Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

Never have I denied that God is real - lives -divine. So why are you pretending otherwise and talking about monkey wrenches - making things up and attributing to me. I simply stated that you having a memory of a past life - does not prove that the entity you encountered in that memory was "The Most High" rather than some other entity .. such as Jesus

Sorry .. to throw monkey wrench in batter .. but just stating a fact. What we believe .. and what one can prove "defacto" are two different things.

But - why you going on like this ?? I agree that God exists - and with your belief in past lives .. so why are you trying to defend a position already agreed with as if someone doesn't ? .. no need to preach to Choir mate .. second time now.

What I disagree with .. is your claims about various characteristics of "The Most High" based on your earthly visitation by what you believe was the same entity as in your past life memory.

First off - do you stand by your indirecte assertion that there is no Devil - no progenitor of Evil -- no forces compelling us to evil.

This did not make any sense to me -- and you did not address this question in my last post

.. do you not believe in Evil and thus all is only good - . and thus God is only Good ?

 

I don't really disagree with the article either. It clearly doesn't say what Koko is pretending it does.

 

For a few days.

Jesus gave up his weekend for our sins. Not so impressive.

 

citation pls?

not broad enough? quote (that is cite) bullivants statement pls to demonstrate that your interpretation/claim of what bullivant 'said' is in fact a fact pls?

I agree, that its a temporary popular fad, just like 420 is a temporary popular fad, cite and explain how that applies here in this discussion pls?

you did not cite bullivant in support of that claim, citation pls?

 

1) quote as in cite bullivants associated statement(s) demonstrating that your interpretation/claim of what bullivant allegedly 'said'/"shoehorned" is in fact a fact pls?

2) pls quote what flew suggested so we all know what flew suggested? Precisely what did flew suggest?

3) pls cite and validate that bullivant in fact made the psychological claim not flew, cite bullivants associated claims that substantiate the psychological claim was in fact bullivants invention (not flews) also to demonstrate your claim is a fact.

4) I thought they said bulivants argument, pls cite where they claim its bullivants "idea"?

5) I did not see stanford claiming anything was not broad enough, or using broad as their reason, that appears to be another of your injected conclusions so please demonstrate that "broad enough" is in fact their reason, since there are many possible reasons that could be far more applicable.

You have made a shitload of unsubstantiated claims and not so much as one demonstrated validation

This post supercedes my last one since I had too many interuptions in the last one and went past the edit window

 

I didn't say anything about past lives. I said that when Gods spirit visited me in a vision in my home, I recognized and remembered him. So I rationalize that because I never knew him in my life, this recognizance and remembrance must predate my birth/life. And eternity/heaven runs concurrently with our lives, like an alternate reality or universe, which God has the power to transverse at his leisure, to either come here or carry us there in spirit. I realize this may sound kooky. How else can I explain the unexplainable? At any rate, Gods visitation is the reason that impelled me to repentance and baptism, as I knew that it was the right thing to do. And because it was singularly unique and miraculous, the opportunity and consequences were too great to pass up and put my soul at risk. It was a now or never moment.

I also did not say there was no evil or devil. There certainly is. I said there was no evil or deceit in God. And this I said in response to your suggestion that perhaps my vision came from Satan. Even though you repeated the satanic angle, I told you repeatedly that I recognized and remembered Gods spirit as God. It was not merely supernatural or sensory that I surmised or concluded to be God. I knew him and he knew me. It's like recovering from amnesia or waking from a dream. A glass of milk is not a glass of whiskey. And a French pastry is not a handful of poop. Some things you know.

Neither was it my imagination born of religious upbringing. In fact, I was not born into a religious home. Neither had I any religious upbringing or indoctrination. There was no God on my radar beyond or nearer my search (which had begun probably a month or two previous) that might have compelled me to vivid and vain imaginings. And even if I had, this would have superseded it all. One cannot imagine the divinity of God.

