Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

I agree, which is why it is surprising to me that you say you don't know. If "Kokomojojo believes God exists" was true, you'd know about it. So it seems to me, we can rule out "Kokomojojo believes that God exists" being true, and given that any proposition needs to be either true or false, that leaves only false as the direct answer to the question.

"Kokomojojo doesn't know whether God exists" is still likely true, it is just beside the point when we were totally able to give a direct answer to the question we asked.

Again, you're unclear about what it is you don't know. Either you don't know what you believe, which would be irrational as mentioned above, or you don't know whether God exists, which would be dodging the question, which is about whether it is true that you believe it, rather than whether it is in fact true.

Seems to me you stretch the meaning of the words into nonsense. There are plenty of "unusual" things that nonetheless exist and are allowed. I am happy to agree that the usage was unusual, and you have failed to show why that would be a problem.

It's a perfectly good example of semantic drift. Either way, my point is I see no reason to make up a new word, when there is a perfectly good word already in use, developed through the same process that every word has. If you don't like it, feel free to learn French or something.

Sure it is. The triangle example shows that a definition only cares about a direct answer to the question.

A triangle is a triangle only if the direct answer to "does it have three sides" is yes. If you don't know how many sides a shape has, it doesn't stop a shape from being a triangle, it just stops you from being informed. "I don't know" is a perfectly good response, but it is not helpful in determining whether a definition is fulfilled.

No, but a state of mind has to do with belief, and theist/atheist is defined in terms of belief.

If God exists and a person doesn't believe God exists, he is an atheist. If God does not exist and a person believes that God does exist, he is a theist. Clearly, it is the psychological state that is important when determining whether someone is a theist/atheist. The fact that you keep giving an answer about the universe when we're asking you about your mind is merely a dodge of the question.

Flew's definition asks the second (and demands the answer no). Your inability to consider the question that is asked does not make the actual answer invalid.

"Anyone who is not a theist" is the same group of people as those for whom the first statement is false. So our interpretation, the dictionaries' wording, Flew's point and the ideas behind the modern atheist movement are all aligned, it's really just you who still haven't even allowed yourself to consider the question we're interested in.

Flew has no judgements except for "certainly legitimate" on Flew's definition, and your other points have fallen flat.

For instance, I posted this:

"Here is my post in question, your response here provides no indication of what in the Stanford article you think I disagree with, or why."​

and you again had no answer. I don't mind you not following up on every paragraph we exchange, but what you call "several angles proving the point" are in fact lines of logic that you haven't tied to either the Stanford article or reality, despite our efforts to work out how your logic works.

 

Their ability to think is limited by the development of the human brain and its functions, let alone complex abstract philosophical concepts which many adults cant grasp either.

 

at least you admit your screwup.

as usual misrepresent the situation, it was I that posted an authoritive academic explanation and explained it to you and everyone else.

haha, it was enough to retire young, but then judges and attorneys in america understand the english language and they dont waste their time trolling.

 

Well what is gut busting laughable beyond imagination about this brawl, is that stanford university pointed out that with the neoatheist atheology 'lack of belief', absence, and without definitions of atheist would mean that atheists could exist without theists. Totally bass ackwards reasoning. They were kind though they simply called it "unusual"

Im telling ya I LMAO over that one.

 

we are using 'your' newly adopted rules, yardmeat dodgosophy.

If koko does not know it goes without saying koko does not disbelieve, so it cant be false.
Does not know take neither position.

 

it uses lack of belief which stanford points out that using lack of belief, absence, and without all mean that atheists could exist without the existence of theists, its irrational.

 

As I understand it, atheists do not demand proof. They emotionally know God does not exist as emotionally and as surely as believers emotionally know God does exist.
That it is agnostics who aren't sure and are looking for proof of either position so as to determine the truth.
I suppose you could say atheists can exist without theists as long as you have the concept of God to concern yourself with. The central point isn't whether each opinion is right or wrong but what each group thinks about God. It is the concept of a God and how we relate to that which is the issue, not how we relate to the others' conceptual relationship with it. IYSWIM. Atheists don't need theists. They aren't denying the actuality of theists. They need the concept of a god to be atheist because it is that which defines their position. It is that which they are denying. God does not exist because theists think it does. Otherwise God would be a mass delusion. Even theists think he exists outside their belief.

I repeat the point I made earlier. Since atheism is an emotional response to whether God exists, as much as the believers belief is an emotional response, I suggest neither is "rational" if that is defined as using reason.
And agnosticism asks for reason but withholds belief until he gets it.
Which of the three positions is more "rational" is best described as an opinion based on personal experience, personality, need, and nurturing.
And I am not sure those inputs are rational themselves.

 

I believe I do not know the answer to your questions.
Hey you agreed with yardmetisms dodgosophy, I have no problems playing by those rules, should have thought about the problems it would cause your case before you championed dodosophy, now you are stuck with it.

On the contrary you soft peddle down play them to the point of nonsense.

Well Im sorry but the word is aleady taken.

Again you complain about yardmeats dodgosophy, I highly suggest asking professor dodge that question then decide which rules you want to use, until then I dont know

I dont know

Then its not a proposition suitable for philosophical review.

Stop whining, you adopted yardmeats dodgosophy, until you discuss that with the professor I have no intention of changing your new rules.

 

Thats the whole point, no one claims God does not exist without someone first claiming God does exist. So its not possible to claim something does not exist prior to a proposition claiming something does exist.

