Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

An association between an utterance and a meaning, that many people who call their language English understand. This can include many different meanings for the same words, so long as people understand what is said.

Often context is sufficient, but sometimes clarification is needed. And when somebody does clarify what they mean, it makes no sense to go on pretending they meant something you'd prefer them to have meant by the word.

 

Thats nice so an author is responsible to insure your grammar skills can process all the words used.

when is context not sufficient?

ah, even if their usage is batshit crazy I am expected to use it their way in a discussion?

You must have gone to the same logic classes as the yardmeat?

Oh yeh like trying to claim agnostic is really atheist right.

Yeh it really shows how nutty the neoatheist premise is as well.

atheist, without God, Absent God, not God, lacking belief in God
and
theist with God, not absent God, God, not lacking belief in God

There you go now we are on playing the 'same context turfs'.

dis·be·lief
inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.

be·lief
something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

Of course you and swensson reject disbelief, despite how many times I have posted the definition.

koko disbelieves atheism is true
koko disbelieves theism is true

atheists by definition accept that "no God exists" is true and real, that is why they call themselves atheists after all.

you cant claim 'atheist' without claiming belief, how else could you possibly know you are atheist.

Context is not my problem, Agnostic rejects atheism, its yours and others trying to shoehorn agnostic into the atheist slot which is 100% contrary to agnostic belief.

you and swensson seem to think that if I reject theism then I must be atheist, and the fact is I reject atheism, and if I reject atheism how the hell does that make me an atheist? If you use that logic then you must also demand I am a theist. Which of course is patently nonsense

 

nope its the negation of definition you use for atheist.

 

So afayc the 'only' allowable usage is popular usage.

I dont, first I tell you that your usage is nonsequitur or nonsense which ever the case, then I use it in continuity with the subject or object which ever applies.

Nice, conflating me with the yardmeat strategy over the last 500 posts.

This is false of course, you are the one applying inconsistent or complete nonsense connectives as I have shown you by philosophical citations proving your narrative is bunk, and you simply refuse to accept you are wrong.

haha, now you fancy yourself a psychologist

Not at all, what matters is continuity, I could care less if you want to insert your own game, but then you need to justify it, and your narratives fail, nothing I can do about that.

Most people would think you completely lost your marbles if you did something that far from center. On the other hand that is precisely what your crew is attempting by trying to force agnostic into your atheist slot.

Meantime the claim that theists lack disbelief in God is an inarguable fact that you cannot use reason and logic to defeat, so you default to the next best thing, 'To hell with syllogisms and FACT, Its not in the dictionary', which of course is has no argumentative value whatsoever and merely admits by demonstration obtuse denialism inserted to appear as a rational argument. lol Cognitive dissonance comes to mind.

 

Not even close to what I actually said. I was clear and I wager that everyone here understood me, and even that you did, but you hfelt the need to pretend I said something else so you could address that instead. That's more Kokopuffery from you.

Do you know what most people mean by the word nonsequitor? It's a logic failure. Language isn't that.
Do you have yet another special definition all you own, now for the word "nonsequitor"? If you do, then you need to be clear and tell us since nobody else uses that meaning.

No you don't. You have consistently told people they argued what they didn't, by twisting what they wrote and equivocating meanings of words, changing it from what they clearly stated they meant to something they didn't.

That may be excusable if you then adjusted when they corrected you and told you again what they meant, but you never do. You instead post over and over claiming they hold to your straw man.

I actually do have a B.Sc. in psychology, though that was quite some time ago. It was my undergrad degree. But that's really not needed to see what is happening here. You make it very obvious.

As I said, I could be wrong, and you have had ample opportunity to prove me wrong and to engage in good faith conversation and actually address what people actually write, but you instead continuously post Kokopuffery. So I am pretty confident I am right.

Says the man who can't stop contradicting himself.
Next will you tell us you also care about clarity?

Maybe. It would be very odd to refer to chicken sandwiches as "cars". But if you are consistent with it and speak rationally and logically, I think most people would think you either don't speak the language fluently, or that you are speaking some new slang, that may later catch on and enter common usage.

Agnostic fits perfectly into "atheist" where atheist is defined as not-theist and where "theist" is defined as a person who believes in at least one God.

There is nothing wrong with that if you don't equivocate these meanings of the words with other meanings of them.

