Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

As you yourself said, you either do or you do not. One is the negation of the other. You either believe or you do not believe. You can't both not believe and believe.

Agnostics do not believe. That makes them atheists if you define atheists as "does not believe".

They just also happen to not "disbelieve". "Disbelieve" has so mean something other than "not believe" if you want to be consistent. And that's easily explained by "disbelieve" meaning "believes there is no".

No, that, in your own words is negation of both the synonym and antonym, which you yourself said is a contradiction. Can you really not see how you keep contradicting yourself?

"Do not know" is actually a non-answer to the question "do you believe". You either do or you don't believe. And you either do or do not think you "know".

That's why I personally prefer the definition of agnostic as a negative to the question "do you know?", to differentiate the claim to knowledge from a belief, and thus allowing a better and more nuanced description of the person, be they gnostic or agnostic, theist or atheist.

But, yet again, I point out that so far this is all semantics, not an actual argument, not logic or reason, but just defining words.

Do you have an actual argument or point to make?

 

So? Napoleon could also answer directly yes/no to each of the questions, it doesn't mean that Napoleon is a direct answer to the question, nor does it mean that Napoleon and atheists are mutually exclusive. "Is this person an atheist" is answered with true or false. If you're answering "they're an agnostic", then you're answering a different question. A valid question, but not something that goes in the "result" column if we're evaluation whether someone is an atheist. Truth tables only include true/false answers to direct questions, when you're writing these "results" labels, you are diverting from how truth tables work.

No, the truth table set up we have is sufficient, it does not require us to choose between God existing and God not existing, it doesn't even require us to choose between believing God exists and believing God does not exist, it correctly allows us to answer 0,0 should we want to.

Well, the premise I listed in the B column, yes. You've been adding a different premise in that column, which I have not agreed with.

In fact, it is not a LEM violation to be an agnostic, as you say. However, in your table, it says that agnostics answer 0 to two statements that are negations of one another, which would be a LEM violation. The conclusion is of course that your table is wrong. You have written "not believe God exists" in the column that represents the different statement "believe God does not exist".

You seem to be ok with the idea that 0,0, "rejecting both premises" is not the same as arguing the opposite of both premises (which would have lead to 0,0-agnostics contradicting themselves). However, when reading the definition of atheist, you seem to forget that rejecting one premise doesn't force you to argue the opposite premise.

Nope, you cannot reject both "believe in God" and "not believe in God" due to the LEM (assuming you're aware of your own beliefs). You are however able to reject both "believe in God" and "believe God does not exist", which is what agnostics do. However, the definition of atheist that you have provided uses the phrasing "not believe in God", rather than the red one, so unless agnostics "believe in God", they do "not believe in God", qualifying them to be atheists.

You have only proven that you've not set up your truth table correctly.

I have agreed that 0,0 is agnostic, where the first entry is the answer to "believe God exists" and the second entry is "believe God does not exist". I have not agreed that agnostics are 0,0 where the entries are belief and !belief, because those are negations of one another, and cannot both be false due to the LEM.

 

sure if you pull it out of context from the very obvious meaning that I went on to explain.

Again you play word games.
If I did not follow up with an explanation you 'may' have a figment of a case, but I explained the 'connectives'. You simply disregard connectives out of hand, illegally, then the bird accuses me of semantics, because I have to correct your constant onslaught of errors.
You can chalk up another fail.

identical error is being made here.

 

