Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

so nothing, it was a response to your statement.

 

get a grip, he did!

Do you deny he said it?

 

So what's your point?

 

point is silence is not an option to a bivalent logic system.
I already told you that short memory it seems

 

Yes. I am denying that he said there are more than two possible truth values to a bivalent question. That is not what the bolded says. Again, you completely fail at English, or you are trolling.

 

So what? We agree that silence and "I don't know" are not answers to questions.

 

a response that is anything other than true or false is stating a third option.

 

well professor dodge does not, and neither did swensson, Im glad we agree

 

Wrong.

A response is any reaction to your asking the question. It doesn't have to be an answer to the question. Your question is the stimulus. The response could be a wide variety of things, including a dog barking.

 

Yes they both did. This is your language failure at work again.

 

So now I dont know is too complicated for you too?

 

You seem to be the only one having problems with it.

When you ask a question there is no guarantee you will get an answer. Sometimes people will opt not to answer or tell you that they don't have an answer. And there is nothing wrong with that.

 

ding ding ding,
we are talking about logic and philosophy can you try to keep it in the same universe?

 

I assure you that if you went to stanford professor dodge would fail the first semester, and it looks like you might be second in line from your previous post. for a moment I had hope.

Like it or not there are only 2 reponses T,F

 

There are only 2 possible answers.

That does not mean you will receive an answer when you ask the question. Nor does it mean that anyone knows the correct answer. There is nothing wrong with them saying so. You do it yourself when you say you are agnostic.

 

Still having difficulty with the english language I see:

an·swer

noun: answer; plural noun: answers
a thing said, written, or done to deal with or as a reaction to a question, statement, or situation.

 

You are again not conversing in good faith. Why do you insist on playing troll games?

 

Please refrain from blaming me for your posting style.

Its not my fault you do not know what answer means.

 

You could simply make your points and we could discuss them. Instead you pretend not to understand people, pretend they say what they don't, and play troll games. It was amusing for a while but has become stale.

If you ever want to actually have a good faith conversation, let us know.

 

an answer is a reaction ie response to a question.

false, I make my points straight away and you ignore them for a few hundred pages and then blame your personal issues and strawman posting styles on to me when your strqawmen go up in flames, its all here the whole world can see.

Yes the only one here other than yours truly capable of having a reasonably reasonable discussion is swensson.

 

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Nothing more, and nothing less, so one has to ask how can a lack of belief in anything constitute a religion? Such a claim lacks logic if we define religion as the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods (Oxford languages).

'Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

Well, if true, then they were amateurs.

That is a nonsensical position. Atheism is nothing more than a rejection of the assertion that gods exist.

Incorrect, and see the quote supplied above (a - theism: a, ab (Latin) away; from theism (a belief in gods from the Greek theos: god). A rejection of the assertion that gods exist is not a world view, but a single position on a claim.

Incorrect. It makes no claim regarding the existence of gods ~ it merely rejects the assertion of others.

 

Trying to reply to your erratic formatting is difficult with this site's editing software. I give up.

Correction to the above: atheism, from the Greek atheos without gods

 

I think I will give it another try and ignore all the unnecessary colours and fonts:

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Nothing more, and nothing less, so one has to ask how can a lack of belief in anything constitute a religion? Such a claim lacks logic if we define religion as the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods (Oxford languages).

'Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

Well, if true, then they were amateurs.

That is a nonsensical position. Atheism is nothing more than a rejection of the assertion that gods exist whereas, religion worships either supernatural gods or superhumans.

Incorrect, and see the quote supplied above (a - theism: a, ab (Latin) away; from theism (without belief in gods from the Greek atheos: god...correction added). A rejection of the assertion that gods exist is not a world view, but a single position on a claim.

Incorrect. It makes no claim regarding the existence of gods ~ it merely rejects the assertion of others.

How can it be comprehensive when it is a position on a single issue?

Well, people say all sorts of silly things.

No, it is an ideology. Do not conflate a philosophy with religion simply because they both are ideological. Your argument hangs on this very conflation and it is false.

Immaterial to the overall point.

And they are/were correct as I demonstrated.

<< edited the immaterial>>

As I have demonstrated, atheism is merely the rejection of the assertion gods exist. Nothing more.

If you assert gods exist, you then have the burden of proof. If you cannot demonstrate gods exist, why should I believe you? Conversely, if I state gods do not exist, then the burden is upon me to demonstrate thus.

There is no sound argument to demonstrate atheism is a religion. Your argument above is built upon inaccuracies and non-sequiturs.

Atheists do not have the burden of proof, so why should anyone believe the assertion that gods exist? Especially an invisible god which doesn't appear to interact with the physical universe.

There are no facts in a discussion on a belief system such as religion, for it is founded upon faith alone. Yes, and your point is irrational, for the atheist merely rejects the assertion that gods exist. There is no sound reason to believe in such things.

I'm afraid it is and you haven't provided a very compelling case, for there is a fundamental flaw in your reasoning, that is, the conflation of a philosophy with a religious belief system.

 

Are you planning on debating in context in something that at least resembles a philosophical sense or any which way but loose bar room brawl?

First we have been through this many times throughout the thread.

If you want context:
atheist.............|..........theist
Lack of belief, | , lack of disbelief
Without.......... | ,.........with
Absence.........| ..........presence

 

I give up on this crap editing software. Why does it insert quote tags where none previously existed?