Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

I think everyone here can see it is far more politically motivating that you refuse to acknowledge what somebody meant by a word and insist on pretending they said something else.

This thread hasn’t been you speaking out against people who believe there is no God, and their evil agenda to lump all who don’t believe in God with them, doing so by calling them all “atheist”. That would actually be an argument (well, an opinion anyway). That could be coherent and honest.

But you don’t even get that far. You instead keep insisting on pushing straw men positions on everyone you interact with and you keep pretenders my they said what they did not say, and pretending proved them wrong.

You make tables that mislabel what these people say and pretend they don’t work etc.

Whatever you are referring to when you point at universities etc, perhaps they have some good points and good arguments, but if so, it is crystal clear you don’t understand them. If you did, you would be making actual arguments instead of endlessly trying to change the meaning of what people write.

That’s all you do. And it has been apparent since you quoted a dictionary and then had to do dishonest notation to change what it actually said into what you wanted it to say. I bet you these universities don’t do that.

 

Everyone? You must have a hullava lot of mice in your pocket!

Im sorry, but you can twist this any way you want, it boils down to academics have rejected flew entirely, and only mentioned flew to report it as an anomaly.

I gave you all the proofs, easy peasy, sorry it throws a wrench into your religion!

Obviously you missed or did not understand my previous post:

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 completely leaves strong atheism out in the rain LOL

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

Swensson: 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.

Take note of my precise systematic logic!




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 conflated rhetoric and lackey reasoning used to gain political advantage by subterfuge and misrepresent my arguments.


.

 

Why do those of religious faith, a belief in supernatural beings ruling over us, find such a need to try and assign the same to those who do not believe in supernatural beings ruling over us? That is what is religious faith. You might as well be saying not believing he unicorns or leprechauns, Santa Claus are the same as religious faith.

 

Summary of thread so far:

Kokomojojo does not believe in Theism. Kokomojojo does not believe in Atheism. Kokomojojo has faith in Agnosticism.

I am a cheerleader and Jolly Penguin is a bird.

 

He thinks I am also a cheerleader. I just do it better because I was born with a tuxedo and wings.

And he ignores much of what we all write (Swensson's simple repeated question he keeps dodging for example) because he knows he can't answer them without exposing his political agenda.

 

Take your pick:

1. Because if they allowed themselves to understand that we actually and truly don't believe what they do, that would make such questioning exist, and that may put them in danger of doubt. And if they became a non-believer, they would lose their social connections etc, and also go to hell (depending on their particular religious view).

2. Because they understand that belief by sheer willpower is irrational, and being irrational makes them look bad, so to avoid this they demand atheism is also or is even moreso a faith based position.

 

Nope, I respond with corrections to the garbage reasoning you post and if you ignore or do not understand it is the answer that is not my problem! I used to offer you cheese to go with your whine, but you ate it all.

You see, despite yourselves everybody is figuring out the bogus neoatheist claim!

Here is another nail in the neoatheist coffin!

In the religious sense of the word, agnosticism means neither believing in nor disbelieving the existence of God. It's a middle ground. Religious agnostics say “We don't know whether there is a God or not; it cannot be known.” But that's only one of the ways the term agnosticism is used.Apr 7, 2017

In the general, non-religious sense, agnosticism means being undecided or uncommitted to a particular side of a debate or disagreement

What Is Agnosticism? | Grammarly Blog

All you agnostic-atheists and agnostic-theists got a copy on that snoot full of reality yet?

The only mistake they made above is agnostic is totally not a middle ground, its a 3rd option of summary rejection. Like I said Neoatheists really need to get an education in GRAMMAR, LOGIC, REASON before entering these kinds of debates. Thanks though for proving another nail in the coffin of neoatheism irrationality!

 

Well, the Stanford explicitly wrote that the popularity is the thing that makes it "certainly legitimate" (as has been pointed out before, it is the only metric that makes any word legitimate, since no word would be what it is if it wasn't being used). Either way, the only reference to failure is with respect to the "umbrella usage", which wasn't Flew's addition.

You created some, and not others. Either way, I think they will show quite clearly where you're making logical leaps that don't hold up. And your continuous failure to answer them is pretty damning as well.

Let's try again. All I'm asking for is "Agree" or "Disagree" for each of the three statements, and at whichever point you switch from "Agree" to "Disagree", explain what is different about the logic in the one before and the one after.

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?

To "not believe" is a negation of "believe", which means it follows under the Law of the Excluded Middle, which means that "neither" is not an option. It is of course perfectly possible to be an agnostic, so the conclusion is that you have misidentified the "atheist position" as one of the things that agnostics abstain from.

As I quoted from the dictionary earlier, semantics is the study of meaning (and some related things). In a sense, every definition is semantic.

In this particular instance, the two definitions refer to different things with the same word (just like "orange") and equating them is the fallacy of equivocation.

Nope, you have two things which you label as negations be 0 at the same time, thereby breaking the Law of the Excluded Middle (of course, the solution is that you have misidentified one of the terms of the negation, and therefore misidentified "atheism" as defined by for instance the Oxford reference that you pointed to). Reposting the same tables with the same errors in them does nothing but indicate that you still haven't even grasped the fundamental issue of the discussion.

I skip most posts that are not aimed at me.

 

That is the truth table from the mess you posted.