As for addressing the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit as God. What's the difference, but for context. They are one God in purpose and testimony. If you accept Jesus Christs sacrifice for sin, then you are accepting his Father because it was his Fathers will to which he submitted and carried out, and who was within Jesus throughout his entire ministry. In this acceptance, God the Father is giving you to Jesus as his offspring, not unlike your Grandfather gives you to your Father thru the seed of his loins. Only with God it is contingent upon choice rather than biology. At any rate, this makes Jesus Christ our Father and God. And we his offspring. That is if one is upon this true path which many call religion.

 

The entire length of his life. And it wasn't to impress anyone but to serve his Heavenly Fathers will, which is the salvation of mankind, dependent upon individual choice of course. One may choose to accept or reject his sacrifice, and thus all the blessings it entails.

 

What bothers me about this isn't that the "sacrifice" was taken back as he rose again a few days later, bit that God required a blood sacrifice in order to forgive sins in the first place, and especially that it is a sacrifice of one person to allow the forgiveness of others. That smacks me as ethically wrong and unjust on many levels.

Why could God not simply forgive man? Why was a blood sacrifice needed? Why not something like good deeds? And why is vicarious redemption accepted? If I deserve to suffer for something bad I did (much less something my ancestors did - which is another ethical problem here), then why shouldn't I have to be the one punished or making a sacrifice?

And if the answer is God will only accept the sacrifice of a perfect being, so Jesus had to be the one, then why would God make such a demand of us that only he himself can answer for us?

It seems to me like pointless theatrics. He found a way around his own demands? How is that so different from him just deciding he forgives man (without any theatrics)?

 

I never got the memo, probably because that is a light year off topic since this thread has and was never intended to have anything to do with what you are posting.
So what does anything you posted so far have to do with proving or disproving anything regarding neoatheism as a religion a religion, or not?
Looks to me like your posts fall under spam, if you disagree tell us why you think it applies to neoatheism as a religion. I am the OP.
Why havent you made your own thread, or evangelized in any number of threads where its on topic?

 

My posts are in response to other posts.

 

"neoatheism" doesn't introduce anything new, so it is a misnomer. And atheism itself is not a religion, but a position on one question, just as theism is. That's so using either common meaning of the word atheist. Theism isn't in itself a religion either. There is more to a religion than a position on one single question, even if that question is the existence of God(s).

And this thread left that topic ages ago, and became about Koko's obsession with wording and especially him taking issue with Flew's preferred wording.

Injeun's posts off topic are at least more interesting than that.

 

Sure, it's the same one I have provided before, but I'll give a bit more context. Bullivant writes:

"‘Atheism’ is a term that has historically carried a wide range of meanings and connotations. Popular speech, in particular, admits of a range of definitions, but the same is true of contemporary scholarly usage also. This chapter therefore surveys the sheer variety of ways of defining ‘atheism’, before outlining the pressing need for a generally agreed-upon usage in the growing—and, thus far, Babel-like—field of scholarship on atheism. It then outlines and explains the precise definition used throughout the Handbook: an absence of belief in the existence of a God or gods. The utility of such a broad definition, taking atheism to be an ‘umbrella concept’ that admits of a range of subdivisions (e.g., ‘positive’ and ‘negative’), is then explored and defended at length."​

Source: https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/vie...9644650.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199644650-e-001 (my bolding)

Of course, the Stanford article and I agree that Bullivant makes an error in the above, of asserting that the definition is usable as an umbrella term. Flew writes:

"I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral', 'atypical', and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter."​

Source http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Flew-The-Presumption-of-Atheism.pdf

Flew explicitly writes "someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God" is not how his understanding goes (although we likely agree that someone who does positively assert the non-existence of God is also happens to be covered by the !theist definition, just not for the reason that Bullivant says).

This is the same as above:

"I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral', 'atypical', and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter."​

Source http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Flew-The-Presumption-of-Atheism.pdf

As you can see, the Stanford article's criticism of Bullivant's view rings true, "strong atheism" is not really a variety of atheism in Flew's definition. Not a problem for Flew, but it is a problem for Bullivant who says Flew's atheism is an umbrella term.

