Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

at least up to the point I see crazy **** or redundancy that I already explained

G1!
Thats exactly what they are trying to do!
Force me into choosing one or the other (false dilemma) of two premises, both of which are defective.
They simply dont get how this works.

 

Did you mean false dichotomy? It isn't a false dichotomy. You yourself said you either believe or you don't, you are either a theist or an atheist. Then you tried to change that, as if its somehow different, if you consider agnosticism. You yourself quoted a dictionary definition defining atheism as not having belief in God (which you then tried to alter via notation, claiming you weren't changing the meaning). And you yourself keep demonstrating you can't tell the difference between not believing something exists and believing it does not exist.

There really isn't much more that can be said to you at this point. You're either unwilling or unable to understand.

 

the table was created to destroy your "x" in the first column nonsense, glad you see it my way finally.

Weve been through all this already, apparently you arent able to follow the semantic connectives and continue to insist distinctions with NO difference are valid.

The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods, and agnostic refers to someone who doesn't know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable.Sep 2, 2021

Definition of atheist - Merriam-Webster


a·the·ist

noun

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
"he is a committed atheist"

dis·be·lieve

1. 
   
   
   • unable to believe (someone or something).
     "he seemed to disbelieve her"

Opposite:
believe believing

• 
  
  
  • have no faith in God, spiritual beings, or a religious system.
    "to disbelieve is as much an act of faith as belief"

re·ject

verb

1. 
   
   
   • dismiss as inadequate, inappropriate, or not to one's taste.
     "union negotiators rejected a 1.5 percent pay increase"
     • refuse to agree to (a request).
       "an application to hold a pop concert at the club was rejected"

• 
  
  
  • 
    Opposite:
    accept

noun
noun: reject; plural noun: rejects

a person or thing dismissed as failing to meet standards or satisfy tastes.

Definition of truth

1a(1) : the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality
(2) : the state of being the case : fact
(3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality
b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true truths of thermodynamics
c : the body of true statements and propositions



Weve been through all this now for what the 3rd time?

 

I meant what I said, yes it is.
doesnt mean I cant reject both
I changed nothing
you continue to try and validate distinctions with no difference you know 'semantics', then project your failings on to me.
you failed miserably to prove any difference



this is what, the 3rd time I had to post the semantics you are both pedaling.
When crayolas and pictures dont even work!

 

Again, one either believes or they don't. The car is either going forward or it is not. If it is not going forward, that doesn't mean it is going backwards. If one doesn't believe X exists, that doesn't mean they believe X doesn't exist.

This isn't difficult. And no amount of silly charts, tables, or haughty attitude will change the above.

 

An atheist denies the existence of God. As it is frequently said, atheists believe that it is false that God exists, or that God's existence is a speculative hypothesis of an extremely low order of probability.

atheism | Definition, Philosophy, & Comparison - Britannica


They do not question that God exists; they deny him in other ways. An atheist denies the existence of God. As it is frequently said, atheists believe that it is false that God exists, or that God's existence is a speculative hypothesis of an extremely low order of probability.

atheism | Definition, Philosophy, & Comparison - Britannica
https://www.britannica.com › ... › Religious Beliefs

Atheists are people who believe that god or gods (or other supernatural beings) are man-made constructs, myths and legends or who believe that these concepts are not meaningful.

Atheist and Humanist rites of life
Ceremonies
People often mark the major life stage events in life - like being born, getting married and so on - with religious ceremonies like christenings, weddings and funerals.

Atheist and Humanist organisations offer their own rituals for these events that give them meaning and significance without any religious content.

These ceremonies differ from mainstream secular ceremonies like civil weddings, in that they are highly personalised for the individuals concerned.

• Naming ceremonies
• Weddings
• Funerals

Sources for Atheist and Humanist ceremonies
A number of books containing guidelines for such ceremonies are published, including some written by Jane Wynne Wilson for the British Humanist Association.

Atheist and Humanist celebrants
Humanist organisations train people to officiate at humanist ceremonies, and compile lists of those who are qualified to do so.

It is possible to be both atheist and religious. Virtually all Buddhists manage it, as do some adherents of other religions,such as Judaism and Christianity.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/

 

I do not believe that God does not exist,
I do not believe that God exists,
that is what I 'believe'.
I reject belief in or against G/gods as both beliefs are defective premises.

 

Nobody here disputes that. Nobody here says that isn't a position you can rationally take without contradicting yourself. That isn't where your confusion lays.