You totally took this over the deep end in the nonsense below.
I do not agree with any of your structure, grammar, or logic modifications.
construction errors previously explained, nonsequitur grammar so forth and so on.
please correct it before you get back to me.

nice try to muddy the waters with nonsense

 

Actually the way you've worded this makes it false.

You can't neither believe nor not believe. You must either believe or not. You must either A or !A. You said this yourself earlier in the thread.

The way Swensson worded it works though. Because he is not saying A or !A. He's noting a difference between believing something is so (A) and believing something is not so (B). That is different from believing something is so (A) and not believing it is so (!A).

I am sad for you if you really can't tell the difference.

 

be sad for yourself because your response demonstrates that you dont know the difference between logic and grammar.

 

If you say no to both "I believe" and "I do not believe", you are not abstaining. You are lying.

You can't be both A and not A.

It really is just a "distinction without a difference" to you, as you said before, isn't it? You really can't see that "I do not believe there is" and "I believe there is not" are not synonymous?

You should never try to write the LSAT.

 

good point!
now if I could just find any of that.

nope no luck, but thanks for your valuable input!

 

So Kokomojojo, I am a bit curious about the religion of Agnisticism. What does that look like for you? I know that you reject the claim that gods exist and the claim that gods do not exist. How does that decision affect your lifestyle?

 

I dont suffer from cognitive dissonance like neoatheists

The likelyhood I will every develop signs of dementia during my lifetime is next to nil.

Because I have a very well organized, flexible, and highly structured neoplastic brain processes

and because I am not addicted to social opiate drugs typical society is hopelessly dependent on, or any at all for that matter, socially or medically.

As a result I have no need to stand in a waiting line to get a fix.

I would ask what agnostic atheist does for you but everyone knows that is nothing more than hedging your bet

 

Yeah it’s good to make sure you maintain good circulation too. Make sure your arteries don’t get clogged.

What I am asking though is how you lived your life religiously. Have you ever attended church or anything in your life?

 

my religion is the exercise of my values which goes without saying is a direct end function of my core beliefs.

Just like you exercise yours, but with differences.

For instance the religion of an agnostic-atheist is doubting what they believe.

oh and as usual my wireless keyboard cuts out, that was supposed to say: neuroplastic in my last post not neoplastic.

 

Have you ever heard of hedging your bets this way? Some Christians tell you that if you are agnostic then it still makes more sense to go to church. If you go to church and there is no God at least you lived a good life. If there is a God you saved yourself from going to hell. If you don’t go to church and there is a god you’re going to burn in hell.

 

I dont need to hedge my bets, but yes its quite common for wannabe infirm atheists. They take comfort in believing that if they do not step all the way out and they made a mistake maybe God would overlook their infirmity.

 

Note how Koko was full of arrogant bluster but didn't answer your question at all. The irony is that he holds the same belief state that you do, as an agnostic atheist. You both neither say there is a God nor that there is no God. You merely disagree on what to call that.

 

False, again your post proves a failure to correctly distinguish atheist from agnostic.

Claiming agnostic-atheist is valid usage commits 'fusion fraud', a typical neoatheist ploy.

LMAO!

This was a fun read, some snippets:

An Agnostic Manifesto

By Ron Rosenbaum

Let’s get one thing straight: Agnosticism is not some kind of weak-tea atheism. Agnosticism is not atheism or theism. It is radical skepticism, doubt in the possibility of certainty, opposition to the unwarranted certainties that atheism and theism offer.

I would not go so far as to argue that there’s a “neo agnosticism” on the rise. But I think it’s time for a neo agnosticism, one that takes on the Neo Atheists.

Indeed agnostics see atheism as “a theism”—as much a faith-based creed as the most orthodox of the religious variety.

This is—or should be—grade-school stuff, but many of the Neo Atheists seemed to have stopped thinking since their early grade-school science-fair triumphs. I’m thinking in particular here of the ones who like to call themselves “the brights.”

It’s amazing how the Neo Atheists boastfully stride over this pons asinorum as if it weren’t there.

You know about the pons asinorum, right? The so-called “bridge of asses” described by medieval scholars? Initially it referred to Euclid’s Fifth Theorem, the one in which geometry really gets difficult and the sheep are separated from the asses among students, and the asses can’t get across the bridge at all.

Agnosticism is not for the simple-minded and is not as congenial as atheism and theism are.

(I should probably say here that I still consider myself Jewish in everything but the believing in God part, which, I’ll admit, others may take exception to.)

As Errol Morris put it in the conclusion of one his epic multipart New York Times examination of anosognosia—not knowing what we don’t know:

We have “the desire but not the wherewithal to make sense of experience. One might easily forsee that this would lead to unending unmitigated frustration and suffering. But here’s where self-deception [and] anosognosia … step in. We wouldn’t be able to make sense of anything, but we would never be aware of that fact.”

the world has suffered enough from oversimplifications.

The agnostic moment has come.
https://slate.com/human-interest/2010/06/the-rise-of-the-new-agnostics.html

 

Yeah, except that’s not what it means as I have pointed out like numerous times.

 

you profess a proven fusion fraud as a valid identity, just like other neoatheists out here.

 

You're not allowed to use words differently from how Koko wants you to. That's what this entire thread has been about.

Imagine if we started speaking French or Vietnamese or something. He's go into complete madness.

 

I just express how I live my life as a result of how I answer the question of whether or not God exists. To me that is an important distinction that you leave unanswered.