Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

Yes. Moreover, Flew would use "Strong Atheist" to mean the exact same thing as what Draper means by "atheist" and therefore maintain symmetry where it is needed.

 

and I forgot to mention it goes without saying polysemous words are by definition (that I generously posted for your convenience), "equivocal", since the meaning of equivocal is more than one meaning.

Polysemous admits 'more than one meaning'.

So all this nonsense the bird was posting that "I" am being equivocal was in fact his equivocation by trying to shoehorn in a word of "his" preference into the standard, typically understood definition as I cited that was is claimed by stanford philosophy dept, and when comparing that to neoatheist spammers, I think I will opt for stanfords position as arguably the correct position, and I am happy to see that you didnt fall for the birds negative transposition nonsense for agnostic. Talk about defective grammar. lol

 

God works in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform!

 

So you are going to continue to post this
OFF TOPIC **** in this thread despite being POLITELY ASKED by the OP to CEASE AND DESIST and take it to an appropriate thread??

RULE 5 VIOLATION:

TROLLING OR DERAILING A DISCUSSION
If you don't want to discuss the topic, stay out of the thread. Posts that are, in the judgment of moderators or administrators, intended to disrupt a discussion rather than actually contribute to it will be considered trolling.

Bible discussions and your opinions about God have not one damn thing to do with this thread, there is absolutely no connection what so ever, except to TROLL and completely derail it.

PLEASE CEASE AND DESIST.

Looks like the 'real' trolls just keep standing up!

 

Because vengeance belongs to God.

 

Wow I thought believers had more respect than neoatheists, I guess I may have to revise my thinking. AGAIN:

So you are going to continue to post this
OFF TOPIC **** in this thread despite being POLITELY ASKED by the OP to CEASE AND DESIST and take it to an appropriate thread??

RULE 5 VIOLATION:

TROLLING OR DERAILING A DISCUSSION
If you don't want to discuss the topic, stay out of the thread. Posts that are, in the judgment of moderators or administrators, intended to disrupt a discussion rather than actually contribute to it will be considered trolling.

Bible discussions and your opinions about God have not one damn thing to do with this thread, there is absolutely no connection what so ever, except to TROLL and completely derail it.

PLEASE CEASE AND DESIST.

Looks like the 'real' trolls just keep standing up!

Im amazed more like shocked how obsessed these people are with spamming me! Wow!

 

We are trying to determine whether or not Atheism is rational and religious. To do so, we are taking into consideration the major religion of Christianity to see if exploring it can shed light on the topic. Your tangents with Swenson, redefining the common meaning of words, and turning reason into a mathematical equation has nothing whatsoever to do with your own topic. It may be an exquisite frolic to you. But to others it is mind numbing and fruitless. So don't lecture me on forum rules, when you are in full and open rebellion against them. Not that that's your intention, but there you are.

 

FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE

PLEASE READ THE OP FOR COMPREHENSION, YOU ARE MAKING **** UP.

MAKE YOUR OWN DAMN THREAD AND EXPLORE WHAT EVER THE **** YOU WANT!



IF YOU DONT WANT TO BE LECTURED ON FORUM RULES THEN FOLLOW THEM!

IF YOU DONT WANT TO BE LECTURED ON FORUM RULES THEN FOLLOW THEM!

IF YOU DONT WANT TO BE LECTURED ON FORUM RULES THEN FOLLOW THEM!

IF YOU DONT WANT TO BE LECTURED ON FORUM RULES THEN FOLLOW THEM!

IF YOU DONT WANT TO BE LECTURED ON FORUM RULES THEN FOLLOW THEM!

If you don't want to discuss the topic, stay out of the thread.
If you don't want to discuss the topic, stay out of the thread.
If you don't want to discuss the topic, stay out of the thread.
If you don't want to discuss the topic, stay out of the thread.
If you don't want to discuss the topic, stay out of the thread.

MAKE YOUR OWN DAMN THREAD AND EXPLORE WHAT EVER THE **** YOU WANT!

MAKE YOUR OWN DAMN THREAD AND EXPLORE WHAT EVER THE **** YOU WANT!

MAKE YOUR OWN DAMN THREAD AND EXPLORE WHAT EVER THE **** YOU WANT!

 

In philosophy, grammar, language, and reason IS expressed as a mathematical equation, more accurately first order is aristotlean and boole and higher order reason leans calculus.
This thread simply does not fit your argument style.
It has everything to do with MY TOPIC as can be deductively understood by reading the OP.

