. Good for him. Others have other preference. Good for them.

You have demonstrated repeatedly that it is you who does not understand most of what is being said. You are the only one here unwilling or unable to understand what people mean when they explicitly state what they mean by words, and pretend they said something else.

The authority fallacy is when you shout about how smart people are and that they are from universities, instead of making a case on its merits yourself. You don't seem to comprehend that it doesn't matter who makes an argument. It is the argument itself that stands or falls.

What they don't do is take something said using your preferred definition and pretend it was said with theirs, equivocating and pretending something was said that wasn't. That is your game, not theirs.

No, you have that backwards, and you know you do.

Nobody has objected to you using the words to mean whatever you want. The problem arises when you insist they used the words to mean what you want instead of what they explicitly said they meant by the word. That's entirely your word game, not theirs.

 

HAHAHA!
Misrepresentation is all you have.
NO, I DISAGREE WITH YOU!
You dont understand what you read as usual.
Stanford EXPLAINS the legitimate interpretation of the author he quoted and even tells you why.
As usual YOU FAIL to comprehend the MEANING of what is being EXPLAINED.
That is why you and yardmeat go around in infinite circles of posting ILLOGICAL NUTTERVILLE CRAZY ****!

There you go!
Dont know the difference between CONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERSTATING and word preference even when HE STATES IT!
Back to the deny everything stupidity when wrong.

FFS Stanford tells you and like the meathead bible you pretend they never said it.
Thats life I suppose when your in over your head and drowning.

No, you people demand I use the stupid contextonomy fallacies that you post as your premise, I correct them, then you gaslight the thread and call me a troll.
Only takes 2 brain cells to see through that scam.

There you go pretending I made no case after I repeated the merits countless times, your whole approach is based in bullshit.

Nice attempted cover after I just demonstrated your equivocation with references.
Not too many people are stupid enough to fall for that.

HAHAHA, look at that you are a comedian too

Thats called projection, its a psychological disorder where you would see and project your personal defects onto others. Its a typical defense for people that live in glass houses so fragile that the tiniest minuscule disturbance shatters it.

 

I post referenced citations you post ad hom pejoratives and gaslight narratives and dont know the difference between 'non theist' and '!theist'.

Again, stanford makes the same distinction I made.

non theist which is not the same as atheist, is what makes agnostic possible not "I dont know" and not that wacky semantic word game **** you pretended had a distinction. HERE

 

And sadly to prevent you from misrepresenting HERE in the above post, the exact part of that post:

What a load!

How about:

Philosophers summarily reject that nonsense that you stand by as valid.

and that is rational atheist thinking?

you reject published proof there is no distinction in your semantic WORD GAMES

 

That's counter intuitive and ridiculous.

 

How so? If you order something, that reflects on you. It is far more than "counter intuitive and ridiculous" to argue otherwise . . . it's absolutely insane.

 

Draper writes about the traditional meanings used for words and why he prefers them. Draper does NOT pretend the authors he quotes wrote something they did not by misinterpreting what they meant. That is all you.

No, you fail to. You even refer to Stanford as a "he", apparently not understanding that it's a school and not a guy. It is Draper who wrote the article (with some others helping), who happens to work at Stanford.

His preferring keeping to conventional meanings for words (which is itself arguable in some cases) is his word preference.

Nobody has demanded you use any fallacies. You do that on your own. You don't correct anything, and you do troll when you repeatedly and deliberately lie about what others say and when you substitute in your straw men and pretend to "defeat" claims nobody made.

Yes. You have only fooled yourself.

The only case you've made is against yourself. Draper at least is consistent and makes his (weak) case based on traditional use, and he even admits the words are used differently by others and that Draper has other preferred words for the same meanings the others use for these words. Its all word preference.

Pardon? Do you even know what equivocation means? We have been explaining it to you for many pages. It's what you do, not I. I took care to understand your odd preferred meaning of "theist" (and other words) and addressed it accordingly. I also take care to seek clarification from you when you are unclear (which you consistently ignore and respond with insults instead of clarification), instead of repeatedly demanding you mean something you don't, arguing against that and claiming victory. That's your game, not mine or anyone else's.

 

It remains stunning that you can't comprehend this very basic logic. That you don't believe that A is true does not require that you believe A is false. You may believe neither.

This is logic you depend on when you claim that you are agnostic and don't believe there is a God, and also don't believe that there is no God.

It's a commonly used definition of a word, and as Draper points out, some philosophers also use it and find it more useful. He disagrees with them.

No, Nobody said an atheist (here meaning a person who doesn't believe in any Gods) believing in ghosts is rational. Atheists are capable of irrational thought, and so are theists.

 

In the Bible stories, God not only orders these horrible actions, but he also excuses them by calling the victims wicked, despite he himself having created them with full knowledge that they would be.