Hm, no, I don't argue that. Flew makes an in essence "psychological" claim. The Stanford article writes:

Instead, “atheism” should be defined as a psychological state: the state of not believing in the existence of God (or gods). This view was famously proposed by the philosopher Antony Flew and arguably played a role in his (1972) defense of an alleged presumption of “atheism”​

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

However, the psychological claim does not an umbrella term make. Flew's definition is a psychological state, and strong atheism is a belief, or a proposition. Since Flew's definition is not a proposition, it cannot be an umbrella over strong atheism, which is a proposition. In short, his proposed “umbrella” term leaves strong atheism out in the rain. That's a failure of the "umbrella" idea, but not a failure of Flew's definition in itself.

The idea that he argues. You can refer to it only as an argument if you want to.

Sure

...[Bullivant's argument] implies that what he calls “strong atheism”—the proposition (or belief in the sense of “something believed”) that there is no God—is not really a variety of atheism at all. In short, his proposed “umbrella” term leaves strong atheism out in the rain.​

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

The proposed umbrella term is not broad enough to cover the beliefs Bullivant suggests it covers.

Most of these follow directly from quotes I have given, and kinda expected you to have read enough of Flew, Bullivant and the Stanford article to identify where the claims are coming from. That being said, I'm happy to provide the references.

Now, will you do anything close to this when it comes to your understanding of what makes a definition "technically correct"? Or where the Stanford article rejects Flew, rather than Bullivant?

 

Oh I didnt realize that you were arguing that there is a distinction between 'everyone that is absent belief' and 'everyone not a theist'.

Citation please

 

If the topic is whether Atheism is a religion, logical or not, I think my injection of true religion proves by contrast, that Atheism is not a religion at all. So in that respect, my posts are on topic.

I've already posted, that rationally, Atheism isn't a religion, but is the rejection of religion. This is self evident. To call it a religion by its rejection of religion is to say that self defense is a trespass, that justice is a crime, or that visual acuity is a stigma because they are both relative to the eye. It is a futile exercise. But you didn't respond to my posts on the topic or correct my logic. Why can't a topic evolve?

 

Its not rational until you prove it rational, your personal rationalization does not make it rational. If you cannot argue this in terms of philosophy you are off topic. That said Thomas Aquinas did in fact make some philisophical arguments, however thats not remotely close to the same universe you are singing from.

 

Apparently you must have 'accidentally' overlooked the rest of the quote, Im sure it was an 'honest' mistake.

Im glad you agree, see below (at the end), more parts you missed; re Point and Game!

So we can come back to that after you have sufficiently proven that a distinction exists, (see previous post) between absence/without/ and !theist.

Yes, Flews definition of atheism is the idea he argues.

“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false.

It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”.

It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing.

This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism.

If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below).

[and I proved on the previous page or 2 that it fails as a “psychological” condition for the same reason, I repeat: agnostic and theist require a decision and a decision requires a brain, absence and without can be completely braindead, no brain required]

The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”.

Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).

Departing even more radically from the norm in philosophy, a few philosophers [Flew!] and quite a few non-philosophers claim that “atheism” shouldn’t be defined as a proposition at all, even if theism is a proposition.

[That] Instead, “atheism” should be defined as a psychological state: the state of not believing in the existence of God (or gods).
This view was famously proposed by the philosopher Antony Flew and arguably played a role in his (1972) defense of an alleged presumption of “atheism”.

The editors of the Oxford Handbook of Atheism (Bullivant & Ruse 2013) also favor (this)=[FLEWS] definition

and one of them, Stephen Bullivant (2013), defends (it)=[FLEWS definition] on grounds of scholarly utility.