Just as under your odd definition of "theist", agnostic fits that too. It doesn't fit under the more frequently used definition of "theist", but again, that's not a problem so long as you don't equivocate the meanings

I think everyone agrees that theists lack disbelief in God. They just also include "believes in at least one God", which you apparently don't. So long as you are clear with what you mean by the term, people should be able to understand you. You should also make an effort to understand them.

Who do you think you paraphrasing or quoting? I never said something has to be in a dictionary.
Dictionaries are descriptive of language, not prescriptive. If a word/meaning is very commonly used, then I will likely be included in a dictionary. If not, then it may not be. If it isn't, that doesn't mean it isn't a word that some use. Slang terms are often popular before they are included in dictionaries.

 

Whenever confusion or misunderstanding is likely.
"bow on the bow of the boat"
Are you referring to a weapon at the front?
Are you referring to a ribbon on the front?
Are you referring to a ribbon on a weapon?
Are you leaning toward at the front?
Etc.

No. But you are expected not to deliberately misrepresent them.

That's how you prefer to define the word, yes.

For many of them, no it is not.

Yes you can.

By realizing you don't believe, just as you yourself do. You are an atheist by this definition of the word. You don't like that, but it remains so.

Only if "atheist" is defined as one who believes there is no God. Many define the word differently.

If "atheist" is being used to mean not-theist; one who lacks belief Gods exist, then yes, rejecting theism makes you atheist. Your disgust with people using this definition doesn't alter what people are saying.

 

So you dont know there is logic attached to language, thats a good one.

Nope that is more birdbrainery from you!

That definition of the word cant be used to compare to either theist or agnostic, I told you the reasons several times.

huh? what do I misrpresent

Then the whole argument has to follow the chosen basis.

YOu dont include it in the definition of atheist you are using, therefore I am not required to include in the definition of theist that I am using.

There you go, atheists lack belief, theist lack disbelief, sounds like a good negation to me.

However theist is being used as one who lack disbelief, so yes, now agnositc is a subset of theist.

so then why are you all using it that way?

Ive been perfectly clear for thousands of posts, its you that is conflating meaning.

So then you knowingly cognitive dissonant?

Oh? Quote it

 

You're going to have to explain this in more detail.

Yep, this seems to support my view. They do not suggest that colour A and colour B = colour C, they suggest a colour can be the result of mixing two other colours, using an additive colour model. The explanation above specifies an additive RGB context, the logic operator "AND" does not. The explanation above demands mixing of colour, the logical operator "AND" does not.

Nope.

For some definition of "rejects", sure. Rejecting the premise that there is a God is sufficient to be an atheist. Rejecting the premise that there is no God rejects a premise other than Flew's definition of atheism. 1 point for atheism, none against. Again.

Nope, this is another lovely example of yellow being a mix of red and green in an additive RGB example. You have done nothing to show what the picture has to do with logical conjunctions.

Luckily, we have a process that doesn't allow you to read things sloppily (or at least, allows for direct scrutiny of any sloppy readings), syllogism.

1. "Yellow is green" is false.
2. A conjunction is true if and only if all of its operands are true. (source)
3. It follows from 2 that a conjunction is false if any of its conjuncts are false.
4. Any conjunction that includes "yellow is green" as a conjunct, is false.

Whichever statement is the conjunction of "yellow is green" and "yellow is red", then it must be false.

In this case, you've both made the mistake of misidentifying the conjunction and the mistake of miscalculating your new false conjunction.

1. Yellow is green
2. Yellow is red
3. Yellow is green and yellow is red
4. Yellow is green and red

3 is the conjunction of 1 and 2. You have yet to justify why you're even talking about 4 when conjunction elimination only works on true conjunctions, i.e. 3.

What does your "G" column mean? Does it mean "this is a colour that is green" or does it mean "this is a colour that contains green in an RGB colour model"? If it is the former, then you have failed to construct the conjunction (your table claims that "yellow is green" is true). If it is the latter, then you have failed to link the entire proposition to the "yellow is green" proposition that you're trying to compare it to. Your table is poorly defined, leading to an equivocation.

 

Yes it can, just with definitions of those words you also don't like and refuse to acknowledge. Whether or not your preferred set of meanings for these words is useful is your problem, not anybody else's.

Neither of us are required to include anything. But we are expected to not pretend the other used a definition that they clearly and explicitly did not. And if somebody clarifies a possible ambiguity in what they wrote, we are expected to acknowledge that not pretend they meant what they clarified that they didn't.

Under your odd definition of theist, yes, sure. So what?

 

just stating a fact, seems its you that does not want to acknowledge a definition that just happens to be a fact.

who needs words right?

