Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

That is not the difference that allows me to be agnostic. You are very confused.

I did address it, why dont you set a good example?
Why dont you give us an full syllogism proving THIS:

is not nonsense?

How can something that means the same thing have an important difference?

Here is something very simple for you;
can you prove God exists? Y/N?
can you prove God does not exist? Y/N?
simple questions.

 

Because neoatheists have short memories, often they forget that the answers are in the part they just quoted much less page to page.

 

Your reply doesn't make sense. Meaning of what?

Flew's definition, irrespective of how Stanford addresses it, is totally irrelevant for the failure of Bullivant's "umbrella term" theory. Stanford clearly says that the theory fails because, although it includes weak atheism [doesn't believe god exists) it "leaves strong atheism [believes god does not exist] out in the rain".
No amount of hiding behind ridiculous strawmen, which is what you do best, is going to change the spirit or letter of the Stanford article.

Again, Flew's definition is irrelevant in the context. Stanford is crystal clear: Bullivant's theory fails because it covers "doesn't believe god exists" while not covering "believes god does not exist".

You're welcome to prove that "doesn't believe god exists" and "believes god does not exist" are non propositions. Which still wouldn't lead any sane person with more than two functioning neurons to the conclusion that these two sentences have the same meaning.

 

rebutting flew coveredi it.
its purely semantic
Klima explained it, swenssons Horn reference explained it. (though not citation he posted)
stanford made it perfectly clear that a psychological state is 'not' a proposition despite the fact neoatheists insist on pounding round pegs in square holes even after being proven wrong from every conceivable angle. Both sane and insane angles.

When stanford said that it means there is no possible way to 'reasonably' conceive it differently as a valid philosophical premise.

In other words you have a faulty premise on its face.

maybe an easier way for you peeps to wrap your mind around it is;

if a person "doesn't believe god exists" |God exists = no|
if a person "believes god does not exist". |God exists = no|

if |God exists = no| in both cases how can your meaning be different,

or does it mean something else?

Can they respond with a yes to the question?
That would after all make them a theist would it not?
So how are they 'meaningfully' different?

Flews definition is also irrelevant as a proposition, because its a psychological state, not a proposition, stanford addressed that.

 

That why you people cant wrap your mind around this.
You see everything trough your rose colored glasses.
You cant ambiguously apply your meanings, you have to take stanfords meanings in context.
This has been cited countless times and you and the 3 amigos dont get it!

Stanford:
This undermines Bullivant’s argument in defense of Flew’s definition; for it implies that what he calls “strong atheism”—the proposition (or belief in the sense of “something believed”) that there is no God—is not really a variety of atheism at all.

Not atheism at all!

In short, his proposed “umbrella” term leaves so-called strong atheism (or what some call positive atheism) out in the rain. Although Flew’s definition of “atheism” fails as an umbrella term, it is certainly a legitimate definition in the sense that it reports how a significant number of people use the term.


You people do not think in the realm of philosophy, none of you do.
More like bar room brawlers.

Flew, stated point blank that his whole gig, the presumption of atheism, is based upon !theist, or (not)theist.

Flew defined it as !theist, bullivant attempted to defend flews !theist definition!

!theist means even the brain dead are atheists,
!theist is not positive atheism, PERIOD.

Thats Flew not bullivant!

As I said countless times bullivant was arguing on behalf of flews !theist and went up in flames failing miserably since flews proposition isnt even valid in the first place.

Now you post your self aggrandizing regurgitation as you and the 3 amigos like to hear it and your claims dont even apply.

Swensson argued your argument earlier and failed pretending that bullivant had their own twist on flew, which is false on its face since !theist is NOT positive atheism, and it even fails as a valid proposition, PERIOD.

Stanford goes on to state:
it is certainly a legitimate definition in the sense that it reports how a significant number of people use the term.

Its a legitimate definition because dictionaries report how people use the term no matter how ridiculous or bat **** crazy the usage is.

You and the 3 amigos pretend that any damn usage is academically legitimate, well, news flash its not.

 

Why are the neoathiest arguments we have seen so far in favor of flew so stupid?

Stanford said straight up "Flews definition" not 'bullivants definition' or bullivants defense of flews definition.
Cant be said more crystal! Only exceedingly poor grammar skills or someone trying to obfuscate the issue with bullshit would even dream of arguing it is not flews definition.

Flews definition presumes everyone is an atheist, thats why he called it the, ready for this, "the presumption of atheism", and that IS an umbrella definition and its laughable to argue otherwise since it includes ALL, as in everyone on the planet, no exceptions.

If you have the presumption 'endotherm mammals are (not)cold-blooded' then that is an umbrella term stating a claim that NO endotherm mammals are cold blooded. There you have it.

 

Pure projection. I did answer your questions. You did not answer mine. Nor do you answer anyone else's questions.

