Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

What I post contains zero claims of my own thus far. All I have done thus far is try to show you your own self-contradictions. As DRI pointed out a few posts up, you haven't even made any points or claims that anyone here has disagreed with, other than you insisting that we all use your preferred terminology. But you don't get to force everyone to use your preferred wording, much to your dismay. And that causes you to think you "proved people wrong" when you haven't even addressed what they actually meant. And it causes you to think citations you post mean something they don't say they mean.

And you continuously contradict yourself even then.

So, Kokomojo the self-contradicting and confused agnostic atheist. That sums up this thread.

 

those are all claims DUH!

yes your posts prove that you contradict yourself on a regular basis as quoted above.

Neoatheist nonsense rules the day!

 

Koko the atheist hates atheists. That must make him so very sad.

 

I told you I am agnostic, agnostics are defined and have been recognized by the most prestigious philosophical agencies around the world as NOT atheists, please dont devolve into posting lies, at least post with some resemblence of integrity.

 

Flew's explicitly established the context with the "not believe God exists" definition, so if you're using anything else, you'd just be taking his argument out of context.

I guess that's about as strong as any other argument you've provided. We're not quietly forgetting the point that you haven't been able to answer these, or the arguments they're based on.

1. If you did not vote yes, it does not mean that you voted no, you could have abstained, and that is 100% logical.
2. 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.
3. If you are an atheist, it does not mean you believe that God does not exist, you could have been agnostic, and that is 100% logical.

The first statement was provided by you (please confirm whether you're backtracking on that).
The second statement follows the exact same logic, any problem with this one should also invalidate the first one. I seem to recall at one point you agreed with this ("Thats right") and then you backtracked ("seriously flawed logic!"), although you weren't very clear about why, please confirm.
The third statement is exactly the same as the second, where the "does not believe God exists" is identified as atheist, as per the definition provided by Oxford/Flew/"lackers"/etc.

Which statements of the statements 1-3 do you agree/disagree with (I have inferred that you disagree with 3, but you haven't been clear about the other two). For the first statement you disagree with, why do you disagree with that and not the one preceding it?

This doesn't seem correct to me. Towards the beginning of this thread, I argued that we are not obliged to use your context (and gave Flew's context as an example of an alternative context). Some posts down the line, you made the argument that Flew's definition and logic is illogical, and ever since then, I have argued that Flew has not made the errors you accuse him of. As such, we must look at Flew's argument in the context that Flew's argument was made, and he is not beholden to any context you're imposing in hindsight. Any time you're using the idea that atheism is "believing that there is no god", you have taken yourself out of Flew's context, which is of course a you problem, not a Flew problem.

It seems to me you have not provided any such proofs, and if anything failed to understand what would make something a proof (so badly that I can't even identify what it is you've written that you think is a proof). The fact that "I believe there is no god" is false for agnostics and "I do not believe there is a god" is true (since "I believe there is a god" is false) for agnostics is proof that they are in fact different. How does your supposed proof deal with that?

Agnostic reject "I believe there is no god", it depends on the definition whether that is what is called atheism. In Flew's context, that is not what we identify as atheism, and so, agnostics do not reject that atheism.

Of course, yes, that does mean that all non-atheists are theists (but still, you have to use the "I do not believe god exists" definition).

Non-atheists = not [not believe there is a god] = not not believe there is a god = believe there is a god = theist.​

Double negation underlined and eliminated. Chances are if you find a problem with it, you're misapplying the definition of atheist again.

Could you point us to where? Chances are we don't even recognise it as proof, or maybe even an argument in that direction (I have been reading the thread, and I don't see anything that even approaches what you say you've provided). Of course, we could argue back and forth of whether you have, but it seems like it would be faster for you to just point us to it.

 

stanford went through a very long dissertation why you cannot logically use absence of belief as a reasonable premise, hence abandoning that useless form that no longer aplies.

1) rejected[yes premise] AND rejected[no premise] = abstained
2) rejected[exist premise] AND rejected[exist premise] = abstained
3) accepted[atheist premise] AND rejected[exist premise] = abstained

1) rejects yes premise AND rejects no premise = agnostic = abstained = logical
2) rejects no premise AND rejects no premise is not agnostic = illogical
3) accepts atheism AND rejects atheism is not agnostic = illogical

= scrambled eggs logic

 

As I said from the start, all he's been doing is insisting we all use his definition, even to the point of reading Flew as using his definition when Flew is explicit he is not.

