Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

I am not interested in your disagreement with Koko.
I am merely telling you that your sentences say the same thing. You cannot base an argument on the fact that they are different in meaning.
As I said I have no interest in explaining, proving or accepting any position Koko feels he wants to adopt concerning his relationship with the concept of a god.

 

In terms of "emotional" as opposed to "rational", everyone does.
A leap of faith is emotional. Walking on a bridge you can measure is rational. You have to pick which is safest. And that is what we all do.

 

You just added the word "no" which makes the two thoughts diametrically opposed. The word was not included in your original statement.
What you now have is s description of being unsure. That of an agnostic.[/QUOTE]

 

??

Are you saying that "Believes God does not exist" and "Believes there is no God" are different?
But "Does not Believe God exists" and "Believes God does not exist" are the same?

If so... I don't agree at all. And I don't know anybody other than you two who would.

 

The bird has a nice pretense that his poor grammar gave me trouble. The bird thinks it caused me trouble. It was my pleasure proving their whole premise that is nothing more than word salad is total nonsense, academic citations no less.

Like you I immediately recognized it was BS.

So now the bird wants to argue a different point not to be confused with the semantics above, which is equivalent to claiming forward reverse and no neutral even though it is the definition of agnostic. He thinks his word salad is the4 definition so I posted the real definition below.

but as we can see meriam webster disagrees with the bird.

 

But as we can see if we actually read it, you are still wrong and the source does not support your case . . . which seems to be a pattern for the sources you provide.

 

Thing is, I took what I wrote directly from Koko himself, in of his beloved tables.

 

It would be one thing to claim people must either believe God exists or believe God does not exist. But it is quite another to do so while also claiming to be agnostic, and saying you claim to believe neither.

 

you cant see anything, that just aanother quip to be obtuse, you have nothing, nothing to see here folks, sorry.

yep the whole world is wront but the 3 amigos that post nothing more than hot air
SSDD

Thats your claim, and it rules out and destroys your whole premise, "Lack of belief","absence of belief","Without belief"!

blam shot yourself in the foot again

 

You continue to fail to understand an important tenet of philosophy, that is best fit and symmetry.
to hold a newborn accountable for rational thought is light years over the edge.
But if a newborn was even capable of speaking as I have said before, when you told them about God they would say "huh"?

 

No.
Both are the same ways of saying the same thing. You just keep rephrasing the same idea.
I am bored with this. I am saying "whatever". I don't really care anymore.
Ultimately those who do not believe God exists also believe there is no God. Ok?

 

Why? An agnostic doesn't rule anything out, or IOW he isn't sure. He holds a suspension of clear belief

Seems simple to me.

 

I have committed to a bunch of points, I don't know how they overlap with what Yardmeat has said, and I don't automatically trust that you've read, understood, relayed and applied them correctly. I'm happy to confirm or deny any specifics if you want to bring them up.

A proposition must be true or false. You might not know whether something is true or false, but that doesn't mean the proposition is something other than true or false.

Either way, we've mostly been asking you about your psychological state, which you should know pretty well, unless you've been lobotomised or something.

The direct answer must be true or false, or you break the law of the excluded middle. Only true and false are options, and we've ruled out true, so it must be false. This follows directly from the fundamental rules of logic, denying it is irrational.

Of course, an agnostic does not commit to believing either "God exists" or "God does not exist", so "Kokomojojo believe God exists" being false (which has been confirmed in the previous paragraph) must be something other than "Kokomojojo believes God doesn't exist" (which seems not to be true). Any logical inconsistencies there come from your insistence on neg-raising, even when you can't confirm that neg-raising always applies, or applies in this case in particular.

"It goes without saying" seems to be your phrase for "I can't come up with a good reason for this" (which in turn seems to be because the things you're arguing for simply isn't true).

I had a look at the Stanford article to check some wordings, and appears that there were substantive revisions on March 22nd. It has structured the page a bit better, and included some clarifications that might be useful to us. I recommend re-reading it in full.

In particular when it comes to lack of belief, the Stanford article now opens with:

The word “atheism” is polysemous—it has multiple related meanings. In the psychological sense of the word, atheism is a psychological state, specifically the state of being an atheist, where an atheist is defined as someone who is not a theist and a theist is defined as someone who believes that God exists (or that there are gods). This generates the following definition: atheism is the psychological state of lacking the belief that God exists. (source)​

The article certainly doesn't default to the lack view, but it seems to have no problems discussing the idea of lacking a belief in the exact was we've been using it, without any irrationality problems.