 

I don't think anybody is questioning God's power to do anything or to get away with anything.

What we are questioning is the morality of God doing or ordering horrible things. Again, do you say might makes right? Is God above moral questioning or subject to different moral judgment just because he is the creator?

 

So you are going to continue to post this
OFF TOPIC **** in this thread despite being POLITELY ASKED by the OP to CEASE AND DESIST and take it to an appropriate thread??


RULE 5 VIOLATION:

TROLLING OR DERAILING A DISCUSSION
If you don't want to discuss the topic, stay out of the thread. Posts that are, in the judgment of moderators or administrators, intended to disrupt a discussion rather than actually contribute to it will be considered trolling.


Bible discussions and your opinions about God have not one damn thing to do with this thread, there is absolutely no connection what so ever, except to TROLL and completely derail it.

PLEASE CEASE AND DESIST.


Looks like the 'real' trolls just keep standing up!

Im amazed more like shocked how obsessed these people are with spamming me! Wow!

Keep in mind peeps this is the same guy that called me a troll in virtually every post he made earlier in the thread simply because I didnt agree with them. Just look at him now!

This is a philosophy thread it is NOT a thread about Gods power, or Gods treatment of anything, yet they insist on spamming the thread with off topic bullshit.

 

I think that biblically it is might makes right in a sense. Job 38 is basically god rebuking Job for being puny and weak while he, God, created the world and everything in it. So he’s saying he is better because he knows everything which means his morality is beyond questioning and that his morality is perfect simultaneously.
It’s a bit of a conundrum since morality tends to be an agreed upon set of rules and it’s like god is saying we agree upon this set of rules because I said so.

 

I think the point of these religions is that it isn't agreed upon, but imposed from above. It's the opposite of democracy.

 

So you are BOTH going to continue to post this
OFF TOPIC **** in this thread despite being POLITELY ASKED by the OP to CEASE AND DESIST and take it to an appropriate thread??


RULE 5 VIOLATION:

TROLLING OR DERAILING A DISCUSSION
If you don't want to discuss the topic, stay out of the thread. Posts that are, in the judgment of moderators or administrators, intended to disrupt a discussion rather than actually contribute to it will be considered trolling.


Bible discussions and your opinions about God have not one damn thing to do with this thread, there is absolutely no connection what so ever, except to TROLL and completely derail it.

PLEASE CEASE AND DESIST.


Looks like the 'real' trolls just keep standing up!

Im amazed more like shocked how obsessed these people are with spamming me! Wow!

Keep in mind peeps this is the same guy that called me a troll in virtually every post he made earlier in the thread simply because I didnt agree with them. Just look at him now!

This is a philosophy thread it is NOT a thread about Gods power, or Gods treatment of anything, yet they insist on spamming the thread with off topic bullshit.

 

You can do it your own way, if it’s done just how I say.

 

YOU ARE DISRUPTING THIS THREAD!

So you are going to continue to post this
OFF TOPIC **** in this thread despite being POLITELY ASKED by the OP to CEASE AND DESIST and take it to an appropriate thread??


RULE 5 VIOLATION:

TROLLING OR DERAILING A DISCUSSION
If you don't want to discuss the topic, stay out of the thread. Posts that are, in the judgment of moderators or administrators, intended to disrupt a discussion rather than actually contribute to it will be considered trolling.


Bible discussions and your opinions about God have not one damn thing to do with this thread, there is absolutely no connection what so ever, except to TROLL and completely derail it.

PLEASE CEASE AND DESIST.


Looks like the 'real' trolls just keep standing up!

Im amazed more like shocked how obsessed these people are with spamming me! Wow!

Keep in mind peeps this is the same guy that called me a troll in virtually every post he made earlier in the thread simply because I didnt agree with them. Just look at him now!

This is a philosophy thread it is NOT a thread about Gods power, or Gods treatment of anything, yet they insist on spamming the thread with off topic bullshit.


Sorry folks, you know how it gets sometimes, children, constantly have to reprimand them, especially those with learning disabilities

 

I don't particularly disagree with this bit, but there's a bunch of things you skipped already. It is unclear whether you're trying to create an example that corresponds to any logic in particular, or if you're just setting a scene without (so far) linking it to any real situation.

For instance, we could be asking "which hand am I holding out", and then it'd no longer necessarily be true that "if right is true then left is false" (since I can hold out two hands at the same time). If we look at your ball example, then your 6 lines are correct. Could do with pointing out whether you're going for that kind of example, or that example in particular.