 

False, I proved your/his definition is nonsense, hence useless, ie: NFG, so of course I am going to use a definition that DOES make sense and DOES conform to logical review.

 

Nope, they concluded it couldn't be used as an umbrella term for a bunch of similar terms, which indeed is not how we're using it.

None of these correspond to what I've been asking you (not that I asked you to rewrite them in any sense). The sentences I asked you about do not contain any "AND"s, so I'm not sure why your answers all include AND statements. It would help a lot if you answered my questions, instead of performing a bunch of incorrect interpretation first.

Similarly, is there a typo in the second line? Both antecedents look the same, whereas in my second line, they follow the same logic as in the first one, where you seem correctly to have identified them as different.

Similarly, your last bit has an "accepted" that I don't recall putting in any of my statements. I'm not really interested in whether you agree with statements where you have changed half the wordings in ways I don't agree to, I asked you if you agreed with the statements I wrote.

 

You proved no such thing. And even had you done so, it wouldn't magically make Flew use your preferred definition. You are reading him with a meaning of a word you know very well he did not mean. It is pure strawman, and I think you know it.

Again, all you have done all thread is pretend people are using your preferred definition of words, even when they explicitly say they are not. You did that with Flew, Swensson, myself, DRI, and even your own quoting of a dictionary definition that you yourself selected.

Once you declare that people meant what they obviously and explicitly did not mean, then sure, it is much easier to declare the new thing you just created and pretend they said is oh so very wrong. So good for you I suppose.

But you have not proved them wrong if you have not even addressed what they actually meant.

 

which indeed IS EXACTLY how we're using it.

Yep it was a typo, I was too lazy to correct it

Yeh if you call yourself an atheist you accepted atheism

I did, in fact I proved semantics, and of course when I told you about supplying the definitions to prove it you posted the wrong ones LOL


"Dirty Rotten Imbecile likes this"
Riddle me this batman, why would you like what you earlier admitted you do not understand?
Im curious why people do those things?

 

You proved Semantics? LOL ok then. Whatever you think that means. But the fact remains that you haven't even addressed what you pretended to prove oh so very wrong, to multiple people, repeatedly. You pretend people mean something other than what they mean so you can attack them. This is pure strawman, and you look more and more ridiculous with every post.

Only if we go with your preferred definition of atheist. Many of us here prefer the definition of atheist as meaning simply not being theist. And that makes you, one who neither believes in God nor believes there is no God, an atheist to us, whether you like it or not.

 

and the truth comes out, neoatheists are all bent out of shape because I dont go with and accept 'their preferred illogical' definition, sorry.

I do know exactly what you want, but you cant force logic to sanction it.

 

which you and swensson have been arguing for over 100 pages is atheist, nice cognitive dissonant switcheroo!

 

Based on your definition, I am Agnostic.

 

Nobody said YOU have to use any particular definition. I'd be happy to work with whatever definition you want, to understand what YOU say. But you don't get to tell everyone else what definition they must use. And you certainly won't convince anyone of anything when you pretend people used a definition that they did not, and when you pretend they said something they did not, so you can prove "them" (really your imagination) oh so very wrong.

I want you to get off your ego trip and allow yourself to actually have a coherent conversation, even if it risks you not having proved everybody else oh so very wrong.

 

As am I, if we speak of any "God" instead of particular Gods that I do indeed find implausible and incoherent and self-contradicting, like the Christian one.

I've never heard an argument that I found convincing for believing a deist God doesn't exist, for example.

 

No ego trip, are you kidding? THis is 101

I most certainly when it comes to logic, if you want to throw all that out the window then you are right, and I will sit back just give me a front row seat tothe show please

I dont know, all I do know is that you are one or the other not both, dont care, you have to decide which.

The way to make such a decision is simply to ask yourself if you believe in God, if yes done, if no then ask yourself if you believe God does not exist, if no then agnostic, if yes then atheist

 

lol

 

My theory is that Koko is so disgusted by people who do believe there is no God, that he doesn't want to be associated with them in any way, even though both he and they don't believe in God, and are therefore atheists by Flew's definition. I think Koko is so disturbed by this that he can't or won't let himself understand that people use the word differently. He won't accept that, even to the point of demanding he knows what people mean to say than they do themselves. It is quite the display. And its funny because he could have simply acknowledged that under Flew's definition he is an atheist, but he finds the atheists who believe there is no God bad or evil or wrong or insane or whatever.

