Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

Atheism isn't a religion. It's a baseline rejection of religion. To call it a religion by its rejection of religion is like saying that self defense is an offense by virtue of participation in the matter. A court of reason would not support this criminalistic notion. Or that visual acuity is a stigma due to its relationship to sight, which would be equally absurd in science. Acuity is a baseline. The targeting of Atheism does not make it worthy of being targeted anymore than trespass justifies the trespasser. I personally have a large measure of respect for the Atheists on this forum. Their arguments are generally sound, rational, practical and pragmatic. But religious?...no! We can have our disagreements and wrestle without going off the deep end and swearing oaths to one anothers annihilation. The OP needs to man up and give a hat tip to Atheists. They are neither sissies nor do they exhibit a dearth of goodness in their hearts and souls. Yet many theists harbor great wickedness. After all, in truth, what is salvation but the finding of treasure. And what is to be found but what is already there. Atheism then is not a religion, but the covering of treasures, like a chaste Wife whom none can justly know without consent, even her Husband. Respect.

 

secular humanism is atheist, it is a confirmed religion.
Satanism is atheist, it is a religion.
There are a plethora of zero belief in God religions out there.
The cool thing about this is it sends both atheists and theists into denial as they fight to dig in as far on the far left and right from each other possible.

 

Adding logic, syllogisms, and conclusions drawn from logic is not inventing.
You are inventing some of the most ridiculous antics in handling logic and soem of the most unreasonable conclusions I have ever seen in my life, and they are buried in subterfuge, conflation, and flipping back and forth between grammatic nonsense and logic nonsense.

I made a through table with a circuit and they 100% match, the grammar and logic of my truth table is unassailable.

You continue to try and pound your square peg in a round hole and demand its hexagon. thats a metaphorical allegory.

Below, MY circuit proving logic for comparing agnostic to atheist to theist:



Your circuit proving flew is nonsense:



You have theists believing and disbelieving at the same time.
atheists and agnostics are the same, despite the dictionary shows otherwise.
A true shitmess that you are what at least quintrupling down on!

Unconflation of your conflation, proof of the nonsense you pedal.



any truth table that you make that shares the same inputs for 2 identities is irrational so far as logic goes.

A rational logical truth table has to take the same form as mine, one truth for one identity, or its trash, violating LEM, LNC or both.

You need to look up how verbs are handled, and their associated meaning, and brush up on your grammar since that is your next fall back position. Pretend that the definitions are not being interpreted properly. I already told you that and previously explain it in great detail.

 

All non believing sects are no more the same than the forty thousand different Christian denominations are the same. Were they the same they wouldn't be different. Your logic is way skewed in that you are ignoring the basics. For instance you said that Satanists are Atheists and therefore Atheists are Satanists. In fact, Satanists do believe in God. But Atheists believe in neither God nor Satan. The entire matter is to them a tedious impractical exercise and a fable with dangerous undertones. They reject it in total. An Atheist must have really gotten the better of you for you to be so fixated on them. Or am I missing something. What is your goal in this?

 

The worst I think a theist could say of atheists as a whole is that we are blind to a vitally important truth. When they say we are "lost" that makes sense, from their point of view. But religious? Not by definition, no.

 

Oh? You sure this is a path you want to engage in?
Very simple, all you need do is follow the atheist example and claim agnostics are a subset of theists and I will be more than happy to turn my attention to theists.

So far they left me alone so for the most part since I am a live and let live type, I leave them alone.

Then they use any crazy **** you can imagine to defend their postion and when that doesnt work pass go and go directly to blind denial. Just look at the posting history in this thread, its all them, rewind repeat despite they were proven wrong, apparently they enjoy going into denial so they can be constantly corrected.

Where would the world be without rational [neo]atheists? You know they are the smart ones pretending atheism is based in logic and reason when in fact its just as faith based as any diety grounded religion.

I never said that, you said I said it, maybe you wnat to read that again?

not when you put them on the hot seat and turn up the heat! then they dont reject it, they lack it. LMAO

Atheism and Satan
LaVeyan Satanism is a nontheistic religion founded in 1966 by the American occultist and author Anton Szandor LaVey.

