Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

Well, the direct quote from you is:

"Taking this a step further, even though the logic involved with a newborn fits agnostic, technically they would not even be agnostic since agnostic like theism requires a conscious reasoned conclusion that a newborn is incapable of making, and as said...absence, without and lack require no conclusion, no affirmation.
However a newborn would be far closer to agnostic than either atheist or theist, at least as far as a best fit is concerned." (source, my underlining)​

I commented most directly on the underlined phrase, it says that the logic involved with a newborn fits agnostic. If you have a correctly set up logic, it wouldn't agree with things that aren't true.

For most of our purposes, I agree with what the Stanford article is saying, but not necessarily with what you infer from what the Stanford article is saying. In this particular case, it's not even clear what statement you think I disagree with. Either way, I'd prefer you address the arguments as I make them, not via your misunderstandings of the Stanford article.

There is a difference between a proposition actually being true and a person believing that a proposition is true. You seem to conflate the two, by suggesting that God existing being true is the same as a person "responding" that God exists.

I have anchored my position in logic fundaments and literal examples. You seem merely to restate your position with no justification. I have given a full argument, and if you're having problems understanding it, I'm happy to explain it, if you can point to what aspect you're not getting.

Your explanation here does not take into account the difference between a proposition and belief in that proposition. The distinction is obvious (a statement can be false even though it is true that a particular person believes it), but your statements about seem to mix them up.

 

there it is, all I have to do is take a giant crap every morning religiously and then I can claim its a religion!

 

You can claim whatever you want. And you do claim many things, rarely explaining what you write or backing anything up.

Also, look it's Swensson who you claimed you "defeated" and who you claimed left the thread. And he is again reposting what you claim you addressed but never have. Well done.

 

You've done that before, it's not relevant.

Face it, you're out of gas..

 

The "is water wet" debate was brought up for a laugh, but of course Koko has no sense of levity. And despite the question being debated on both sides by competent scientists, Koko of course claims his side is the only rational side.

 

you were allegedly justifying this

and again you change the argument by posting the same strawman the bird claims is a legitimate explanation, since in both cases the stated person IS believing!

 

Because its a fact! There is no argument!




And I got the last laugh!

There is no way in hell anyone that is a legitimate 'scientist' was arguing over that much less 'competent'. Id believe some troll in their mothers basement would argue it.

Water is wet because it has strong adhesive bonding abilities due to the loose hydrogen bonds, both to itself and dissimilar molecules.

Liquids are categorized as wet due to this principle!

Atheism is a religion just like water is WET!

 

I always get a kick out of people that defy established 'facts'.

Seems you have joined the orwell club with the rest of these guys.

Its electric, not gas, with a full charge!

 

"This person does not believe God exists" is not the stated person believing. It is the stated person not believing. If you want to argue that this stated person by virtue of not believing God exists must thereby also believe God does not exist, make your argument for that. You have neglected to do so.

Such an argument could be made. But it would not be a claim about semantics. It would be a claim about human psychology, and if accepted it would render your definition of "agnostic" nonsensical and self-contradictory.

PS - filling the screen with laughing emojis and dog gifs only make you look more the crackpot, not less.

 

Please pay attention, the bird totally fabricated that I made a claim that in fact he made, I proved it using the quote function, its what we are arguing about right this very second.

All readers should realize by now that the bird is all about fabrication smoke and mirrors to attract the weak minded.

As we can see since HE FALSELY CLAIMED (as usual, nothing new there) I ignored swenssons nonsense post when in fact I shut swenssons argument down by proving it is 100% nonsense strawman.

you seem to keep falling for it, I suppose because it fits your agenda.

That is called a rebuttal, with proof to the contrary, the bird is simply in denial, nothing new there either.

 

There is believing and there is knowing. So believe what you will. I know of what I speak. True Christianity is not a belief. It is a spiritual certainty to those who know, similar to an agreement of a shared value between two or more people, which springs from conscience. That you and I agree that it is wrong to murder, we have agreed upon the light and spirit of conscience which has no tangible, definable, or measurable origin. Yet we raise that standard, regardless the lack of tangible or scientific proof of conscience, because we know what we know, doubt be damned. Similarly, true Christianity is shared in common among true converts. It is part of being reborn, with a refreshing or enlargement of conscience, and a newness of heart. We are all born and live in the light of conscience. So why not reborn to life in God? Can prisoners not go free? Would you deny mercy her own. Where is your adventure. Take heart, God lives...and not to destroy, but to save. Wake up.