Similarly, the rules set out above do not establish anything about the situation where all three are false. Not really an error, just an odd omission, but an omission that again highlights that the link from your example to reality is tenuous. In the ball example, I think the (0,0,0) situation is ruled out (I'm not sure if the ball example tries to cover the situation where the ball is not present at all).

Not sure I agree that this is first-order logic, looks more like propositional logic to me. Propositional logic deals with truth values, first order logic tends more to deal with assigning objects to sets.

Sure. So far in this example, you haven't established any negations. Excluded Middle (and for our purposes the law of non-contradiction) depend on negations, so unless you define or derive something as a negation, there is nothing that the excluded middle or contradictions could even apply to.

Which 2 conditions are you talking about? I see 3 or 4 conditions (depending on if by "condition" you mean left/right/neutral or the possible combinations (1,0,0)/(0,1,0)/(0,0,1)/(0,0,0)).

But sure, if your 6 lines at the top are true, then it is not possible for any two of left/right/neutral to be true at the same time.

Yeah, none of this suggests to me that they'll be sitting down declaring definitions. I'm sure they'll investigate the nature of definitions, and what they have to do with meaning, but that's not really the same as actually writing down the definitions.

I haven't seen philosophers go about defining things other than the ones they intend to use. When you say "seriously", can you point me to a philosopher who has defined that word?

Besides, the Stanford article we've been quoting isn't a part of "philosophy of language", it would more likely fall under philosophy of religion, or some form of metaphysics or epistemology.

Usage. The thing that made "thou" become obsolete and "you" take its place was usage. This is why dictionaries look to usage in their attempt at providing definitions.

You usually object with "420", although you haven't yet shown what your actual argument around "420" is. It seems to me the problem with things like "420" is that its usage hasn't penetrated the population. Most people don't use it, so it is not an example of usage making a word correct.

Seems to me a theist believes in at least one God. Typically that God will be supernatural, but it is not demanded by the word.

You say you "immediately know they are not anything else", that seems like a statement that requires more detail. Do you know whether they're a Christian? Do you know if they're a Francophone? Do you know if they're a deist? What do you mean by "anything else"?

I don't know enough about what Jolly Penguin believes. It seems to me that ghosts are not gods, and that belief in ghosts are not fundamentally a theist belief.

Sure it is possible, you use clarification. If I say "orange" and someone doesn't know if I mean fruit or colour, they can ask me, and I can clarify. Doesn't mean the word orange is illogical.

Similarly, you can spell out which version of atheist you mean. In Flew's paper for instance, he points out exactly which definition he's talking about.

Should be no worse than "orange" though, it also requires context or clarification.

Theism also requires context, some use theism as contrast to deism, an understanding in which theism is a belief in a personal God (rather than just any God).

 

For the sake of continuity

Polysemous.
adjective. of words; having many meanings. synonyms: polysemantic ambiguous. having more than one possible meaning.

Polysemous - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms
https://www.vocabulary.com › dictionary › polysemous

Polysemous which is clearly defined as;

(having many meanings. synonyms: polysemantic ambiguous. having more than one possible meaning.)

You must want us to accept that polysemous words which admit to equivocal meanings are somehow not equivocal which is 'unequivocally' pointed out by definition that polysemous words/statements are;

subject to two or more interpretations and usually used to mislead or confuse an equivocal statement. b : uncertain as an indication or sign equivocal evidence. 2a : of uncertain nature or classification equivocal shapes. b : of uncertain disposition toward a person or thing

which also is defined as anything (statement, word, whatever) that is ambiguous because of more than one meaning.

I think you owe us an explanation why you are defending using words and applying meanings that are completely ambiguous and why you are choosing to defend that position using polysemous when polysemous means ambiguous

This appears to be an unequivocal defect in reasoning!

am·big·u·ous

adjective: ambiguous
(of language) open to more than one interpretation; having a double meaning.
"ambiguous phrases"

unclear or inexact because a choice between alternatives has not been made.

Since polysemous and equivocation reflect the same meaning based on abiguity.

Claiming Theist requires no explantion, it is not ambiguous
Claiming Atheist one has not clue what the person is, as stanford points out they may even be theist but not 100% theist. (so to speak)

You seem to have great difficulty with philosophical convention.

When anything is being analysed for 'best' most 'clear' and 'concise' definition it forces analysts (philosophers) to 'choose' a 'best fit' based on our well established system of language, grammar reason and logic.

When you claim a word or statement is polysemous you are 'admitting' it is ambiguous on its face!