I asked if what I wrote misrepresented or misunderstood you, and if so how so, and asked you to clarify it. You don't respond to that, but instead tell me you understand me. I doubt it. But okay.

It isn't? I am? If so, then everyone but you is confused. That probably means poor communication on your part, don't you think? So why don't you explain this to us all then rather than continually dodge doing so?

We have been waiting for you to answer that very question. How can you both not believe God exists and not believe God does not exist, if not believing God exists is the same as believing God does not exist?

You can't. If it means the same thing it means the same thing. If it does not it does not. You can't have both. Yet you claim both. Explain.

No.

No.

So?

 

It means something else. Are you confusing belief with what is actually so, as yardmeat suggested?

Simply ask yourself both questions.

Do you believe God exists?
Do you believe God does not exist?

Your definition of agnostic says no to both. But you are here telling us that answering no the the first question means answering yes to the second. If what you claim here were true then you could not be agnostic as you define that word.

 

can you prove that it will ever for all eternity be possible to prove God exists? Y/N
can you prove that it will ever for all eternity be possible to prove God does not exist? Y/N

 

No and no.

Why do you keep asking questions and answer none?

 

So we established that we cant prove it now,
that we failed to establish its even provable at all.

How do you know an answer in fact exists?

How do you know the answer is either true or false if we do not know an answer exists?

What is the 'truth' value under these conditions?

Is it possible to have a truth value under these conditions?

 

We can play Schrodinger later, but first, how about you actually address what you were asked?

What makes you think you are entitled to ask question after question without answering any yourself? I just answered 4 of yours. How about you answer some from others?

Who is the real Dr. Dodge here? Appears to be you.

 

Sure I will answer your question, I have/hold neither psychological state of mind. I would have to have a conviction either way to have either psychological state of mind. I have neither.

 

So you dont think that we first need to establish the question is rational?

 

So what do you think? Think yardmeat will man up and thank me for solving his nonsense agnostic position of "I dont know", a position that every university on the planet would flunk him on? Stanford points out that the "I dont know" position is bunk, right along side "Lack of belief".

 

So you answer no to "Do you believe God exists". You don't believe that. You don't believe God exists.

You also answer no to "Do you believe God doesn't exist".

But you also say that answering no to the first is the same as answering yes to the second. But you answer no to the second.

I have been asking you explain this all this time since I entered this thread. You never have.

 

Does X exist or not seems to be a rational question on the face of it. It would be irrational to ask if X exists if X was defined incoherently I suppose.

 

you asked what my state of mind is, I told you that I do not have either state of mind that you described.

 

And you have told us that not having the one state of mind means you must have the other.

 

ah yes when in a corner resort to cheating!

 

Pardon?

"Cheating"? Cheating how so? Cheating at what?

I have over and over and over again asked you for clarification and to state if I misunderstand you, and to correct any such misunderstanding. If what you wrote before is not what you meant to write or if you no longer agree with it, that's fine. Just tell us.

I am not looking to win anything on an internet forum. There is no reason for me to "cheat" at anything. If something I said was incorrect, that's fine. Being wrong doesn't bother me. It is how I learn. But you have yet to show I am wrong in that quote you keep repeating of mine, which in itself was a response to you having said there was no difference, which you have since repeated.

If you can show that there can be no difference between not believing X is true and believing X is false, that's cool. I'd like to see your argument, and I'd hope it is more than just that people often mean the same by both in casual speech, which everyone has already agreed about.

But if you want to prove these must be "merely semantic" (as you call it), then you'll have to explain why you also say (or appear to say) the opposite when you define yourself as "agnostic", if you want to be seen as at all coherent or rational by anyone who reads your posts.

 

Yep, no quotes = made up ****.

 

If you are unable or unwilling to follow your own post history, explain anything you said before, correct any misunderstandings resulting from your poor communications, etc, then I don't know what further can be said to you.

If you ever decide to engage in good faith conversation on this topic, let me know.

 

What???
I am!
Its you who is trying to force me to answer your strawmen claims about me, sorry, no quotes = lies, thats a well understood convention on forums. So no need to lecture me about "good faith" when its you who did not use the quote feature and attributed a false claim to me.

I told you that I hold neither psychological belief.

Sorry you lost the battle, better luck next time.

 

Asking you repeatedly to explain your position, clear up any misunderstanding, quoting charts you made and showing how they seem to conflict with what you then later say, and giving every opportunity to change what you say, rephrase what you say, correct any misunderstanding of what you say, while you never opt to do so, is actually the polar opposite of strawmanning you.

You then also told us (within the last page or so of this thread) that not believing God exists is the same as believing God does not exist. It's "just semantic" you told us.

You then dodged every single time you were asked to explain how both of the above can be so at the same time.

That you call it a "battle" when people try to understand what you are saying and what you do and do not believe, tells us everything we need to know about your approach.

Again, let me know if you ever wish to speak on this topic in good faith.