 

except you and swensson
you continue to demand I must be theist or atheist even after I proved you and swensson 100% wrong

 

This further demonstrates your confusion, and makes me think you really don't read what you respond to. Nobody said you can't be agnostic just because you must be atheist or theist.

 

yep and now you flip your arguments from distinction with no difference to no distinctions at all.

Im sure there are a few people out here you can fool with those nonsense debate strategies, I am not one of them, sorry.

 

I am not using "nonsense debate strategies". And I'm pretty sure everybody here can see that you have no idea what I or Swensson have actually said to you. You are either trolling or amazingly dense.

 

if thats the case then you are both throwing **** at the wall trying to get something to stick, again supplementing your failings and constant contradictions of both yourselves and each other by projecting your failure on to me with name calling and trying to bully me by calling me a troll and dense. Oldest trick in the book. The nonsense theories you have has been exposed! You cant create a distinction where none exists. Now you can try to bullshit people in believing you did by singing a nice tune and doing a nice jig, but that nonsense does not work with me, hell you havent even constructed 1 usable TT. Good place to start is HERE and HERE

 

I consider myself an agnostic atheist and often add on that I have a conflict between pantheism and nihilism.

As an agnostic I don’t know if there is or isn’t a god but as an atheist I do not behave as though there is one (since I don’t practice a religion).

This is opposed to a gnostic atheist who might claim to know there is not a god and behaves in accordance with that.
or, a gnostic theist who claims to know there is a god and practices religion
Or an agnostic theist who has faith in god without knowledge if that god exists.

Personally I think that Christianity expects people to be agnostic theists as the story of the Apostle Thomas shows.
All too often we get the Ken Hamm style gnostic theists who think they have evidence to prove God is real.

I find it easier to believe that God created the universe 6 000 years ago complete with evidence to show it is much older just test people’s faith, than it is to believe in creation science. Or, that I am the only true sentient being and the rest of the universe is a simulation.


Is atheism a religion? I consider it a philosophy since it’s something that I have reasoned out is the best way to live my life but since there are no meetings, no secret handshakes or any culture or identity or anything I wouldn’t call it a religion

I suppose in the eyes of the law it might be considered a bit of a religion.
If anyone here wants to call it a religion I won’t be upset with you. Go ahead.

 

I'd say no, Not all by itself, since it is just a lack of belief in Gods. But atheists do have worldviews, which can be certainly be religious in nature.

Agreed. It is just a word after all. People can use it to mean what they like, and can communicate with each other so long as they each know what they mean by the words.

 

Unfortunately that is not legally (logically legal) possible condition.

Everyone practices a religionof some sort or another

It is a philosophy.....until you practice it then its functionally a religion

“Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.

Quote by Thomas Huxley: “Agnosticism is of the essence of ...

Neutrality ironically is also a religion lol

The problem is when someone asks you if you believe, you can only answer yes of no.
In logic 'I dont know is an off point dodge', because it does not answer the question.

Once you take a position other than neutral you no longer can claim agnostic. agnostics take no religious position, both claiming to be atheist and theist are religious claims.

I dont know is the reasoning behind claiming neutrality. to be nuetral means you cant believe or disbelieve in God, and by calling yourself an atheist, you are no longer nuetral, you are taking a religious position.

 

The root of the word “gnostic” is to “know”. I do not know that God exists. Belief is not knowledge. Because I don’t know I choose to be an atheist - II don’t practice theism. You can call atheism a religion if you want. I still think it’s more of a philosophy but I see your point.

 

Like I said it IS a philosophy 'until' you practice it, then its a religion and when many other people practice your philosophy then its a culture. Not much different than H2o becoming ice or vapor, its dependent on the circumstances.

I quoted you the source of the word agnostic, choosing a position purports knowledge, you choose atheist or theist you purport knowledge, therefore you know know something, at least enough to choose atheist rather than theist, and that requires knowledge.

Its not possible to choose a position and be neutral. Agnostic 'has' to remain neutral to be agnostic, hence you cannt claim both.

'see the Huxley quote'

thats one of the major defects in swenssons and the birds logic.

 

I forgot to comment on this one.
zactly, no one knows if God does or does not exist, they may 'think' they know but the fact is they dont.
Hence the word believe, anything believed is held on 'faith'. You have faith that your belief is the truth.
Atheism is as much faith as theism. agnostic on the other hand demands to know, (no faith involved) and until the agnostic can know for a fact one way or the other the agnostic is forced to remain 100% neutral taking 'neither' position.

 

That's the meaning of the word "agnostic" I prefer as well. It gives more information.