An Atheist is one whom life, via their Parents, has begat, endowed with conscience, the power of choice, intellect, and a variety of personality traits inclined to love, adventure and so on, as is common to all humanity. At some point, usually upon hearing or being queried on the topic, the Atheist is spurred or obliged to take a stand or make a conclusion on whether there is a God. The Atheist is then nothing but one who speaks and believes the obvious. It is not a religion to simply be, to seek lifes necessities, to persevere and endure. Otherwise, all creatures are religious. It is to live the life given and play the hand dealt. That said, believers must conclude that God made Atheists, Atheists. So why does God hide from them that they say, show me the hand of God. They say I know and testify of the strength of my Fathers voice and my Mothers gentle touch. But where is your God that I may know and believe. They do not wander off into the fantastic and equate a mighty river to a voice. It is neither more nor less than a river they say, and rightfully so....magnificent, yes, but a river nonetheless. An Atheists baseline is neither animus nor mocking towards the concept of God, unless driven by the overly religious to contend defensively in a more manly fashion and perhaps assume for a time a more abrupt and offensive posture before returning to their benign couch. It is understandable. Neither is it blasphemy to not know something. Blasphemy is like a betrayal of a divine trust, not in rejecting the unknown presented from a questionable source. An Atheist would even say I am not an Atheist...I'm just me. Now stop trying to put me in a box. And if perchance I should desire to investigate further the concept of God, I will do it in my time, my way, and at my leisure. That that right is mine is self evident and enshrined in the Constitution. I am not some floozy to be passed around among the drunken, nor cretin to participate in such undistinguished behavior.

 

Yes. Well said.

I find this not to be true. Many theists I've spoken with seem to reject that atheists exist, because they figure God wouldn't make atheists, atheists. They think we are pretending we don't believe, or trying to convince ourselves we don't believe, because they think we are trying to get away from God's righteous good judgment. They see it as rebellion rather than simply lack of belief. And I think when we observe how from our perspective that organized religion is designed to control them (and that is a perspective common amongst atheists, including myelf), that feeds directly into their narrative.

I think many of them feel the need to believe that we can't possibly be honest about our lack of belief in God, and that we must be lying about it, and possibly in league with the devil, etc.

This is a good point and one I've rarely seen theists acknowledge. Atheists, if they honestly don't believe God exists, by definition can't betray any divine trust that, as far as they are concerned, doesn't exist.

 

Now you are quoting yourself to argue with yourself? And yes, you do play word games. What do you mean by "Disbelieve" in the above quote? You keep shifting its meaning, and you seem very adverse to replacing that word with something less ambiguous. I wonder why that is? I guess you couldn't play your equivocation word games if you said "not believe" or "believes there is no" in place of disbelieve. Indeed, the contradiction becomes blatant and perfectly clear when you outright state that agnostics neither believe nor !believe, both yes and no to the same question.

 

Seriously?

I suppose since I entertained swensson moving the goal posts around the world a few times.

I gave you the definition from the dictionary

How so? You are shifting the intpretation. How do you think I am shifting the meaning?

Yes, semantics, what about it? Same thing swensson has done over the course of the last 100 posts.

agnostics reject both the theist and atheist premise not sure what tangent you are attempting to convey with that?

Then your understanding of agnostic conditionals is completely incorrect.
So here you are repeating the same semantics swensson has argued pages back, why not simply read the thread?

 

Yeah, Atheists are a stumbling block for many Christians because Atheists state that what Christians believe is essentially supposition, or the parroting of doctrine, a rickety house of cards. And Atheists are generally correct in this measure. At their core, most Christians are no more God-like than most Atheists in regards to doing good. The main difference being the Christians pious posturing, proclamations, and reciting of scripture. In fact the very notion to go all aggressive, condemning Atheists for their disbelief, is no different than when in ages past those who professed a belief in God were punished. What's the difference but a fear now of answering to the secular law? For me, I don't like the term Atheist because it suggests that one has done something wrong in not believing....as if it made one a devil worshipper or serial killer or something, as if unbelief were the sum total of a persons personality, spirit, character, heart and soul. In fact, not knowing about God is imo part of Gods plan....to forget him. It is part of our experience to live separate from his direct influence, to build character and humility and so forth. Keep in mind that I am coming at this from a Christian mindset or one who loves God. So it may seem like babble or a feeble construct. But perhaps there is something to be mined or sifted and beneficial to others from my perspective. What I'm groping around trying to say is that I see a person who is considered or who considers him/her self to be an Atheist, as just a normal person, with the same motivations as anyone else for the most part. Life is his/her religion so to speak, as it is what is given them. It is reality. And there is no shame in that, aside from what they may have done wrong in their lives. But that's a private matter as it is with everyone. In keeping with the OP, to outlaw Atheism would basically outlaw Christianity and the plan of salvation, as our separation from God and owing to our forgetfulness of God via our birth and mortality(Atheism) is essentially the beginning of our return. In many ways, many Atheists are nearer to God than many Christians because of false constructs and competing doctrines among the multitude of Christians denominations. But Atheists essentially say, here I have been put and here I shall stay, nearer my beginning than the many who stray. So what is worse, unbelief or false belief? False belief may as well be unbelief if it misses the mark. I know that God lives and that the world is swirling in deceit. I know that all of us carry part of God within us, and that it is the way and means for the miracle of our rebirth if it is the will of our Heavenly Father and the season of our reclamation.