Perhaps an actual conversation could have unfolded from there, but we instead have literally seen him go around in circles for over 70 pages here declaring, demanding, insisting on and bickering over not an actual argument of any sort, but nothing but mere semantics. But remember, he "proved semantics" (so he claims).

 

You failed at logic many times in this thread. Refusing to and then badly answering Swensson's question was the most recent example.

But here is another:

Atheist = Don't believe in God
Agnostic = Don't believe in God + Don't believe there is no God
Therefore Agnostic is atheist.

Not Ascending = Not going up
Stationary = Not going up + not going down
Therefore Starionary is Not Ascending.

You say you must be either Not Ascending or be Stationary, and can't be both.
Some other idiot says you must be either Atheist or Agnostic, and can't be both.
Those both make no sense and do not compute for the same reason. You fail at logic.

See? We can play this game of yours too where you pretend somebody meant something they didn't by equivocating a word. You did it to us for 75 pages, now maybe we should do it to you.

 

Not us. The example reason the Stanford article gives for rejecting Bullivant's umbrella understanding is that it does not include "believe there is no god" (since the latter is a belief, but "not believe" is not, so in fact the Stanford article's objection is that they do identify the two as not semantically equivalent). That being said, their objection has more to do with the nature of belief than it does with who is correctly described by the terms.

Lazy? You completely overworked the question by trying to rephrase them at all, it would be quicker, easier, less error prone (and would look less like you're trying to avoid uncomfortable questions) if you just answered what I asked. My questions remain as below. Please answer these questions, and not ones you've modified.

1. If you did not vote yes, it does not mean that you voted no, you could have abstained, and that is 100% logical.
2. 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.
3. If you are an atheist, it does not mean you believe that God does not exist, you could have been agnostic, and that is 100% logical.

The first statement was provided by you (please confirm whether you're backtracking on that).
The second statement follows the exact same logic, any problem with this one should also invalidate the first one. I seem to recall at one point you agreed with this ("Thats right") and then you backtracked ("seriously flawed logic!"), although you weren't very clear about why, please confirm.
The third statement is exactly the same as the second, where the "does not believe God exists" is identified as atheist, as per the definition provided by Oxford/Flew/"lackers"/etc.

Which statements of the statements 1-3 do you agree/disagree with (I have inferred that you disagree with 3, but you haven't been clear about the other two). For the first statement you disagree with, why do you disagree with that and not the one preceding it?

My logic includes only exactly that which is captured in the definition. If you're having to add a bunch of logic to it, then you're avoiding the question I have actually asked.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say you proved semantics. The two definitions refer to different (although often similar/overlapping) things. The definitions I have provided are the ones that Flew uses, if you're using different ones, you're finding errors in something other than Flew's logic. Why are we even trying to prove this or that, when we can just apply it as-is?

 

Shees...
Like you bulklivant attempted to argue flew as legitimate, he failed and went down in flames, right along with oxford.
stanford points out that the ONLY reason flew is worthy of mention is that 'its popular in some circles', which is not a test of legitimacy.
In so far as this discussion flew logic fails, stanford demonstrated it, in someone different but equally legitimate terms.
In fact stanford even joked about how flews nonsense leaves strong atheism out in the rain LOL

You are the one that rephased them, I am the one that created them. (as usual)

If you state that you are an atheist you are claiming some variant of I do not believe, if you are stating agnostic you are claiming that you abstain from voting either atheist of theist. You undermine yourself using flew

Do you mean you dont know what semantics means?
The bird knows, he has been busy name calling since he came into the thread.

We went through this before, Flew provided no "definition."
I even drew a pretty picture showing how your version fails the sniff test.




I made extensive efforts to show you how to set up flew



Lack of belief (flew) works out the same way when set up properly.
Apparently you and the cheerleader simply refuse to wrap your minds around an ordered system of logic and grammar.

I skip past most of your cheerleaders posts (except when he contradicts himself or you) because its all name calling and attacks me with lackey reasoning.

 

Because as Flew actually uses the word "atheist", it includes Koko, and koko has a visceral disgust for the word.

I bet if you instead had said Not-Theist you wouldn't be running into this brick wall with Koko.

 

Im sure that is 'politically' motivating to the 'everything is atheist' neoatheist movement but as far as logic goes it falls directly on its ass, and if you dont like my way of proving it, read stanford U's version. There are several approaches that prove its nonsense.