The discussion with Koko here has mostly used the word to mean "both lack of belief in God and lack of belief there is no God", which is different, and I think a less useful meaning.

But again, it doesn't matter so long as the speaker makes it clear what definition they are using for the word, and the listener understands it.

Note the trick Koko plays here when he writes this:

I don't think Koko sees what he's doing there, but I am guessing you will.

 

Yep, it falls into the same category. It is perfectly possible to have three-position logic, such as believe(A)/believe(B)/believe(neither) or forward/backward/still. They are just not negations of one another, because the LEM demands that for negations there are exactly two options, A or !A (for some proposition A).

If you have something that is defined as a negation, it will have exactly two options, or you are breaking fundamental rules of logic. In the case of atheists, it is defined in terms of a negation, so if you drag in the three-state believe(A)/believe(B)/believe(neither), then you have failed to set up a logic that actually corresponds to the definition. The definition of atheist uses a negation, which dictates exactly two states.

I don't think we disagree on any actual points of logic, we just disagree on how to convey the logic via language. All definitions follow usage, there is no such thing as a definition that follows logic only. For instance, there is no logical way to favour English above French, yet all definitions are dependent on which one of those we use, so any definition found in the English language depends on our arbitrary, a-logical decision to use English rather than French. If you don't see the reliance on usage, it merely shows you can't see further than your nose.

That being said, I don't propose that there is anything illogical about Flew's definition. I'm not arguing that the reliance on usage allows us to use word illogically (although I could make that argument, had the discussion required it), I'm arguing that Flew's definition and interpretation in fact follows logic more carefully than yours does.

Finally? I never indicated that we were forced to put them in a particular order. I was complaining about you changing the second column from "Belief God does not exist" to "not belief God exists", then you went off on some red herring tirade about the order. Here is my statement where you started going off on that tangent:

I don't suggest that you have to use X as the first column, just that if we use that convention, agnostics can be represented as 0,0 (that's not to say that it is the only possible convention, nor the only possible convention in which agnostics can be represented as 0,0).

The actual point I was bringing up was of course that we agree that agnostics have X=0 and Y=0, so in Kokomojojo world, where Y=!X, then X=0, !X=0, which is a violation of the Law of the Excluded Middle. Of course, if we don't specify Y=!X, then no such problems appear.

The issue there is still that you have not been able to produce any reason to believe that there is a connective to begin with. The definition of atheist includes only one criteria, none of your added connectives or "not if you're also considering agnostic" are part of the definition, or in any other way have anything to do with how we evaluate whether someone is an atheist.

Having both X and !X as false is impossible (as per the LEM), but having X and Y as false is possible (as exemplified by agnostics). Therefore, there is most certainly a difference between Y and !X. You keep saying it's a distinction without a difference, but you can't show it is true, and it keeps leading to contradictions, showing that it is false.

We have already agreed on the wording of the definition, we've brought it up far more than 3 times. The issue here is that when you put this into a table, you seem to set up a different logic than the one in the definition.

 

Hmm seems I used your precise verbiage after all



yep, your grammar and logic has it all, distinctions with no difference, bogus logic, LNC, LEM, procedural nonsense, constructive nonsense, you name it.

Flew logic is bogus, its pure equivocation, it cannot be overlaid or intermixed with agnostic.

 

We just don’t agree on definitions.
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=gnostic&ref=searchbar_searchhint

Gnostic is a word whose Greek root origin means “to know”. It is what the claimant asserts to be true. I know dogs bark because I have experienced it, I figured it out, God told me etc

Agnostic means the opposite . I don’t know for sure. There is no evidence or rationale that I have heard that either proves so I don’t know.

Theism is belief. It is demonstrated by joining a church or following the guidance or rules of a church.

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=theism

Atheism means the opposite. Not part of a church, does not follow guidance or rituals of a church or book

I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m just showing you how I think of it. This is not my original idea. I just picked it up somewhere along the line and it makes sense to me.

 

Lots of people claim to “know” God exists. This forum is rife with such claimants. Some people refer to a personal experience as evidence others claim to have scientific evidence from creation scientists, others use prophecies as evidence.
Look at the story of the Apostle Thomas who, upon meeting the resurrected Christ needed to see and feel the wounds from the crucifixion before he would believe Christ had been resurrected. He would fall into the category of gnostic theist.

 

@Kokomojojo

Presumably you now understand the differences in the way some “neo-atheists” view your statement that “neo-atheism is a rational religion”.
My question to you is: “why is it important?”

Help me to understand why you felt it was important to make this distinction.