 

otherwise swensson contradicts his own LEM rules LOL
leaves you kids with 2 choices, oh **** and oh ****!

 

neither of which can be shown to be a fact in anyones mind but your own.

 

No it is not. It doesn't address what Swensson actually wrote, as he has himself pointed out twice now (and you continue to ignore).

 

That would be an interesting claim if you actually explained it.

Perhaps you make sense to yourself and have a great point, and are just a horrible communicator and can't express it. That's a possibility.

 

I'll only explain it once.

The difference between "atheists don't believe there is a God" and "atheists believe there is no God" is crystal clear in the Stanford article you like to quote from, even though you don't really understand what the quotes you choose really mean and generally ignore the larger context.

"Atheists don't believe there is a God" describes weak atheism, the psychological state of lack of belief in god/s.

"Atheists believe there is no God" describes strong atheism. It's a proposition, not a psychological state.

Bullivant's attempt to use Flew's definition of atheism as an umbrella term fails because of the difference between the two sentences (or rather what is described by the sentences, but there's no need to split hairs, a quote from Stanford will clarify the matter). This is what Standford tells us, anyway, and I'll take their word over yours.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

When Stanford tells you that "don't believe there is a god" is not the same as "believe there is no god", you better believe it.

 

I said there are several flavors, and there are.

You're talking about yourself.

 

Well, when you say you are agnostic, I take you at your word. Only you know if you aren't being honest. Or are you suggesting that I shouldn't believe anything you say. And I've already explained how two or more people having a common value, that it can come from either conscience or the higher thing in God. Then it becomes a shared fact, regardless the lusts of reprobate brutes lurching about in contradiction. That's why we have a justice system to arrest the violators of our shared standards. Some criminals respect nothing. But that takes nothing away from the law. Standards aren't to lord over others, but as a reflection of our recognizance of what's right.

 

Yep. Anyone who can draw a Venn Diagram can understand it. Even 99.99% of the people who are initially confused by the concept easily get it after a brief conversation, but there's still that .001% that is obsessed with engaging in nothing but petty semantic arguments.

 

Nope.

 

It's sort of strange that you totally missed the first part of that definition. Here it is the whole definition:

: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable
broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god​

Further down on that page we get this:

How Agnostic Differs From Atheist
Noun

Many people are interested in distinguishing between the words agnostic and atheist. 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. This distinction can be troublesome to remember, but examining the origins of the two words can help.

Agnostic first appeared in 1869, (possibly coined by the English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley), and was formed from the Greek agnōstos (meaning "unknown, unknowable"). Atheist came to English from the French athéisme. Although both words share a prefix (which is probably the source of much of the confusion) the main body of each word is quite different. Agnostic shares part of its history with words such as prognosticate and prognosis, words which have something to do with knowledge or knowing something. Atheist shares roots with words such as theology and theism, which generally have something to do with God.​

This makes it sound like being an agnostic is more about not knowing that God exists than believing or not believing, while theism and atheism are not about knowing, but about believing that a God exists or not exists. In fact, agnostic could be applied to other concepts and not just god or gods, while theism and atheism can only be about a god or gods.

 

He's already agreed in the past that his definition of "religion" is so broad that being a baseball fan is a religion. He's also said that everyone believes in a god . . . while also saying he's agnostic about the existence of a god. There's nothing consistent here. It's worse than bad semantics, it's self-contradictory bad semantics.

 

Yes. And you pointed this out to Koko years ago. I was amazed it went back that far with him when I discovered it did. As you said then, he flips around based on his talking point at the moment, and won't acknowledge that they conflict.

He is an "agnostic" (as he defines the word), and doesn't believe that there is a God or that there isn't a God, yet he also declares that his not believing in a God means that he does believe in a God.

 

false your interpretation of what I said as usual is ****ed up.
I never said baseball fan is a religion.

I have always said I am agnostic and used the accepted established definition.

YOu need to first comprehend what I said in context, its YOUR failure.

Yes you like the others do that well!

 

False, I showed he was talking about something entirely different proving you made it all up to cover your ass by false pretenses. Nothing new here folks.