LaVey was an atheist, rejecting the existence of all gods.[32] LaVey and his Church do not espouse a belief in Satan as an entity who literally exists,[33] and LaVey did not encourage the worship of Satan as a deity.[34] Instead, the use of Satan as a central figure is intentionally symbolic.[35] LaVey sought to cement his belief system within the secularist world-view that derived from natural science, thus providing him with an atheistic basis with which to criticize Christianity and other supernaturalist beliefs.[36] He legitimized his religion by highlighting what he claimed was its rational nature, contrasting this with what he saw as the supernaturalist irrationality of established religions.[37] He defined Satanism as "a secular philosophy of rationalism and self-preservation (natural law, animal state), giftwrapping these ideas in religious trappings to add to their appeal."[38] In this way, LaVeyan Satanism has been described as an "antireligious religion" by van Luijk.[39] LaVey did not believe in any afterlife.[40]


If man insists on externalizing his true self in the form of "God," then why fear his true self, in fearing "God,"—why praise his true self in praising "God,"—why remain externalized from "God" in order to engage in ritual and religious ceremony in his name?
Man needs ritual and dogma, but no law states that an externalized god is necessary in order to engage in ritual and ceremony performed in a god's name! Could it be that when he closes the gap between himself and his "God" he sees the demon of pride creeping forth—that very embodiment of Lucifer appearing in his midst?


LaVey, The Satanic Bible.[41]


Instead of worshiping the Devil as a real figure, the image of Satan is embraced because of its association with social nonconformity and rebellion against the dominant system.[42] LaVey embraced the iconography of Satan and the label of "Satanist" because it shocked people into thinking,[43] and when asked about his religion, stated that "the reason it's called Satanism is because it's fun, it's accurate and it's productive".[33]

LaVey also conceptualised Satan as a symbol of the individual's own vitality,[44] thus representing an autonomous power within,[45] and a representation of personal liberty and individualism.[46] Throughout The Satanic Bible, the LaVeyan Satanist's view of god is described as the Satanist's true "self"—a projection of his or her own personality—not an external deity.[47] In works like The Satanic Bible, LaVey often uses the terms "god" and "Satan" interchangeably, viewing both as personifications of human nature.[48]

Despite his professed atheism, some passages of LaVey's writings left room for a literal interpretation of Satan, and some members of his Church understood the Devil as an entity that really existed.[49] It is possible that LaVey left some ambivalence in his writings so as not to drive away those Church members who were theistic Satanists.[50] Both LaVey's writings and the publications of the church continue to refer to Satan as if he were a real being, in doing so seeking to reinforce the Satanist's self-interest.[41]

LaVey used Christianity as a negative mirror for his new faith,[51] with LaVeyan Satanism rejecting the basic principles and theology of Christian belief.[9] It views Christianity – alongside other major religions, and philosophies such as humanism and liberal democracy – as a largely negative force on humanity; LaVeyan Satanists perceive Christianity as a lie which promotes idealism, self-denigration, herd behavior, and irrationality.[52] LaVeyans view their religion as a force for redressing this balance by encouraging materialism, egoism, stratification, carnality, atheism, and social Darwinism.[52] LaVey's Satanism was particularly critical of what it understands as Christianity's denial of humanity's animal nature, and it instead calls for the celebration of, and indulgence in, these desires.[9] In doing so, it places an emphasis on the carnal rather than the spiritual.[53]

Neoatheists cannot prove the claim (by a long shot) they have used every wrong approach and several I confess I never thought anyone could dream up that level of ridiculous, forcing me to constantly prove the wrong, but hey look at it from the brite side the more they **** up the more I expose their fraud and subterfuge the better it is for you and christianity. Im an agnostic and these guys lost the initiative a long time ago.

fyi: the word religion is not limited to deity worship.

 

Sure it was made for another reason, but it still shows that these gates do not illustrate any problem with my statement "if you have something that is defined as a negation, it will have exactly two options". NOR is the negation of OR, so for any propositions A and B, either OR(A,B) is true, or NOR(A,B) is true, as illustrated in the table.

