Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

Why do any of those things make it okay to kill someone for offending you, to kill someone for leaving your religion, to kill children for their ancestors being bad, or to eternally torture people for thought crimes? You God is more evil than any demon I've ever seen proposed.

 

Whats my prize?

never huh? Everyone is laughing again.

your responding with questions and calling me names is not 'answering pleanty of questions'.
hell you couldnt even explain your own damn grammar where you imaqined distinctions.
3 people explained it to you, and you still refused to answer explain it after 20 attempts at which point I gave up and simply posted a publidhed philosoper proving the how stupid is was and it had no distinction.

Yeh all the time, you claim agnostic exits and have no clue what so ever how to explain it other than from the meathead dictionary.

you cant.

I have proven countless words dont mean what you claim, get serious. Why are you here ffs? trolling?

strawman

See you complete lost the focus, and claim I am incoherent.

Thats not the proposition, the proposition is "God Exists", that is a demand for an answer to the proposition. yes or no. See, you simply dont comprehend what this is about., or you are trolling?

I dont acknowledge strawmen nonsense.

False, here again ZING you totally lose focus.

Are you ****ing kidding me? Make a fool out of myself like he did....I dont think so.

See how limited your ability is to debate, and of course afayc thats all my fault. In order to debate with you I have to come down to a primer school level to explain it detal every word because you cant figure out how its being used, yet youve told yourself that you understand stanford, shees

 

Same mistake in yet another refreshing context. You could do with understanding what our point is, instead of wasting time running into the same issue over and over.

In Flew's definition, atheism is "anyone who is not a theist". If "believes God exist" corresponds to right, then Flew's definition corresponds to "not on the right" or "somewhere other than on the right". So, I agree that "agnostics rejecting right does not mean that it is left" is true, but "agnostics rejecting right does mean that it is somewhere other than on the right" is true, and it's the latter that corresponds to identifying someone as an atheist.

The idea that atheism corresponds to "left" in your example is you making the same tired obvious error yet again. And as usual, you neglected to declare how you're setting up the example.

Nope, you've just yet again failed to understand the definition, and failed to identify what part of the example corresponds to atheism. Agnostics rejected "belief that God does not exist", but in Flew's definition, that's not what atheism is, so the thing that got rejected is not Flew's atheism.

I agree that rejecting the right does not move the ball, but it does identify the ball's position as "somewhere other than on the right", which corresponds to Flew's definition of atheism.

I agree. Flew's definition doesn't claim that the ball is in the left, it claims that the ball is somewhere other than the right, which is indeed true.

Nope, the definition of a negation is that !A is true whenever A is false. If it is possible to be in neutral, then forwards and backwards are not negations, since for any set of negations, exactly one must be true.

But sure, this wasn't about negations, it was about interpretations of the word "reject". Let's use your understanding of the word "reject":

In your three-option setup, rejecting A didn't commit you to accepting !A. In this setup, Flew's atheism would be equivalent to "rejecting the idea that God exists". Just like in your example "If you reject A then either !A or nuetral", Flew might say "if you reject 'God exists' (atheist), then either you accept 'God doesn't exists', or you are neutral (agnostic)".

What does "thinking" have to do with it? What logic rules do you find that take thinking into account?

There is such a thing as believing in God. There is a concept of negation, the negation of A is true whenever A is false. For a person, unless "believes that God exists" is true for that person, the negation of it must be true. The logic does not include any rules that behave differently for thinking.

"Sure if you are comparing ONLY 2 nonthinking conditions that is in context", the logic I use lean directly on like three logical rules, none of which take thinking into account, or treat thinking as some kind of special case. Where do you get the idea that thinking makes anything different?

You keep saying it, but I have yet to see you show which statement, which context, and what reasoning you have for saying we'd be out of that context.

Sounds made up to me. Source?

What makes you think we're in such a context? Flew's context contains no such demand, so seems to me you're doing the contextual fallacy by taking his logic out of the context where no such demand is implied.

Yep, lacking something doesn't require you to have other things, it does not in itself require a brain (of course, in order to be an atheist, you need to be a person who lacks belief, and the fact that you need to be a person implies that you need something like a brain, but that's not a feature of the lacking, that's just being a person).

Agree fully. Of course, in Flew's definition "believing that there is no God" is not what atheism is, so the fact that you do not believe that there is no God is not a problem for identifying you as an atheist in Flew's definition. Again, you throw out a sound bite, without explaining what it has to do with the question at hand (probably because if you wrote it out in detail, you'd notice that your argument doesn't fit together).

The Stanford article pointed out word for word that it is legitimate because people use it.
It does not state that it is legitimate "only" for that reason, that's a conjecture on your part.
The article says nothing about that being inconsistent with logic or philosophy (and doesn't mention "logical symmetry" at all), that's conjecture on your part.
It does say that they prefer a symmetrical definition, but it does not say that that non-symmetrical definitions are disallowed or invalid, that is conjecture on your part.

 

Well, I'm glad we've at least sorted out that Stanford thinks that one of the things you were struggling with immensely is in fact not only solvable, but pretty easy to solve.

Ok, and what do you think the relation between "counterintuitive" and... whatever conclusion you try to draw from it is? If we find something real that is counterintuitive, it merely means our intuitions are poor. It can be counterintuitive that helium balloons go up instead of down, that's not a failure of helium balloons to behave as they do, it'd be a failure of our intuitions.

Here, I think I disagree with the Stanford article, I don't have a problem with calling such people atheists.

That being said, this objection is no worse for Flew's definition than it is for yours. I know of people who actively believe there is no God, but still in practice belong to theistic religious communities (priests who keep preaching, and who still believe in the community, but have lost their faith in God for instance). Both of us would call those people atheists, and I don't see how being a part of a religious community is a problem for that.