 

traditional meanings are meanings that are well understood through honest debate using the rigors of logic, not so much by narrative posting crackpots that fancy themselves philosophers and gaslight threads, neither did I.

Run out of defenses I see, now onto complete foolishness, bravo!

He 'prefers' to write intelligently and rationally instead of the vacuous nonsense and volumes of gaslighting seen in the nonphilosophical illogical narratives posted by you.

You have, I presume due to poor langauge skills as demonstrated in the several direct nonsense quotes that I cited.

you use the continually word preferred when you should be using words like logical, rational, reasoned, again because its crystal clear you simply dont know the difference.

Not when stanford is backing my ass and trashing the garbage logic you insist on pedaling

tradition as he pointed out means well hashed out, which means most rational/most reasonable, a lesson people with wacko theories simply cant acknowledge

bravo, you understood it, but the name of the game is rebutting it if you want to be noticed, but Im glad you made it that far.

People with nothing more than gaslighting narratives arent teachable, thats on you not me.

WOW talk about running full speed over the cliff.
The negation of theist is atheist.
In a 2 choice only binary world, if not 1 then 0, otherwise if not 0 then 1, goes without saying. LMFAO
Several people explained to you how ****ed up your grammar for agnostic is, and klima cut that nonsense off at the knees. Hilarious back pedaling.

Yes the ones they prove wrong using logic and reason.
You on the other hand proved you have no clue what he is talking about by posting the incorrect conclusion, you simply do not know what the words mean and pretend that you do.

Great so then you really do agree that atheists are not rational. Yes you prove that point nearly every day!

 

God exists is either 'true' or 'false', which is it?

so we continue with the ongoing assaults we see against logic resulting from irrational neoatheist philosophy/logic theory throughout the thread:



If A is false Q is true,
If A is true Q is false

The meathead dictionary states A is "I dont know", it was the weakest link and had to go.

Clearly if A is true Q 'has' to be false, and vice versa, there is no other option as the board neoatheists claim.

I cant imagine how they get anything other true or false out of that.

Atheist/theist is single term logic, has only 2 options, if not one then the other by DEFAULT, 'nothing' else is possible, the meathead dictionary and birdbrainery notwithstanding.

You either accept theism is true or default to false.

 

damn too many interuptions

Should read "God Exists"

Should read Q

 

There is nothing especially logical, rational or reasoned about choosing one word over another to convey the same meaning. It is just a word preference.

Stanford isn't doing that. That's all in your imagination.

No he didn't say that. And no it doesn't. And that's actually another fallacy. Just because something is tradition doesn't make it "most rational/most reasonable". Many traditions change over the ages, as we improve.

You still aren't clear on what these "wacko theories" you are railing against are. We still aren't sure what particular straw men you are trying to thrust on to us.

What is there to rebut? You haven't made any point. All you've done is define the word "theist" in an odd way. That's not an argument or point. That's just a definition.

You are about to equivocate meanings again. Be clear about what you are saying and you won't have this problem. I would suggest avoiding using the words "atheist",."theist" etc altogether if it helps you.

You either believe God exists or you don't. You either believe God does not exist or you don't. Agnostics, as you yourself have told us over and over say no to both. So saying no to one doesn't require saying yes to the other.

No, that's you. I know what Draper means. I also know what Flew, Swensson and yardmeat mean when they post. I don't pretend they mean any of them mean something they don't. That is what you do.

Atheists are people, and people are not always rational, so atheists are not always rational. Same goes for theists, agnostics, men, women, bakers and lawyers.

 

Correct. The answer to that is either true or false. No third possibility. It is yes or it is no.

No, nobody said that but you. That was a very odd strawman of yours.
What yardmeat said is that the answer is either yes or no, but he doesn't know which of the two it is.
He tried to explain that to you repeatedly and you pretended not to understand and you also dodged answering if you know which it is.
Do you?

A whole other question is Do you believe God exists is true?
And another is Do you believe God exists is false?

How does an agnostic answer those two questions? Does an agnostic saying no to the first require that the agnostic say yes to the second?

Either the elevator is going up or it isn't going up. If it isn't going up, that doesn't mean it must be going down.

Either you believe God exists or you don't believe that. If you don't believe that, that doesn't mean you must believe God doesn't exist. You may be agnostic.

Now, dodge this yet again as you always have before, pretend I said something else, and push yet another straw man at me. That's what you do.

 

Yep. And I've only met one person, ever, who doesn't understand such a basic concept. Everyone who has passed algebra knows that you can acknowledge that variable has a value without knowing what that value is. Same goes for everyone who has passed geometry. As for the students I've tutored in Logic, even the students who struggled the most were able to grasp such a simple concept. They struggled with conditional vs biconditional and they've struggled with the inclusive "or," but even the students bordering on flunking out could grasp that much.