Agreed, but your additions do not follow logically from the rest of the statement. This is particularly clear from the fact that the logic conclusions change when you introduce your additions. "Not cast a yes vote" is true for abstainers, "Not cast a yes vote and also didn't abstain" is false for abstainers. Clearly the latter statement doesn't follow from the former one, since they come to different conclusions.

Logic gates don't include any "and also didn't abstain" logic, the value of the output is the opposite of the input, it doesn't check whether you abstained altogether or had some other thing be true. The definition we've consistently been pointing to doesn't include a "didn't abstain" statement either, if we were interested in including that distinction, it would have been written in. I'd even be willing to bet that the entire point of phrasing it as Flew and the dictionary does is to avoid the implication that you also didn't abstain. If they wanted to convey what you mean, they'd have written "someone who believes God does not exist", but instead, they've consistently written "someone who does not believe God exists".

They don't match the definition of atheist though. You could make a circuit (and matching truth table) that states that chicken=cow, but it doesn't mean that it corresponds to reality or "proves" anything.

This only proves that you can set up a logic which generates the results you want, not that it in any way corresponds to what the words mean. You have not justified your selection of three gates per output (compared to my logic which includes only one gate each, corresponding exactly to their relation as specified in the definition). The definition doesn't mention any "AND'd XOR"s, so you have provided no link between your triple gates to the words you have put in the labels. We have a definition that uses the word "not", yet instead of using the corresponding gate (the NOT gate), you've picked some unjustified trio of gates.

Sure it is:

With a circuit as here (square waves just to generate the inputs): Source

It is exactly what happens when an output depends on one entry and not the other, and all the results are intuitively correct, truth tables (or reality) have no problem with treating and showing such a situation. It is the definition that determines which entries we should take into account, and in this case, the definition of atheist takes into account only the X input, just as having no car depends on whether one has a car.

Says what logic? The fact that you've even included "identities" in the cells of a truth table is a violation of how truth tables work. In reality, more than one conclusion can be true (a person could be both a car-owner and a Frenchman for instance), so if your understanding of truth tables can't deal with that, then you're not using them in a way that corresponds to reality.

Actually, truth tables don't allow any "identities" in them at all, truth tables are limited to 0 or 1 answers to specific questions (well, whether certain statements are true or false). Of course, nothing is keeping us from making notes in an extra column, but there are no inherent rules about whether you can have more than one of those.

If by "explain" you mean "baselessly asserted". It seems to me the definition is pretty clear on where the words are applied. If you're adding extra pieces of meaning which do not follow from the original meaning, then that's probably why you're at odds with other people using the word.

 

Just a note of distinction: Lavey Satanism isn't what most of today's "Satanists" (such as the ones who made that statue of baphomet) are. Most of today's Satanists are secularists using Satan iconography to counter Christian iconography when Christian theocrats push it into the public and government spaces.

The statue of baphomet was a direct response to Christian theocrats pushing to have a ten commandments statue on display at a court building, if I recall correctly. The whole point was to show that if the Christians can push their religion on others, then so can "Satanists" and it encourages the government to allow neither to do so.

 

Warn me next time you post stuff like this, I damn near choked on a hunk of steak I was laughing so hard!



here LMAO

Oh yeh and I dont see agnostic in that awesomeness that you posted, where is it?

You are back to arguing atheist v theist again and agnostic just happened to slip your mind? again?

Maybe you changed your mind and today agnostics dont exist at all, is that why you didnt include them?

haha neener neener! My 5 extra useless inputs is bigger than your little 1 exta useless input! I win! LMAO

I mean seriously?

With out agnostic you have nothing but garbage.

 

WOW!!!

I just made an amazing discovery!!!!!

that:


Looks just like this:



If we leave out agnostic!

Uncanny isnt it? Whoda thunked it?

I think we are finally on to something here!

Way to go! I cant wait to see what happens when we add agnostic into the mix!

 

You don't see because you won't let yourself see. Everyone else here can see it.

Pull your head out of your own ass, and stop drowning yourself in your own ego, and you may yet understand what people have tried to say to you.

 

wow!

I was curious and thought Id try and figure out wtf you were trying to do here.

Now I know.

That is nutterville logic!

The Y does nothing what so ever, you do not have a 2 column table, you have a one column table with dups. Oh I think I said that in my previous post.

z = !x leaves us with if you have a car on the input the output proves that you dont have a car.