Wait, did we stop talking about logic and definitions and start talking about "preferring"?

We already know that the Stanford authors prefer the "no Gods exist" definition, but they have not been arguing that people using other definitions should be disregarded or wilfully misunderstood, in fact they've specified the opposite.

True, but you can make propositions about psychological states, so I don't see why that would be a general problem.

It's good that you're starting to identify what bits of your argument isn't found in the Stanford articles and which have to be added by conjecture for your argument to fit together, but they remain unsupported. Psychology is also educated and about as "really educated" as philosophers might be. Your blue bits here remain unsupported, and the conclusions you draw from it remain unsupported.

"Agnostic is the psychological state of lacking the belief that God does not exist" seems simply incorrect. The Pope lacks belief that God does not exist, I wouldn't call him an agnostic.

I agree with the lines taken from the Stanford article here, I don't see how your line that starts with "therefore" follows from those.

 

but you cant prove a belief is a truth value

If not philosophy for defining words then where else? lol

you dropped the conjunction again which again changed the character of agnostic, shame on you.

Same as: yellow is green and red, yellow does not exist without the conjunction.
Neither does agnostic, it vaporizes with your syllogism.
Unless you are claiming agnostic does not exist, be a tough one to sell to anyone, well maybe the bird would bite on it LOL

Its your claim, dont look to me to debug the problems, I said the same thing stanford did from the first time YOU brought it up and struggled to prove its validity LOL
I cant believe that all you guys have left is to turn all your failings around and put them on me.
The moral of that story is that koko was right again boohoo

So whats your solution? Have you come up with one after what is it now 4000 posts? I guess its 5000 lol

 

and that is where I disagree with you since you have neither shown is a good or valid reason for disagreeing with stanford and they presented a plethora of good reasons not to call such people atheists.

No I would not, they most likely are agnostic. You are severely conjecturing.

you do have the option to "prefer" insanity if you like.

Why did you totally disregard their reasoning when their reasoning is so well thought out in so far as the big picture is concerned?

 

Yes conclusions intuitively drawn by people resulting from the over-simplicity of lackerism traps them into faulty logical conclusions, hence that is called counterintuitive, and on that I agree, it causes you to derive the wrong even unreasonable conclusions.

sure and because its a legitimate word does not mean its legitimate usage.

 

It does not state that its legtimate for any other reason, conjecture on your part

You conjecture they failed to investigate deeper and write a book on it for you, its where they stopped, so if you think otherwise make the case yourself or find a citation and validate fpr your claim.

It infers it, same ting, shees

It does not say they are.

that is conjecture on yourpart

 

It also mentions both the terms "Strong atheism" and "non-theist", noting they have the same meanings as what they want to call "atheism" and what flew calls "atheist". It is nothing but word preferences. They recognize all the same concepts, just with different preferred wording.

 

Is there any action, command or statement you would object to if made by God? Anything at all? Or is everything God does good because God does it, including genocide, torture, rape, etc?

 

Why did they say that?
'Hot' and 'cold', 'warm' and 'cool' are just "word preferences" too, so whats your point? We should get rid of them? What?

 

There is only one God. My degree of familiarity with scripture is inconsequential in light of the fact that you understand none of it.

God is perfect. Everything he does is appropriate.

 

You are such a drama queen. Stop distorting everything. What do you know of the matter? Were you there? Do you know God? Do you know the people? Do you know anything at all other than how to accuse God without evidence.

 

The fact is that your scriptures say that God has ordered the execution of blasphemers in the past. The fact is that your scriptures say that God has ordered the execution of apostates in the past. The fact is that your scriptures say that God has ordered infanticide in the past. Your God is indistinguishable from even the worst demon.

 

I know the Bible. Quite well. Apparently far better than those who claim to believe it. Nothing I said was distorted. Everything I said is literally in the Bible. You should read it some time.

 

Clearly you don't know him.

 

God gave you a life to live. Do you want to live it criticizing God? If you know the Bible, then you know that we are called to repent. Do you repent or will you go on doing evil all of your life while criticizing the God who made you and gifts to you your each and every day?

 

I don't need a morally deficient God to teach me how to do good.

 

Faulting God? Brilliant. Who do you think you are anyway...a font of righteousness? You are a pooping meat sack. Stop blaming God for your own failures.

 

I haven't blamed God for any of my failures. And none of my moral failures can compare to the moral failures of your supposed God.

What I've said is that it is bad, and always has been, to murder people for saying meany-head things about your religion. I've said it is bad, and always has been, to murder people for leaving your religion. I've said it is bad, and always has been, to murder children because you don't like what their ancestors did. I've said that it is bad, and always has been, to eternally torture people for thought crimes. Your Bible disagrees. Your average pooping meat sack is morally superior to your god by the time they are 3 years old.

 

There is no such thing as a morally deficient God. Were you not such an unrepentant beggar you would know that. He is the light and life of the world. And there is no good in anyone that doesn't come from him.

 

The good in me is exactly what first caused me to reject him.

 

God doesn't know what he is doing. But you do? That's rich. Man you need to get a grip.

 

If I understand that it is wrong to murder people for disagreeing with me, and he doesn't? If I understand that slavery is wrong and he doesn't? If I understand that freedom or religion is good and he doesn't? If I'm against infanticide but he has ordered it? Yeah. Absolutely. Hell, any kindergarten teacher could throw a frisbee in their classroom and hit something or someone with a better moral compass than your God.

 

Were God as awful as you say, he would wipe you off the face of the earth. That he doesn't, is a kindness.