Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

So you admit you cannot define god.

 

rahls posts qualify

 

I admit neoatheists cant define God, they have no clue what they are rejecting lol

The Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) is the goddess of a parody religion used to satirize theistic beliefs, taking the form of a unicorn that is paradoxically both invisible and pink.[1] She is a rhetorical illustration used by atheists and other religious skeptics as a contemporary version of Russell's teapot, sometimes mentioned in conjunction with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.[2]

its made up bullshit to insult theists

 

In 2016, scientists discovered the fossilized bones of a prehistoric, one-horned animal in the Pavlodar region of modern Kazakhstan. Scientifically named Elasmotherium sibiricum, also known as the Siberian unicorn!

While these creatures did have a single horn, they in no way resembled a majestic white horse. More like a rhinoceros, the Siberian unicorn stood about 6-feet tall and 15-feet long, weighing in at a whopping 8,000 pounds!

The Siberian unicorn was not completely unknown in the scientific community at the time. It was assumed to have gone extinct over 350,000 years ago, well before humans populated the earth. The newly discovered fossils reveal these creatures were still around about 29,000 years ago—alongside humans!
https://www.ripleys.com/weird-news/not-unicorns-real/


The pink one is a proven insult to theists and, the one in legends was proven real we have proof for both versions.

any other neoatheist bullshit you need me to research and sort out for our lazy neoatheists?

 

neoatheists are the lackers, lead by flew, dawkins, hitchens, that laughably tried to redefine atheism to the point where every rational person runs and hides from embarrassment when challenged except of course the religious lacker evangelists, the die hard propagandists.

These are the rewind repeat people with no defense or support for their claims other than their assumptions, presumptions they cant explain, lights are on and nobodies home.

 

The thought or idea or concept of god- which is in your case a “white guy with long hair”- obviously failed to do much in terms of acting as a source of positive affect on you. That’s your problem, not God’s.

 

Why? By what rule is that, and how do you know such a rule holds?

If I wanted to say that oranges are tasty, it doesn't require me to come up with some alternative word that can be used to describe the colour orange.

What are these rules of formal discussion you elude to? What constitutes a "formal discussion", and do you suggest that discussions cannot come to useful conclusions or proofs unless they are "formal"?

I see no reason why atheism must remain an antithesis, the Stanford article doesn't say anything about any "antithesis". I see no reason why it needs to be a negation either, but atheism according to Flew's definition happens to be a negation of theism nonetheless.

The law of the excluded middle states that a proposition either is true, or its negation is true, so if theism is the belief that God exists, then unless you would argue that an agnostic is a theist, it must be true that the agnostic falls under the negation of theism, which corresponds to Flew's atheism.

You tend to reply to this argument by mirroring the argument, that you could replace "theism" with "atheism" and vice versa, and that reaches the absurd conclusion that agnostics are theists. Of course, that argument fails since it relies on theism and atheism being two similar propositions, but under Flew's definition, that is not true. Under Flew's definition, atheism is the negation of theism, not the mirror image of it.

 

This is why you have no business discussing this issue. It is impossible to prove non existence, of anything. You can not prove a negative.

meanwhile, atheism remains by definition, not a religion.

 

No wonder you post such cockeyed theories, there is hardly a day that goes by where any given person does not prove several negatives in their daily lives. Hell they teach people how to prove negatives in philosophy 101.

 

Logically and reasonably provable noninterference hypothesis

Logically and reasonably provable noninterference hypothesis
define useful

false premise, the typical example and reason I dont jump on your merry go round, no I wont explain it, that is your merry go round bait that I wont take, proven by the volumes of posts in links previously given to you.

btw your post proves that after all those lessons you gave us on logic and reason et al that you still dont understand the agnostic belief position. and I wont explain that either, if you dont know by now you never will

 

Well, it’s not possible to prove a negative. It is not possible to prove non existence.

this is why you have no business discussing these topics.

 

Actually, you CAN prove a negative and you CAN prove non-existence, and it is a rather easy thing to do actually, so long as the negative you are attempting to prove is within a closed set.

For instance, if you have a bag of marbles, you can check every single marble inside of the bag and prove that none of the marbles are white.

However, if it is within an open set, such as every single species that has ever existed throughout all of history, then it is not possible to prove a negative. Any attempt to do so leads to committing an Argument of Ignorance Fallacy.

