Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

How many gods did Huxley believe in? The answer is 0.

For everyone who is not a theist, the answer is 0. That goes for people who say that they are neither atheists nor theists as well. If they aren't a theist, the number is 0. If this really did prove that the differences between these points of view were nothing but semantics, then the difference between an atheist and an agnostic (including you, Huxley, and every other agnostic) would be purely semantic. See, that's how a counterargument works: you use the person's train of thought and show how it can also be used to lead to a conclusion they can't accept, meaning their position is broken, inconsistent, etc.

How many gods do you and Huxley believe in? The correct response is 0, but you won't admit it since that would prove the difference between your position and the ahteological neoatheist mantra is semantics.

Caveat: That is the correct response for a rational person, but feel free to argue that agnostics believe in more than 0 gods at your own demise, but then you already know that don't you

You've got 2 choices: either your "proof" does not actually demonstrate that the differences between these groups are purely semantic, or it proves that difference between yourself and a "neoatheist" is purely semantic. Those are the only options. Not that you'll ever muster what it takes to confront that logical fact.

Countdown to evasion in 3 . . . 2 . . .

 

Bravo! Except of course for that little snag that the proofs offered were never set up or intended to prove differences between these groups

You people never get it in context, I dont know if you are incapable of arguing on point or if you are ****ing around?

Like when your complete understanding of the hypothesis being proven 100% out to lunch right?

I told you that how many Gods I personally believe in is totally irrelevant to the real conditions being examined.

Steeeeerike!
Back to the strawman...err.... I mean drawing board for you!

hint: The hypothesis proven had nothing what so ever to do with huxley, you introduced that prematurely since you have a long way to go before you get to that point in this discussion from what I can see.

Hell people want to talk about Phd level complexity of the agnostic beliefs and they cant even keep basic concepts in a correct perspective!

 

18 pages now and atheism remains, as it did on page 1, by definition not a religion.

 

Moving past denial

Honestly examine what you fear.

• Think about the potential negative consequences of not taking action.
• Allow yourself to express your fears and emotions.
• Try to identify irrational beliefs about your situation.
• Journal about your experience.
• Open up to a trusted friend or loved one.
• Participate in a support group.

If you can't make progress dealing with a stressful situation on your own — you're stuck in the denial phase — consider talking to a mental health provider. He or she can help you find healthy ways to cope with the situation rather than trying to pretend it doesn't exist.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/denial/art-20047926

 

@yardmeat, from the looks of it this is getting really confusing for you.

Huxley is not part of this discussion at this time, at least you wont get responses to huxley or agnostic until we get past the very simplistic meaning of 'I dont know'.

Because I am such a nice guy,

As you can see, 'agnostic' and 'I dont know' are not synonymous or interchangeable as neoatheists and misinformed agnostics would believe.


OTHER WAYS TO SAY I DON’T KNOW

Has your mind gone blank in the middle of a presentation? Can’t answer your student’s question? Don’t want to admit that you simply don’t know the answer?
Here are some better ways of rephrasing those three awkward words, to get out of answering immediately!

• Let me check on that
• I’ll get back to you on that one
• I’ll find out and let you know
• Let me find out for you
• I’ll double check and let you know
• That’s a really good question, I’ll check
• That’s a really good question, I’ll find out
• I haven’t looked at that yet
• That requires a bit more research first
• I’m going to investigate that further
• I’m not 100% sure on that
• I can find out for you
• Let me look that up for you
• I want to be sure and give you the correct information. Let me check.
• I can’t remember off the top of my head. I’ll get back to you on that.
• I don’t have that information here right now
• That’s not my area of expertise, I’ll ask …..
• There are several possible answers, I’ll need more information first
• It could be one of many possibilities, I’ll look into it
• That’s something I want you to find out for yourself!
• I’m probably not the best person to ask for that information
• What do YOU think?
• What do you suggest?
• I haven’t had time to think that through yet
• I’ve been wondering the same thing!
• I haven’t a clue
• I haven’t got a clue
• I’m not sure
• Beats me
• Search me
• Who knows? (Rhetorical question)
• I haven’t got the faintest idea
• I haven’t the faintest idea
• I have no idea
• Your guess is as good as mine
  
  https://www.myenglishteacher.eu/blog/other-ways-to-say-i-dont-know/

 

Are you unable to follow the link?

 

So you definition of an atheist is someone who does not believe a god exists? The operative word is “ believe”

And what do you call someone who does not believe unicorns exist?

 

read my font ink 'no quote, no response'!

capisce?

 

yep a truth conclusion of a hypothesis that is not shown to be a fact.

 

How would you suggest someone prove a god doesn’t exist. Assuming of course you can actually define the requirements for a god with any specificity.