Im sure it makes perfect sense to anyone living in a rubber room we all know that if you have no car the truth is you really do have a car! No contradiction in that!

ffs swebsson, seriously I cant believe you posted such ****.

 

Are you sure you know how to read these tables you love so much? What it says is that if you have a car on the input, then you don't "Does not have a car" on the output, which means you do have a car on the output.

Not only is Y pointless information that isn't used, but Z is just the negation of X. You don't need an X column, a Y column, or a Z column. All you need is yes/no to X.

The rest of the table is either pointless or just a rephrasing of the exact same information, and it is idiocy to think you need tables or circuit diagrams for any this. They are only helping you fool yourself. You would have not made the error above if you did not insist on these ridiculous tables to begin with.

Now take the next step and realize that Not having a car does not equate to having a bicycle, in the same way that Not believing in God does not equate to believing there is no God.

 

Sure, you can have more examples of things that do not factor in. In reality, the fact that other statements exist causes no logic failures, therefore, nor will it in a well constructed truth table.

The car/French example is only there to prove that it is perfectly possible to generate correct circuitry and truth tables for logic that takes only one input into account. It shows that "simply pluck[ing] out zeros from a 2 input table and pretend the second input is nonexistent" is perfectly possible if that is what the logic demands. The criteria for a truth table are met, the results are consistent with intuition.

Agnostics are not exempt from logic, by the LEM, they're not allowed to have both a proposition and its negation as true. If you have two things that can simultaneously be false, then identifying them as negations is incorrect.

Nope, if the input "you have a car" is true (1), then the circuit shows us that "you don't have a car" is false (0). Similarly, as in the picture above, if "you have a car" is false (0), then "you have no car" is true (1). Due to your reading errors like this, I have a very hard time taking your insults seriously.

 

How do you think I feel after 30 pages of goalpost moving bullshit you put up?

So its not logical to abstain from voting, thank you very much!

Then stop claiming they are negations. I told you that umpteen posts ago. glad you finally caught up.

You are right about one thing, I do barely read what you say anymore because you post any nonsense you can dream up to stay in the game when you lost the initiative long ago. The bird is the one that claimed they were negations, and you jumped on that same bandwagon.

You made a total disaster out of abstain, yes, and no vote which proves I can reject both yes and no proposition in favor of neither. You cant get any more negated than yes/no!

Yet strangely enough its perfectly logical to choose a 3rd option by rejecting both propositions, and proven physically no less. No lem no contradiction!

No one except you, is going to argue that yes/no/abstain is illogical in any way. LMAO

 

As I said that was not a 2 input problem, not(x) is not 2 inputs its one. You dont prove a point by posting a nonsense example.

Especially when the point you are trying to prove disproves your previous claim!



Looks just like this:



a table that I posted what is it? 30 or 40 pages ago.

Your claim was that you could pluck out x because the value of y changed nothing, which was bullshit on its face because if y changed from a 1 to a 0 that was an agnostic not atheist.

and you wonder why I dont take anything you post seriously since 2 pages after you started with this semantic nonsense merry go round of yours.

 

lets count the contradictions in your logic that you are willing to stand behind as correct till hell freezes over then ask me why I have not taken you seriously for the last 30-40 pages:



you demand that an agnostic that by definition abstains from taking either the theist or atheist position is (by your messed up logic) an atheist, despite the fact an atheist is a position that an agnostic cannot and has been proven to you does not take.

You claim a theist both believes and disbelieves at the same time, that is an unforgivable contradiction.

Words are far to fluid, logic gates and truth tables force you to put up the goods in your case proving your failure to support your claims.

Atheists, flew or otherwise do not abstain from taking the atheist position. The gates to made in support of your logic prove your logic is nonsense.

 

Yes, and you haven't from the start. It shows.

Wrong. I merely pointed at you putting forth negations. This flows from your refusal to allow yourself to understand that "not believe in God" and "Believe there is no God" aren't the same. One is a negation of "believe there is God" and one is not. You equivocate between the two with the word "Disbelieve".