As you can see its part of the function in society.

You are trying to defend 'flews personal usage preferences' that stanford points out has no standing for academic use in philosophy, for a 'best fit definition' which means when drilling down to the bell curve core meaning of the word atheist it fails in logic and therefore cannot be used as a core meaning for atheist as flews preferred definition of atheist, (an "umbrella term"), is what you admitted is flews intention and you seem to be desperately working to support and defend.

You are trying to sort out the best fit meaning for the word atheist, standford is doing the same thing.
Like I said stanford is doing their job of sorting out the 'best fit' meaning for the word atheist, which means least ambiguous, not most ambiguous, which is contrary to yours and flews personal preferences which are 'most' ambiguous!

Yes both myself and stanford proved that to be incorrect.

 

I did NOT write that I believe in ghosts. What I wrote is that atheists don't believe Gods exist, and that doesn't mean they don't believe that ghosts or other supernatural beings don't exist. Believing in ghosts doesn't disqualify one from being an atheist.

 

LOL
Now you peeps know why he put me on iggy LMAO
Too bad he can when I am quoted.
Well maybe not, I can prove how dishonest the **** is that he posts.

Oh oh oh
Another one!

@Swensson Like stanford pointed out, lack of belief even allows the &(^*%^*) to be theists and call themselves atheists!

 

just for shits and giggles.

1) The bird claims to be a liberal atheist.
2) The bird claims atheists can believe in spirits and ghosts.
3) The bird therefore believes he can be an atheist and believe in the supernatural at the same time.

 

Take red, green, blue

If red is true then blue is false
If red is true then green is false

If blue is true then red is false
If blue is true then green is false

If green is true then red is false
If green true is true then blue is false


If atheist is true then agnostic is false
If atheist is true then theist is false

If agnostic is true then atheist is false
If agnostic is true then theist is false

If theist is true then atheist is false
If theist true is true then agnostic is false

You are trying to insert and use your preferred ambiguous definition proffered by flew to replace concise unambiguous definition preferred by myself and stanford. The problem you have is logically proving it, if stanford couldnt do it I really dont see how you can do it, I havent seen anything from you that shows its remotely possible to remove the ambiguity of flew logic.

As you can see by the highlighting there is no violation of the middle!

The purpose of philosophical/logical analysis based in reason is to 'reduce' and even if possible to 'eliminate' ambiguity.

Your approach so far (since you have not yet [nor has anyone else] come up with an angle that supports your apparent intention---to prove flews preferred definition is best) seems to be to promote ambiguity which is wholly counterintuitive to the primary purpose of philosophy, reason, logic.

 

This kind of nonsense is why I am happy to see both yardmeat and the bird put me on iggy, never any references, all they ever post is unsupported narratives and yardmeat goes to far as to invent things often times contrary to what I say and claim he is quoting me. There is a limit to how much abuse I am willing to endure. Thats a troll MO, argue a point till proven wrong then bail by calling the person that proved them wrong a troll, and put them on iggy....so blatantly obvious! lol

you have been arguing the same since the beginning of time.
symmetry is orange as a fruit is not understood in the same context as orange as a paint. its understood/argued as orange as a fruit! if it is argued in paint context that is not symmetry and produces garbage results.
Your arguments that require someone/thing to tell you what something is NOT is ludicrous.
When we talk about the sky we talk about what it is not every imaginable thing its not.
your argument demands stanford to tell you everything its not.
If you think its not for any reason then it falls on you to make a case why its not, if you disagree with stanfords reasoning of symmetry.
stanford already explained to you that flews logic does not work not only because it does not require a thought process where theist does require a thought process, but also because someone could be 99.9% theist and call themselves an atheist using flews logic. They recognize the same defects I pointed out years ago in a lack of belief thread where I pointed out how much belief does one need to lack to be classified as an atheist? Thousands of pages of jeers over that one so its nice to see that stanford came to the same conclusion I did.

I suspect lack of belief comes from the same or similar source as the invalid I dont know crew for agnostic, and the more hilarious version agnostic-atheist and agnostic-theist nonsense, since both lack symmetry. I dont know cannot be digitized for the God exists proposition, neither can it be digitized for the agnostic proposition, however the definition as put forward by its creator 'can' be digitized.

 

I don't think they reflect the same meaning. In a fruit store, the word "orange" is polysemous, since the word has more than one meaning, but it is not equivocal since it isn't actually ambiguous in that context.

That being said, that's just a matter of some labels. While I don't agree with the usage of the word, I'm happy enough to entertain it and see what argument comes out of it.