Here I will give you some mumbo jumbo you may like?

What is religion.

Religion is best characterized as the non-empirical homologue of ideological beliefs, by contrast with science or philosophy the cognitive interest is no longer primary, but gives way to evaluative interest.

Acceptance of a religious belief is then commitment to its implementation in action in a sense in which acceptance of a philosophical belief is not.

Or, to put it more accurately a philosophical belief becomes a religious belief insofar as it is made the basis of a commitment in action.

Religious ideas may be speculative in philosophical sense, but the attitude toward them is not speculative in the sense that well "I wonder if it would make sense to look at it this way?"

Religious ideas then may be conceived as answers to the 'problems of meaning' in both senses discussed above.

On the one hand they concern the cognitive definition of the situation for action as a whole, including the cathetic and evaluative levels of interest in the situation.

This they share with ideological beliefs.

On the other hand, however, they also must include the problems of 'meaning' in the larger philosophical sense of the meaning of the objects of empirical cognition, of nature, human nature, so the vicissitudes of human life etc from the point of view.

 

In an academic sounding way, yes. A religion has to offer information and answers to questions inherent in the process of living. That is synonymous with an active faith.
Which is not really what I was talking about.
I suggested that atheists can exist without theists. All they need is the concept of a god. And this does not have to be from a theist, a believer.
You don't need to be a theist to explain to someone the possible existence of a god. You can as easily be exposed to this concept by another atheist, through a sceptical parent, through reading a book or a poem. They have always been concerned with whether God exists and in what form. There was once a Star Trek episode where the crew set off to find God. The scriptwriter wasn't necessarily a theist and the idea of there being a God may well have been a child's first time.
Which leads me to wonder if it is at all possible to grow up in normal environments not being aware of the idea of a god. Even remote places and in all recorded history including simple designs on rocks in caves denote some indication of the awareness of some abstract sense of order and design. Theists can justifiably ask, if not God, then what? And atheists can reply, just wait. Science will reveal the answer.

 

BTW I don't understand the concept of "neo atheism".
There have always been atheists and AFAIK their ideological position has not changed. There have always been atheists even if they had to never mention it or suffer either socially or actually be killed for heresy.
So what does the term mean?

 

Just cruising back to refresh my memory and caught this.
I suppose most of us have come to the point where we see this image and question it.
And for many it defines whether you believe in a god or not. The simple message was "if God is all good, to reject that means you are all bad and need to be punished ."
But this idea of eternal life can be seen as a metaphor for scientific law of thermodynamics, that matter cannot be destroyed, only changed in nature.
So your belief depends on your understanding and credibility of the real meaning behind the metaphor.
Science has given us the opportunities to make a choice.

 

[QUOTE="Jolly Penguin, post:
Which is precisely what I meant what I said the following that gave Kokomojo such trouble:Saying atheists don't believe there is a God is not the same as saying atheists believe there is no God
[/QUOTE]

It is not the same only in the word order.
The meaning is the same.

 

Atheists dismiss God for the same reason others (including many but not all atheists) dismiss ghosts, psychics, bigfoot, and the loch ness monster. They simply don't believe in such things being real. I don't know why you would think it is emotionally based.

 

It is just the buzzword used for the atheist movement of about a decade ago, with Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, etc.

They really didn't have any new ideas. They just expressed the same ideas that atheists before them had, but popularized them moreso, as atheism became more and more mainstream.

 

It is often used that way in informal language, but that is technically not correct.

Consider what I asked Kokomojo about this:

In Koko's case, he defined agnostic as both (1) and (2) above being true of an agnostic, but then also said that (1) being true means (2) is false, as you also say, because "Does not believe God exists" is the same as "believes God does not exist" (so rules out "does not "believe God does not exist"".

 

Ok so you agree that the monotheistic view of heaven and eternal life is moronic?

 

I agree that you don't either metaphors or my post.

 

its the name of a recent modern day 'militant-atheist' movement started by the 4 horseman Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens

Nothing you say do or prove will change their opinion. I quoted academic sources to the contrary but they hold strong, to their 'faith'.

 

But it was you who tried to make a difference between the two identical ideas!
You wrote that they are not the same when they clearly are!
Never mind formal and informal language. The words are identical but in a slightly different order. That is all.
The meanings of both expressions are the same.
And that is all the attention I intend to give to this example of very simple English. The discussion has moved on.

 

your comparison is 500% false analogy.

 

Rejection can be for emotional or rational reasons or indeed a combination of the two.
Since you can't prove something so utterly 100% non existent as Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster or God, the rest of your conclusion is emotional.
However believing such things are real is purely emotional because no proof of any kind that is credible has been found.
How much proof you need to believe it exists is entirely your choice.

 

If they are, then you can't have people (who Koko calls "agnostics") who both "don't believe there is a God", and also don't "believe there is no God".

If you don't believe agnostics, as defined above can exist, then ok. That would be consistent. But if you do insist they exist, then that is a contradiction.

Order sometimes matters in language.

Ok. You are the first one to join Koko in his self contradiction. He must feel less lonely now. It still remains a contradiction.

 

What analogy? There is no analogy there.

 

If you say so. I don't personally feel any particular emotion when I don't believe the Loch Ness monster is real. I don't really feel any particular emotion when I fail to believe in ghosts either. You do?