Then why do you continue to ignore the usage?

So how many more times to I have to tell you about the same set of ambiguities before you acknowledge them?

Yes correcting yours in great efforts to maintain contextual continuity.

 

Im really bored arguing over the meathead dictionary of illogic, so taking us back on course:

Oh? Did you manage to find a definition of reject that is not the case? What is it?
Agnostics reject the premise there no God, so its not possible for agnostic to be classified as an atheist without committing a contextonomy fallacy, and equivocation, I just explained that to the bird.
I thought stanford cleared up flews nonsense ambiguity which does not match you previous usage.
you are still conflating flews psychological state with logic.

 

We assume the ball is at 0, it is neither left nor right, the same place agnostics are.
Agnostic rejects that the ball is on the left, and Agnostic rejects that the ball is on the right.
Because Agnostic rejects that the ball is on the right does not mean its on the left.
Because Agnostic rejects the ball is on the right does not make it a subset of the left
Because Agnostic rejects theism does not convert them to atheist
They cant be atheist, They reject atheism!
They cant be theist, They reject theism!
Clearly we can see that simply rejecting the right did not magically move
the ball to the left and magically converting it to a subset of Left.
Clearly we can see that simply rejecting theism did not magically move
the ball to the atheism and did not magically convert it to a subset of Atheism.
If you created a definition that concludes the ball magically became a subset of the left because it rejected the right then you concluded an irrational definition.

 

Your definition is not more factual than the common definition. And I not only acknowledged your odd definition. I specifically addressed and used it, stating that yes under that definition agnostic is a subcategory of theist.

Again, so what? This will only become a problem when you inevitably equivocate the meanings. It sounds odd that "agnostic" is both "atheist" and "theist" because most people define these words as mutually exclusive. Not so when you use your odd definition.

You are intentionally misrepresenting what others say (ie, Swensson and Flew when they say "atheist") by equivocating their very clearly stated meanings of words for meanings that you prefer. That isn't correction. That is misrepresentation and Kokopuffery.

 

Good thing that isn't what anybody is doing when they use the word "atheist" to mean not-theist, and the word "theist" to mean "a person who believes in one or more Gods".

 

That's true IF you use your preferred definition for "atheist" (including the positive assertion and belief that Gods don't exist), which is NOT the definition Flew or Swensson are using.

 

Ah so you are pulling our legs again and you are using the dictionary for your argument instead of logic

Im using logic, your logic in fact, in which not-atheist becomes some brand of theist.

Ok now tell us again what the 'dictionary' says LMAO

If there is no requirement in your logic for an atheist to believe God does not exist then you certainly cant demand that a theist must believe God does exist. That would be nonsequitur logic

 

Not at all I am kindly giving you the only options available to you unless of course you really want to take this off the deep edge with birdbrainery.

 

You dont seem to understand that IS the point! Its not!
Its a contradiction to be both, hence logic proves your definition failed.

 

It proves not-theist is bunk, since the counter is not-atheist and as you should have seen and that results in a contradiction, as you just pointed out, therefore not-theist does NOT work.

 

Neoatheists, Agnostics, Wiccans, Pagans, etc. Are just like sexuality to Democrats. How many are of them out there? trans, sapio, Asexual, bisexual....etc. and several several more.

I dunno, because I don't care to keep up with this illogical and irrational crap. These people, are going to intentionally, do this with as many categories of things that they can attack in life, until they pick our societies apart.

At the end of the day, most of the other religions or spiritual belief systems out there like Atheists and Agnostics are doing for the American Democrat Party, is to take God out of our country and the same for out of the World. It is Anti-God, and there isn't really to much of an argument other than that to say about it. Just read the definitions. "a lack of belief in God". that's all it is!

 

Not everyone shares your religious beliefs. Though your religion previously advocated murder for non-believers, I'm glad you outgrew that.

 

There are tens of thousands of differing Christian denominations. To which one/ones do you refer. FYI, the author of Christianity not only didn't counsel death to non believers, but was put to death by non believers.

 

I'm referring to all of the ones who believe that the scriptures are divinely inspired

 

You said that his religion used to put non believers to death. I want you to say which religion that is because there is one Jesus Christ who did not teach that non believers should be put to death. But in fact it was non believers who put him to death. To his cause and Gospel there are tens of thousands of differing denominations. So which one of those denominations put non believers to death?

 

There is nothing illogical about defining Theist and then defining Atheist as simply not-Theist. There is nothing compelling us to include anything additional in the definitions.