Similarly, the Stanford article seems to have no problems understanding statements where neg-raising could be used, but is not:

...defining “atheist” as someone who lacks the belief that God exists. This commits them to adopting the psychological sense of “atheism” discussed above, according to which “atheism” should not be defined as a proposition at all, even if theism is a proposition. Instead, “atheism”, according to these philosophers, should be defined as a psychological state: the state of not believing in the existence of God (or gods). This view was famously proposed by the philosopher Antony Flew... (source)​

Again, while they tend to side with the other interpretation, they certainly don't take Kokomojojo's approach of refusing to understand the words as intended.

The article provides some arguments for the "believes God does not exist" interpretation, but does not pretend as Kokomojojo does that that interpretation is required:

Again, the term “atheism” has more than one legitimate meaning, and nothing said in this entry should be interpreted as an attempt to proscribe how people label themselves or what meanings they attach to those labels (source)​

While the Stanford article argues for a particular definition, it does not suggest that others cannot be used.

If you think that, you have probably not understood the question. As mentioned earlier, if the answer to "Kokomojojo is a theist" was true, you'd know, so you seem to acknowledge that you in fact have access to all the knowledge needed for my question.

I peddle them down or up to their actual meaning. For instance, most of the examples in here are examples of things that do happen, rather than impossible or disallowed things. The "disallowed" interpretation seems incorrect.

Tough. So was "orange", "you", "awful", etc. too. Seems like a you problem.

It is a perfectly good proposition. The Stanford article has no problem discussing those terms, nor does Flew, nor do any of yardmeat, Jolly Penguin, me, etc.. If you're having trouble keeping up, we're happy to elaborate.

I don't see that this addresses my point.

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.

Well, if you want to introduce any such tenets, you'll have to introduce them, and (at least in this case) show why you think they particularly apply, and show how you use them.

Symmetry is a useful concept when we come across it, but you'd have to show it is there before you can use it. In this particular case, I imagine you'll want to create a symmetry between "believe God exists" and "believe God does not exist", and it will run into the same problem as before, you'll want to make the jump from "believe God does not exist" to "not believe God exists", and that's where we will disagree.

As for "best fit", I can think of a few concepts that might be referred to as such, but neither Wikipedia, SEoP or I seem to find anything that's specifically called that.

I agree, that's why, if I was trying to describe something that relies on conscious decisions, I wouldn't create a "logic" that doesn't take into account conscious decisions.

 

Really? Lets take an exmple proposition, lets say the bird came out here and said to you: "I am lying", is that statement true or false?

 

Because you can't have A and not A at the same time.

If an agnostic is defined as both not believing God exists and not believing God does not exist, the former can't mean the negation of the latter.

It is very simple.

 

It is?
What if @yardmeat made this statement: "Everything I say is false", is his statement logically true or false?

 

The Liars Paradox. That's a fun old one (going back thousands of years).

The answer to your direct question is that it is not a proposition, just as "x = 7" is not a proposition before X is defined.

It's fun because it sounds like it is saying something with a meaning, but it isn't.

 

How so? x=7 does not represent the statement I posted.
want to take another shot at it?
Great opportunity to prove your theory; "A,!A" therefore nothing else concept for us.

 

Still brushing up on the law of non contradiction I see. As well as what defines a statement/proposition.

 

still dodging I see LOL

 

Nope. Always willing to discuss the LNC no matter how many times you dodge it and blame your dodging on others.

 

great then answer the question. you can choose T for true or F for false.
Which is it?

 

It has no meaning. It is not saying anything. "X=7" is another example. So is "Schlip Onfring Partakh".

What makes the liars Paradox fun is that at first glance it looks like it is saying something, and you ought to be able to make sense of it, but it isn't actually saying anything. I can see why it trips you up. It trips most people up until they think it through.

 

The answer is that your argument can't be represented by "A" because it isn't an actual proposition.

 

sorry your analogy fails since there is in fact a truth value for x = 7.
seriously, take soem time and do a little homework.
Not to worry though mighty mouse will save the save the day!