 

OOps, sorry about the wrong topic conclusion.

 

Thanks for the thoughtful posts, however there are a plethora of threads running right this moment that would be far more suited than this one for those posts. This one focuses on the rational/philosophical side, based in logical proofs not so much the theological or scriptural etc.

Someone who lacks belief in God has made a decision to !believe, therefore falls under 0,1 which applies to 99.99999999% of everyone asked the question.

 

The meaning I suggest is the one that Flew and many others use in their discussions. If you have some context that is inconsistent with that, then your unjustified addition of that context is likely the source of your mistakes. Belief and !belief are negations, and there is no state (including being an agnostic) that lets you out of picking exactly one of them (as per the Law of the Excluded Middle).

I think much of your failures come from you being inconsistent and unclear about this "context".

You've explained them over and over, but you haven't explained why you have included them in the first place. The definition of atheist doesn't specify any requirement on anything other than !belief. Any connectives on top of that were never there to begin with.

 

This is incorrect.

 

To say that Atheism is a religion is to say that blindness is another way of looking at things. Sorry but no. Atheism is a neutral baseline. It is simply to live and to be. Every living thing is born thru the physical. Even the author of Christian salvation, Jesus, preached that one must be born again, of water and spirit, to see the kingdom of heaven. That would be religion. So at best, Atheism would be pre religion. But in fact it is the natural state of all living things. Or are you preaching your own religion to suggest that all of life is a mindful creation of God. And therefore no matter ones place, thought, or deed, it is all intrinsically religious, simply by virtue of our existence? Reason then would conclude that it is all true and that everyone is right. Therefore you must take the Atheist at his word because everyone is right. That would be called respect. The weakness in your position is that you use religious belief as a benchmark or segue to box or imprison Atheists into a category of belief. They are just people. Forget religion and tradition. We are all here. That's the benchmark....that we live. This is the strength of Atheism or of those who dismiss religion as inconsequential to the call to live, love, explore, wonder, work, raise family and so forth. Consider a toddler pushing his toy truck. That is Atheism exploring. Look at a group of teens at a hamburger joint, eating delicious burgers, sucking on milkshakes, laughing, wondering, and flirting. That too is Atheism in motion. I mean, none of them are speaking with the tongues of angels, exhorting mankind to repentance and spirituality. They're just exploring their world without a thought of religion or of God. Their goodness is natural within them. If you want to call that a religion, then fine. Believe what you will. But it is not an organized system. It is simply the natural state of mankind and all of the natural world. And I believe that it is an innocence worth guarding. As a Christian I must defer to the wisdom of God in that things are as they are for a purpose wise in him. I was an unacknowledged Atheist for the first 26 years of my life. In fact, religion was a total stranger. If I was asked if I believed in God I would be polite but essentially wonder what that had to do with paying my electric bill, and honestly, the conversation was making me late for a date with my gorgeous girlfriend. How religious is that?

 

Injeun takes atheists at our word, that we simply don't believe. And I, an atheist take Injeun at his word that be actually does believe what he says he believes.

To me, an atheist, a Christian goes on about something I see no reason to believe to be true, but I take them at their word, that they actually do believe it, so as long as they don't push it on me I should be respectful of their beliefs.

And to Injeun, a Christian who takes us at our word that we don't believe, sees us as unaware of or blind to a truth he holds important. He sees this isn't our fault, beyond that lack of perception.

We can both see this much of one another and respect one another despite the difference.