 

I dont call them anything, what do you call them? LOL

The people who choose to be atheist neo or otherwise already defined God for themselves (if they are remotely rational), dont ask me to define God for someone else please. Ask the person claiming to be an atheist what their definition of God is, not me.

Prove it in any manner that it can be demonstrated as a 'fact'.

 

Of course atheism is another religion. It’s an idea that atheists draw from (knowingly or subconsciously) to explain the world around them.

 

Your own conception of God precludes you from believing in Him. That’s your problem, not Gods.

 

White flag acknowledged. Glad we settled that you and Huxley believe in the same number of gods as neoatheists.

 

Wake up, thats just a fantasy

Wake up, thats just a fantasy



Steeeeerike 1! 2! 3!
Back to the strawman...err.... I mean drawing board for you!

Hell neoatheists always want to talk about Phd level complexity of the agnostic beliefs and they cant even keep basic concepts of theism and atheism in a correct perspective!

 

Just to further drive home the point that your argument has completely collapsed, I'll remind you that it was also destroyed without using any of the forbidden words . . . stripping you of the "but [forbidden word] is off topic" excuse.

I'll do it again.

Everything you say about "neoatheists" in your argument could be said about literally anyone who is not a theist. If what you argue in the OP is true, and it really demonstrates that the differences between all of these groups are purely semantic, then it also proves that the same distinctions between any groups of people-who-are-not-theists are semantic.

Do you understand? What's the new excuse for evading the challenges to your "proofs" going to be?

 

Thats it keep digging your hole, enjoy the fantasies while you can!

Youve convinced yourself that you understand agnostics and all the while you cant even address something as simplistic as 'I dont know'.

Neither have you remotely figgered out what hypothesis I have proven!

Thats kool though, another beautiful example how neoatheists throw **** at the wall when their atheology fails them.

 

Why are you bringing up the forbidden word? The one you said couldn't be discussed here? My post didn't mention anything about the forbidden word.

 

Still havent figured out what hypothesis I proved have you! LMAO
I want to insure you get maximum enjoyment out those fantasies you posted!
If this discussion ever progresses to an academic level they will be short lived

 

For far too many the only rational religion is the one they belong to. Is atheism, either neo or regular or any other form a religion? Webster says a religion is a specific form of belief and practice. So if one believes there is no god, gods or divine being, beings or whatever, that is still a belief. So one lives their lives practicing their non-believing in the divine or supernatural being, beings. Perhaps in a way atheism is a religion in the broad sense.

I have no problem with whatever someone puts their faith in. Be that a god, gods, spirits, science, money, power, etc. Believe in what you want, practice that belief in your manner as long as it isn't harming anyone else. My problem has always been those who try to force their beliefs or non-beliefs on others.

 

No idea what this has to do with the fact atheism by definition is not a religion.

 

Atheism by definition is not a religion.

 

Doesn’t matter. Whether you like it or not, your god is disbelief, and you submit wholly to him.

 

Agnostics are a subset of atheists in Flew's definition, and that's covered by your thread start.

The question is not posed with the intent to figure agnosticism out, the question is posed to figure out how your numerical scale works, and why you refuse to allow people to answer "I don't know".

If you think I was asking because I didn't know what agnosticism was, you have consistently shown that you cannot predict where my questions are intended to lead. As such, you should answer my questions instead of going off tangents, or you'll be dodging my criticisms.

I'd be much more useful if you could present why you believe these things, instead of going off on sarcastic tangents.

Wikipedia clearly states a syllogistic argument requires two premises and a conclusion which follows directly from those premises. You had some opinions which you claimed were syllogistic, yet they clearly have no premises, only a supposed conclusion. It seems to me you do not know how to construct an argument (although given hundreds of pages of you being unable to present your ideas in a way they could be examined, let alone justifiably believed, this changes little).

I haven't been talking about any such people as far as I can remember. I guess if there are such people, they would be included.

Some atheists according to Flew are agnostics (they might call themselves agnostic atheists), and while not all atheists, if your number-line idea was valid, they'd have a place in that model.

Ok, then I guess some who are atheists according to Flew have a psychological condition in which they don't know the answer to your question, and your insistence that there needs to be a numerical answer is incorrect.

The point of the Flew definition is that it isn't "an affirmative belief". It is the failure to attain one specific affirmative belief, "there is (at least) one god". The Flew definition does not specify whether that person also affirms the belief that there are no gods, or whether they don't have an answer (and I'm sure there are other possible positions).

 

Perhaps, but just stating it is as pointless as Kokomojojo just stating his opinion. The debate in this thread calls into question definitions (well, in particular under which circumstances different definitions are valid), interpretations of definitions, etc..