His argument is that (this)=[Flews] definition can best serve as an umbrella term [Bullivant merely puts a label on Flews definition, changing nothing] for a wide variety of positions that have been identified with atheism. Scholars can then use adjectives like “strong” and “weak” to develop a taxonomy that differentiates various specific atheisms. [It seems pretty clear that Stanford canned Flews nonsense and oxford later tried to justify Flew with a frivolous argument.]

[Explain how this can happen when the Flew atheist is NOT required to have any kind of mental process what so ever (total deadbrain) to be presumed an atheist?]

[agnostic and theist require a mental conclusion.]

Point and Game!:
Unfortunately, this=[Flews] 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. [Flews definition, !theist is not logical, just like absent and without]

This undermines his argument in defense of Flew’s definition; for it implies that what he calls “strong atheism”—the proposition (or belief in the sense of “something believed”) that there is no God—is not really a variety of atheism at all.

In short, his proposed “umbrella” term [which is Flews definition as clarly stated above] leaves strong atheism out in the rain.

[Re: Flews definition is psychological, not a proposition.]

Although Flew’s definition of “atheism” fails as an umbrella term, it is certainly a legitimate definition in the sense that it reports how a significant number of people use the term.


BLUE = Emphasis and grammar tutor 101, Black = stanford from your link.

 

If Strong Atheism is the assertion the positive assertion that God does not exist, does that not necessarily include a lack of belief or assertion that God does exist? So wouldn't that be included in !theist definition of "atheist"? In the same way that if you are a blonde then that means you're also not a brunette?

Maybe there is a good argument for this, but I don't see it in anything Koko wrote and I've no interest in reading through the long article from Stanford searching for this.

 

I disagree with this. Atheism is the lack of belief in God, or the belief there is no God (depending on which definition we work with). There is more to religion than just the belief that a God exists. And some religions, while they include supernatural forces, don't have Gods at all (some types of budhism for example).

 

Not required doesn't necessarily mean not present. You are not required to have a Ph.D. in order to post on this forum. That doesn't mean nobody here has a Ph.D.

Not if atheist is defined as "lack of belief god exists", no it doesn't. Again, all I see here is people arguing over wording. Is there any actual argument in any of this? What do you think you "proved"? I dn't see anything in Stanford's article claiming to have proved anything.

That's true. A proposition itself is not a psychological state. But so what? Belief in a proposition includes a psychological state. Again, this is needlessly convoluted. You could just say "Does God exist" and differentiate that from "The belief that God exists". And so long as you are clear on what you mean, you can use whatever labels you want for either. Stanford finds one meaning of the words "useful" and the other not, but so what? That doesn't prove anything. There is no argument here. Just bickering over preferred wording.

Again, so what? Stanford is just playing with words here. And arguing for phraseology Stanford finds "useful". But Koko claims to have "won" some sort of "argument". What argument? What is the actual claim here aside from language use? None of this shows atheism to be a religion.

 

Granted it may be that all forms of personal belief have come to be known in the "catch all" word "religion". To me they are each a law unto themselves, like curiosities with positive and negative attributes. People are that way to me. Imo, religion is the worship of God, and accountability to a higher source. The other so called religions are philosophies, beliefs, traditions, etc. So when I say Atheists reject religion, in my mind it means Atheists reject any talk of God or accountability to a higher source. It may be narrow minded of me. But I wouldn't think a good Atheist, would for the cause of his/her own liberty and dignity, put away God and then join the rank activity of voo doo, witchcraft, reincarnation, or what have you, in the myriad beliefs and practices of men.

 

Rational is self evident to the rational minded. It is no more provable or needing of proof than the agreement of value between two rational minded people in a rational universe, in which I'm not convinced you abide.