And I think that is the primary building block to cooperation and mutual respect.

 

Perhaps this error should be further explored. It may be a key to the misunderstanding plaguing the thread.

A person who does not believe need not have made any decision not to believe. First, they may not have considered the question as the questioner has it in mind. Second, they may lack belief because they are compelled to. The same can be true for atheists and theists, and for believers and non-believers is whatever else.

The entire universe could have been created 5 seconds ago, including all of your memories implanted into your mind. You can't prove this isn't true. But can you honestly make yourself believe it is so? Does any level of motivation (without evidence) make you able? Probably not. And you don't DECIDE not to believe. You simply don't believe.

 

yes preprogrammed robots do that all the time.

human bots!

kool your theory is humans are bots, no thought required.

clearly based on your theory lack of belief requires lack of a brain.

It does not change agnostic into atheist like you both are trying to do, neither does it change the truth table which requires a 1 or a 0, yes, no, true, false.

Well except of course in some peoples vivid imaginations around here.

 

Well said. When Koko said that Atheists unbelief is actually a belief, I was being sarcastically critical of his conclusion when I said that his rationale was like saying that blindness is another way of looking at things. I wasn't referring to Atheists. In fact we're all blind to heaven. I could just as easily have said that his conclusion is like saying that acuity is a stigma because they are both relative to vision. When in fact acuity is a keenness of vision and would have been a more favorable reference to Atheism if it were to be looked at that way. Anyway I was questioning Koko's conclusion, not Atheism. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

misrepresenting koko like a good Christian?
koko never said that.

it can be, metaphorically.

So whats the next act? Cant prove a negative? LOLOL

 

correct

they are 2 propositions, 2 choices, not 2 results or shorthand.

I forget noting, you continually try to change logic 101 to push your agenda to force agnostic to into the atheist camp, which I have proven several times is a fallacy.

belief and !belief are simply shorthand, keep digging! LOL

That was nothing more than flews opinion, shot down by every university philosophy department on the planet.

Like I said they were used as short hand for the whole proposition. typing out the same **** as you dance around in circles (and now the need to repeat it sever more times for the bird) because you dont understand gets a bit old after a while.
The only thing thats not clear is your equivocation trying to force square pegs in round holes to force agnostic into the atheist camp.

then lack of belief is tossed right out the window anyway!
you lost the initiative bro.

 

Kokomojo, we're all bending over backwards here trying to be fair to you, but you keep contradicting yourself.

Shorthand for what? For "Doesn't Believe exists" or for "Believes does not exist". The two are different and the distinction is important. You keep appearing to equivocate between them with your "shorthand" and "notation". Be clear.

I think you should stop digging, and try to actually communicate clearly.

 

Since I know you appreciate logical thought, and are well capable of it, yourself, do not take this as anything but a fellow, pointing out a mistake: from your thread's title-- Is Neo<Atheism> a Rational Religion?-- you have already lost your argument, through your oxymoron; to be a, "religion," candidates need not be, "rational."

 

puhlease, you first need the ability to follow the conversation before you can start declaring contradictions.

semantic nonsense.

Im not the one dancing around constantly shifting goal posts.

does x exist?

1) he does not believe x exists
2) he believes x does not exist

both cases in his mind x does not exist, pure semantics that YOU are pedaling and of course blaming it all on me.

If you dont want to be so confused at least try to use direct synonyms and and antonyms, 1, and 2 are not, no surprise you are both so confused.

 

you forget, religion exists not only with regard to the supernatural but also with regard to the natural
Not eating pork is a religious tenet, comes to mind.

The agnostic position is rational, it summarily rejects 'both' faith based atheist and theist propositions as irrational.

 

I would disagree with that line of thinking: if you remove the supernatural element from the Old Testament, abstaining from pork becomes a CULTURAL, not a religious, practice, IMO.

 

And by this garbage you mean what? Do you not see any difference between "does not believe exists" and "believe does not exist"? Because if you don't, that explains everything here.

Yes, you really really are.

1 and 2 there are neither synonyms nor antonyms. You keep peddling that they are synonyms.