What you say only makes any sense at all if Disbelieve means "Believes there is no". It does not work at all if Disbelieve means "doesn't believe". Because "Doesn't believe" is the negation of "believe" and that is where you fall into Y=!X. And that is where you are losing Swensson. I doubt you'll ever understand this, but the rest of us can see it clearly.

You thinking people have told you otherwise is 100% your own projection. It very much shows that you have not been reading what has been written to you.

PS - Are you going to admit you failed at reading that table Swensson created most recently? Or is your ego too big for that?

 

If I dismiss both atheism and theism I abstained, explain that nonsense.

I told you earlier that your problem is that you do not use complete sentences, or you mix them like the bird constantly mixing the antecedent and consequent then blaming his strawman conclusion on to me.

 

Lets see?

How many Gods does "someone who believes God does not exist" have? 1? >1? 0?

So how many Gods does "someone who does not believe God exists" have? 1? >1? 0?

Zero, exactly Zero in both cases, the word used to define that condition is semantics.

You just keep regurgitation the same nonsense that I have debunked pages ago!

I proved your semantic merry go round here:

 

It does not apply to a multiple choice circumstance.

If you did not vote yes, (voted yes=0=input) it does not mean that you voted no, (output=1=voted no) you could have abstained, and that is 100% logical.



Your logic denies other legitimate choices supported by logic.

 

I intend to write a longer response to a bunch of these, but in the meantime, I wanted to bring this one up.

In terms of logic/grammar, what is the difference between the following two statements?

If you did not vote yes, it does not mean that you voted no, you could have abstained, and that is 100% logical.
If you did not believe God exists, it does not mean that you believe God does not exist, you could have been agnostic, and that is 100% logical.​

The colourations show just how analogous the statements are. It seems to me the atheist definition intends to capture the same distinction between not doing something and doing the opposite of something as the vote example does (and uses the same logical language to do so). You seem to have no problem seeing the distinction in the voting case, how come you're failing to grasp it in the atheism case?

I never wrote those labels on the inputs/output. I would have written "voted yes" and "did not vote yes". As in the atheist case, the problem is not that I deny a third choice, the problem is that you assume that I'm talking about one of the three choices, when that's not what I'm writing (or what is written in the definition).

I don't think "voted no" is an output, since it cannot logically be deduced from the inputs in the plot (at least not in all cases).

 

if you did not vote yes, and you did not abstain then you had to vote no, there is no other option.

Thats right
if you did not believe God exists and you are not agnostic then you chose God does not exist, no other choices.

You need to start putting up your proofs instead of simply making claims based on beliefs and hunches. It certainly is if there are no other choices under consideration. You seem to enjoy inserting and removing agnostic whenever you think it can gain an inch of ground.

 

Sure I wrote those labels.
You wrote a direct opposite and so did I.
You seem to think the rules should be different for me than you.
There is 3 choices, you might have a minivan or truck which serves the exact same function.
Besides that litte exercise only proved you do not know how to set up logic logically, or you are just playing games. Its the same nonsense you tried a few pages ago. An input not attached to any function is neve up for consideration on a truth table. Total nonsense.
In so far as more than 3 choices, thats your problem, not mine.
I wrote the proofs for 3 accepted choices, if you 'think' you have or that there should be a 4th thats all on you not me.
You simply cant destroy the presently accepted options to overlay yours, (at least not withing the boundaries of 'reason') it does not work that way. The 3 choices are accepted in universities as standard. Flew was tossed out for philosophical work btw. So damn the torpedoes full speed backward!
Now if you can demonstrate this 4th option exists without interfering with existing options, you will certainly raise my eyebrows.
Up to now you posted nonsense, wishful thinking unsupportable by logic.
But hell knock yourself out!
Just stop expecting me to help you or understand what you cant logically prove.

 

You either voted yes or you didn't vote yes, whether you abstained or not. You are either theist or atheist, whether you are agnostic or not.

That's you, not anybody else.

And your adding it doesn't change anything regarding atheist or theist. You are still either one or the other. Same with voting yes or not voting yes. You are one or the other, regardless of if you voted no or not.

Again, that is you, not anybody else. You misread a table he posted. You have yet to admit to that.

Correct. Now follow it through from there.