 

Agreed, anyone who is a strong atheist is also a negative atheist, since it is impossible to hold the belief that Gods do not exist without also lacking the belief that God does exist (maybe there are some edge cases in which you could hold both, but I assume not). The argument in the Stanford article is not about what persons would be considered atheists by each definition, but what concepts are covered by each definition:

[...] 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. This undermines his argument in defense of Flew’s definition; for it implies that what he calls “strong atheism”—the proposition (or belief in the sense of “something believed”) that there is no God—is not really a variety of atheism at all. In short, his proposed “umbrella” term leaves strong atheism out in the rain.​

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

The issue is that positive atheism is a proposition and negative atheism is a psychological state. While the people they "apply" to overlap, they're fundamentally different beasts. Having one implies that you have the other, but that is different from saying that one is an umbrella term that covers the other. The set of strong atheists are a subset of the set of weak atheists, but strong atheism is not a subset of weak atheism.

 

You would like to think, but that is far from reality.

Arguments of value are precisely the 'substantial' definition of religion. Religion is religion, deity belief is deity belief, and while they are typically conjoined or fused into one thought or one concept that does not limit religion to the 'usage' of deity worship.

I disagree, if you were truly rational you would recognize you have not accepted the facts, failure to accept the facts is not rational. Both atheists and theist fail to accept the facts, both positions are based and grounded in faith.

The US constitution, the rights of the people are stated in the negative because stating it in the negative creates an all inclusive funnel, hence the guv is now required (in theory only, since they ignore most rights until a court battle), the guv then is required to write positive law to supercede your rights. This method was designed to aid in protecting your rights, lot of good it did with the syndicate at the helm.

Yes as I have pointed out, 'positive' atheism directly addresses 'positive' theism.

That is a direct negation of theism, lack is not, absence is not, without is not.

The idea of !theist=atheist is as ridiculous !atheist=theist.

That is a direct negation of flews negative atheism, which produces an absurdity as I pointed out in several posts.

First time I read flew I was disappointed that some philosophers have taken such a nose dive into the abyss.

People overlap for the simple reason they do not comprehend the actual applicable definitions and or distinctions, and simply guess without knowing the actual definitions as sorted out technically, the purpose of philosophy is to sort it out technically. People make claims based on what they 'think' a words means often without ever looking it up. I think we are all guilty of this at some point or another in our lives.

One is direct and logically bidirectional in a 2 choice comparison, the other is not.

No, 'strong and weak' are subsets of atheists not each other.
A green marble and a blue marble are not subsets of each other, they are a subset of marbles et al.

Its 'context fusion', definitely is not 'clear' what the hell the writer is talking about, and portrays you are not practicing your advertised 'clarity in meaning' that a writer is supposed to strive to accomplish to effectively communicate your "meaning" with others. Remeber all your lectures on the Orange/Orange analogy?

 

If theism means a positive belief then the lack of that positive belief is not-theism(a-theism), which is a negation. A negation is not necessarily an opposite (strong atheism). Not-going-up doesn't necessitate going down. But an opposite does necessitate the negation. Going down does necessitate not-going-up.

You have argued this yourself when you talk about what you call agnostic. Again, this is all just people squabbling over preferred meanings for words. Nothing more.

Sure. If !A=B then !B=A, But why is either ridiculous?

It only produces an absurdity if you make the error of equivocating the meanings of the words, and pretend people mean one definition when they mean the other. This may clear up very quickly for you if you opt not to use the words at all and instead speak with the full definitions instead. It will take more text but it will clear up the confusion.

The purpose of philosophy should not be to play word games. Bickering over what a word means is not philosophy at all. Philosophy is about arguments and logic and reason, not language.

People speak different languages and use words differently, and that is not a problem if the speaker and listener both speak the same language and understand what is being said.

You either do or do not believe there is a God. You are either theist or you are not. That's a perfectly fine and useful binary distinction, and a common and useful definition of "atheist".

And if you are that, then you may or may not also believe God does not exist, another common and useful definition of atheist, that is a subset of the first above.

I don't see why this would bother you so much.

But green marble is a subset of not-blue marble. Just as believer-there-is-no-god ("atheist"2) is a subset of not-believer-there-is-a-god ("atheist"1).

 

It shows too!
Maybe swensson will help you!