"Atheism" is polysemous, and can at least some times be equivocal. Then what? The word "orange" is also polysemous and can be equivocal. So is "agnostic" or "agnosticism", the Stanford article points out a few different uses, (source) including a psychological and a epistemological one. I am more than happy to use words like "orange" and "agnostic", why would it be a problem to use the word "atheist"?

I gave you the example of two interpretations of theism, it does require context (although the context is often straightforward). Theism can be used to talk about belief in any God, but it can also be used to talk about belief in a personal God (in contrast with deism). Two meanings, but hardly a reason to throw the word or either of the meanings out altogether.

But either way, my question remains: So what?

Not as a concept, but I do have great difficulty with your interpretation of it. Philosophers are well aware that paradigms and conventions change over time. While convention is often useful, I doubt that very many philosophers would assert that you'd be bound by it, you just need to be clear about it, and Flew was.

Sure, but we're not always analysing something for the best and most clear, we're analysing for the intended meaning. I'd say the colour definition of orange is more clear than the fruit definition of orange. That doesn't mean the fruit definition is wrong.

I think there are some finer details there that I don't agree with, but I don't think it matters. Polysemous words exist and can be ambiguous, I agree.

"As I can see"? I see no such thing. The wording here seems to suggest philosophy of language is purely descriptive, "investigating" something is not the same as having authority over it.

And as mentioned before, how do you think this relates to the Stanford article? I wouldn't say it falls under philosophy of language as much as maybe philosophy of religion or similar.

The Stanford article only points out that it is their preference that they do not, it says nothing else. It does mention "standing" at all. Isn't is weird that in order for your point to come across, you have to change all the words for things that don't mean the same things?

Don't think I have said that. I argue that it is one allowed/possible definition with no internal logic problems, and that if someone (Flew) uses it, we should be able to understand what is being said. Just like with the word "orange", the trick is not to find the "best fit definition", it is perfectly possible to juggle several definitions as long as one is clear, and Flew was clear.

Not sure what you mean by "core meaning", or why anyone should care about it. What would you say is the "core meaning" of "orange"?

For the record, I still haven't seen any logical failures that didn't originate from your additions to the logic.

Flew never said anything about an umbrella term. "Umbrella" is a failed addition of Bullivant's, it is not found in Flew's logic.

As for the rest of this sentence, it seems to be "flew's preferred definition of atheist is flew's intention". Seems correct to me.

Nope, I am trying to sort out whether Flew's definition is allowed and logical, I haven't argued anything about "best".

The Stanford article is indeed trying to sort out out which is the "best" definition (in a narrow context), and in doing so, spends most of their time talking about stuff that you struggle to link to what is allowed, or what is logical.

Flew's definition isn't ambiguous, it is pretty well defined. "Someone who is simply not a theist" is a pretty straightforward criteria. It is your insistence on interpreting it differently that brings the ambiguity.

 

Yep, and you haven't yet gotten around to anything that addresses it well.

I agree, just like you bringing in "atheist is someone who believes God does not exist" in a context where Flew uses atheist to mean "someone who is simply not a theist" is garbage. Flew was fine on his own, it is your addition that breaks the logic.

No, it is the direct definition.

I agree, because the sky is not defined in terms of what it is not. Atheist is (in Flew's definition), so that is the criteria used to determine whether one is an atheist.

No, I say that the Stanford article says what the article says, and if you try to argue something that the article doesn't say, then invoking the article doesn't help you.

I don't mind the Stanford article's reasoning (which only leads to them not preferring it), I have a problem with your interpretation, which goes an extra step not found in the article to illogical or disallowed.

And no, if you want to argue that it is disallowed, you will have to show it. I can point out flaws in your logic, but you don't have to wait for my argument for the flaws to be present. The failure to link Stanford's preferences to logical possibility doesn't require me to point it out to be a failure.

They say they prefer it for that reason, they don't say anything about it not working. Why would something need a thought process to work? Being a rock doesn't require a thought process, that doesn't make "rock" into an illogical word.

Not sure what it would mean for someone to be 99.9% theist. I'm not sure why such a person wouldn't be said to believe that God exists.

Oh yeah, I remember asking you several times what a percentage of belief even means. You never answered, so I guess it's on the pile of things Kokomojojo can't justify.

They didn't though. They never say anything about illogical or disallowed for Flew's definition.

Well, if you still can't justify why you demand this symmetry, I guess this is just another 200 pages of Kokomojojo haven't proven anything.