Koko has spent pages and pages of posts claiming that saying no to the first means saying yes to the second. I'm glad if he's finally changed his mind and learned what the rest of us have spent years trying to teach him, but I can't handle the constant contradictions anymore.

 

Aside from yourself that is! LOL
Even toddlers know when mom asks them did you eat those cookies and you answer with I dont know, you go over moms knee for lying.

The stupidity we see here is paramount to a child saying gee mom "we know the answer is either true or false", which is paramount to a lying child when they say: "I dont know" who ate those cookies despite a pile of crumbs all over their lap.

Had what 500 post of yarmeat dodging and back pedaling over that blunder because he knows he screwed up.

Thankfully he has the bird to help cover for him!

 

yep here you go again putting your gas lighting narrative up against logic and philosophy!

it's philosophy's job to sort nonsense like you post out to find the best definition.

philosophy doesn't handle words like you do which is Paramount to throwing **** at the wall and hoping something will stick.

Stanford logically dismissed all the other garbage words including flew compared to your gaslighting useless narratives.

apparently you have little to no idea what's going on here.

once again that's because you have no clue what he means by tradition or convention it means that there's been thousands of philosophers, that is real published philosophers not keyboard commandos sitting in their mother's basement throwing fringe **** at the wall that have long since validated the convention which is why its a tradition. If you knew what you were doing you would know that and refrain from looking so philosophically ignorant.

all we see from your posts are constant assaults of nonsense Fringe

there you go blame your inability to comprehend not only what I'm saying but also what Stanford says and a whole plethora of other universities, simply blame it on to me why don't you take classes?

my definition is a fact and there's no way in hell you or even Stanford can prove it otherwise, a perfect negation to your lacker theory.

there's no being clear when trying to converse with someone who doesn't understand what's going on sorry! not even Stanford is clear for you, you simply don't understand what what they're saying you've already proven that several times.

you agreed that it's either true or false
AND NOW YOU CONTRADICT YOURSELF.

do you need me to remind you of that silly semantic that you tried to push off as the reason agnostic exists.

now you completely contradict yourself again.

oh yeah so do I the only difference is my understanding is correct and yours is really screwed up.

I can run down a pretty long list for yard meet and Swenson likewise you of all your contradictions I already quoted a couple things that were frankly quite funny.

well what you're posting isn't rational and I haven't seen any rational reasoning produced from the Meathead dictionary.

yep there you go again contradicting yourself

false he said it with no stipulations I should get a picture of it

yeah that's called back pedaling after he screwed up LOL
we have definitions for those things too you know.

Foolishness its not his truth its the truth value of the proposition. Personal truth is a pretty dumb thing to claim.

it's not my problem the proposition is a legitimate proposition therefore it requires a true or false answer, and he answered it with I don't know therefore his answer is I don't know how freaking difficult is that for you?
YARDMEAT MADE NO STIPULATIONS!
HE ANSWERED WITH I DONT KNOW.
HE THEN DODGED WHEN DISCOVERING HIS BLUNDER.

he dodged admitting his **** up repeatedly
Dodging a blunder is not an explanation, well except in the meat dictionary of illogic.

we still haven't addressed your comprehension issues and straighten those along with your contradictions we haven't straightened those out either! what do you say we start there!

it most certainly does mean that if it doesn't have a stop condition! lol

here again you don't understand what is meant by a single term proposition! Oh yeh thats right your lack of understanding is my fault because I didnt educate you by writing a philosophy and logic book for you first and The beat goes on

the proposition is God exists, what's your answer true or false?

Why so Ibecome like you and superstrawman? you're doing a hell of a good job trying, busted again!

so let's start by fixing your contradictions. you agreed that the proposition God exists is either true or false how the hell do you come up with agnostic.

 

Also @Jolly Penguin , I think it is worth pointing out that I've never encountered an Intro to Logic class or an Intro to Logic text that didn't address unknown truth values. I doubt the exist. Examples like this happen all of the time:

 

Because we know the toddler knows. Just as we know that you know if you believe God exists or not. But we don't know if you know if God exists or not. Do you? Why won't you answer the question?

 

He's literally claimed that I'm lying when I say I don't know whether or not God exists . . . which means he thinks I do know whether or not God exists . . . and which means he claims all agnostics are liars . . . despite claiming to be an agnostic himself. He's claimed in the past that everyone has a god while also claiming he doesn't have one. He's claimed that you have to be a theist in order to even have values and morals, admitting that this means he has no values, and then he backtracked on that as well. He's incapable of consistency.

 

Yes. And then he tries to pretend it's others who contradict themselves and not himself. I find his troll games mildly entertaining sometimes, but less so when he loses all coherency.