This is why past unobserved events are not falsifiable, and why science has no theories about past unobserved events. This is why any belief or disbelief in God is a purely religious belief, devoid of any science. Same with the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution. Now, evolution itself happens all the time, and some of it even happens naturally, but the theory that current life evolved from more primitive life is not falsifiable. It is an open set. We do not have access to "all the marbles"...

 

Atheism is COMPLETELY based on faith. You believe that god(s) do(es) not exist. It is not possible to prove a negative with regard to an open set. God might be unseeable to the naked eye. God might always be in a different location than you at any given time. God might exist in an area which you haven't been at yet or can't access.

Yup, so you believe that they don't exist.

Yes there is. See above.

Yes it is. I have told you why it is a religion countless times over my time on this forum.

 

All correct except for the part that I bolded. The nonexistence of unicorns cannot be proven akin to how the nonexistence of God cannot be proven. Unicorns could be invisible to the naked eye, they could always be at a different location than we are currently at, or they could even exist at a location that is inaccessible to humans.

My post to rahl, explaining how negatives can be proven (in closed sets only), explains this further.

 

I think that the unicorn argument was made up by people who did not know they actually have been proven to exist, so we know there were flesh and blood unicorns, the pink one we know was created as a pejorative (insult) to theists, so we also know the origin of that one. Now there may be some version I suppose that I do not know anything about that remains unproven the pink one and the siberian version are both proven.

rahls religious beliefs are inexplicable, even by rahl.

 

I doubt that rahl will have any response to my explanation of how negatives and non-existence can be proven, other than the most likely responses of either an argument by repetition fallacy or an argument of the stone fallacy. Either way, it won't be logical, as the logical response would be to admit that he was dead wrong.

 

No you can’t

 

The rule?
vicious circle logic

 

Atheism by definition is not faith or belief. It’s the exact opposite.

No. There is no active belief in atheism. There is lack of belief.

no there isn’t. Refuted above.

and your claim was proven false each time you made it. Atheism by definition, is not a religion

 

too bad you dont understand logic, I would love to see the syllogisms for that word salad theory.

 

It’s just what the word means. It’s literally the definition. Atheism is not a belief. It is the opposite of belief.

 

belief
noun
Definition of belief
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing her belief in God a belief in democracy I bought the table in the belief that it was an antique. contrary to popular belief
2 : something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion

3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence


neoatheists have no confidence in their thoughts?
neoatheists do not trust their own minds?
neoatheists do not accept that they lack belief?
neoatheists do not consider atheism to be true?
neoatheists do not consider their lack of belief to be true?
neoatheists have no opinion?
neoatheists have no reality convictions?
neoatheists have no reality convictions based on evidence?
thats some heavy duty lack of belief rahl!

oh?
What do you think the opposite of belief is rahl?

 

Here are the opposites of belief

Antonyms for belief

• disbelief,
• discredit,
• doubt,
• nonbelief,
• unbelief

So then which opposite do you use rahl?

active disbelief?
active discredit?
active doubt?
active nonbelief?
or
active unbelief?

They all look pretty active to me rahl?
I dont see any inactive lack of believing here do you?

 

Then what is the logic and reason behind it? What are the rules you allude to, and what makes you think they hold?

It seems to me they wouldn't hold about the idea of an orange (I can talk about orange the colour without finding a different word for orange the fruit) but you haven't written out any of these rules or the reasoning behind them, so I can't check.

In this case, most standard-ish definitions of useful will do. I included the word mostly to exclude things like deliberately false conclusions, or alternative logics or anything like that. Not that you couldn't generalise my statement, it just wasn't very pressing for the argument I made.

At this point, I'm not asking you to believe it, I'm just pointing out that the demanding that atheism is a negation of theism doesn't resolve the issue, it's just a different angle to the same disagreement.

I made sure that my argument does not rely on the exactly what agnosticism is. Not for lack of understanding, but because it doesn't matter for the argument (and I didn't want to get bogged down in the details, when I'm only using agnostic as a hypothetical). The only assumption I made (and stated clearly) is that you wouldn't label "an agnostic is a theist" as true (and only true).

I don't understand this post.

 

Right. Thank you for confirming atheism is not a belief.