Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Kokomojojo, Nov 24, 2019.

  1. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    definitions only denote a stereotypical 'usage', not a requirement.
    If definitions were cast in concrete they would never change throughout history.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2022
  2. Blues63

    Blues63 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Super meaning 'beyond or above' and as the definition points out: religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods - Oxford Languages

    How is this difficult?

    It is a condition of the definition and you are clearly flailing by playing semantic games.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2022
  3. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    all that means if you care to look it up is better/greater ability than the average joe
    and if thats the case if I single handedly took over and ruled this world I'd be a god, according to ox

    our first clue that there are exceptions, is 'especially'.....a personal
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2022
  4. Blues63

    Blues63 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    The prefix means above, over, beyond. You are arguing semantics and it is a tactic designed to distract from the original point.

    Clearly you are not interested in adult debate (as well as being way out of your depth here), therefore, I'll leave you to it. Bye.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2022
    Jolly Penguin likes this.
  5. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If the average joe can lift 100 pounds and then superkoko lifts 500 pounds that is above, and beyond.
    Now had they incorprated the word 'being' that would throw a bit of a different light on it in your favor, but simply stating a definition had you followed the thread you would find it doesnt mean much unless you can argue the core elements, ie the substance of the matter.

    I have a dictionary that says gay is happy, you get the point, people put far too much dependency on dictionaries, which all to often is a lazy mans crutch to avoid actually understanding a subject.

    Now if you want a kick ass definition for religion, emile durkheim nails it.

    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 the 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. durkhiem


    Its basically the same conclusion I came to 50 years ago, though not as sophisticated and well said.

    All because the constitution said 'the right to exercise', which consumed me because it was a mystery why in the hell they would add that in the federal constitution. (the states took that part out by the way, all the states allow is philosophy) Oh the evil web they weave! :)

    He very clearly and expertly made the fine distinction between philosophy, (ideology) and religion.

    Thats how you argue like an adult drilling down to the substance/core meaning.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2022
  6. Blues63

    Blues63 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Whatever, I don't care and I didn't even read it. We are done, for you cannot argue my original post and you are obviously desperate to distract from my point by pretending to not understand a simply definition with qualifications. I have studied philosophy at an undergraduate level and I can see through your games and tbh I'm bored with your nonsense already. Again, bye.
     
  7. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That point and your execution of it was frivolous, and you demonstrated no ability to argue beyond a dictionary definition, durkheim rocks, why?...because he obliterated your dictionary definition to bits. :) sorry.
    Toodles
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2022
  8. Blues63

    Blues63 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    upload_2022-5-12_16-23-6.jpeg

    OP fail.​
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2022
    Jolly Penguin and Pixie like this.
  9. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Truely the epitomy of an undergrad adult discussion. :roflol:
    Toodles....again.....
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2022
  10. Pixie

    Pixie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2021
    Messages:
    7,224
    Likes Received:
    2,408
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    The OP failed when atheism was described as a religion.
    You cannot have an "adult" discussion unless you define your terms.
    There was a flutter of an attempt to define "religion" but was inconclusive.
    Then there was a long winded discussion about what constitutes atheism as opposed to agnosticism...almost completely off topic.
    None of which acknowledges that in fact, atheism DENIES the existence of a religion. Atheists posit that there is nothing to worship. So there can be no "atheistic" religion.
    The whole discussion is based on a false premise.
     
    Jolly Penguin likes this.
  11. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The OP was just a lead in, and was not intended to comprehensively define religion in the OP.
    If it were it would have said "definition of religion"
    Not my problem if hecklers take the thread off topic, eventually we get back around to it.
    Atheism does not deny religion, they deny the supernatural et al.
    Thats not true either, you can worship my big toe if you want to.
    False? Its a spot on premise in the context I laid out.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2022
  12. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope, only propositions must be true or false, and what you've given is not a proposition.

    You've purposely gone out of your way to find a sentence that famously isn't a proposition.

    "* There are examples of declarative sentences that are not propositions. For example, ‘This sentence is false’ is not a proposition, since no truth value can be assigned." (source)
    Example 1.2.13. “This sentence is false.” What happens if you assume this statement is true? false? This example is called a paradox and is not a proposition (source)​
    You failed to provide an example proposition.

    Of course, I have already provided an example proposition which is not a paradox, and which doesn't resist a truth value:
    "The pope believes that God exists" (source)​
    Not only is this a perfectly good proposition, it much more similar to and representative of the statement that we're trying to assess about Kokomojojo. The proposition "The pope believes that God exists" happens to be true.

    If that's a problem, I suggest you try to be wrong less. I already let a lot of items slide that I disagree with but are mostly beside the point.

    I don't particularly mind you not answering everything, but each of my responses tends to be pointing at something that is either outright false, or in other ways is not sufficient to be a proof or even an indication. If you can't provide decent answers, your supposed proofs fall flat. It's not enough to simply claim to have proven something.

    I have, on several occasions. The law of the excluded middle demands that every proposition is either true or false. It doesn't demand that every proposition is known to be true or false, but it must in fact be true or false.

    "God exists" is either true or false, but we might not know which.

    The proposition "Kokomojojo believes God exist" is also either true or false, and in particular, we can rule out it being true (because as you say, you'd know if it was true), so it must be false. Since this is a proposition about Kokomojojo's mind rather than being about God directly, Kokomojojo should know full well what the answer is.

    Nope, many of my points are made to elucidate the point. You are merely dodging.

    They're not direct answers to questions. They're answers, but some things (like definitions) require direct answer, other things (like general musings or broad explanations) do not.

    Besides, the question we're asking actually has a known answer, since we can rule out "true", it must be false.
     
    yardmeat and Jolly Penguin like this.
  13. Blues63

    Blues63 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Insults? Is that the limit of your reasoning? You use Durkhiem's opinion as a definition and then resort to insults? You failed to demonstrate your claim that atheism is a religion through a poorly constructed argument based upon the conflation of two abstracts in order to minimise the superhuman/supernatural component (not to mention the use of the non-sequitur). You then employed repeated use of the semantics fallacy as a distraction from your poorly constructed argument, only to then dismiss said definition with the opinion of a theistic philosopher which merely points out the similarities between ideology and religion (which I already acknowledged) ~ all while ignoring much of the content within my original post. Then you have the temerity to mock my elective subjects with an illiterate insult?

    Clearly, you are incapable of intellectually honest debate and are quite objectionable to boot. Sadly, your poor behaviour and unjustified arrogance are becoming typical of the average Christian apologist on line.

    Have some manners and reflect the tenets of your belief system in your dealings with others. I don't come to fora in order to participate in slanging matches or irrational debate. I come for reasoned discussion and to learn, and I suggest you modify your behaviour before engaging me in future.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2022
    Jolly Penguin likes this.
  14. Blues63

    Blues63 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Oops! In the above post 'theistic philosopher' should read 'theistic sociologist'.
     
  15. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,215
    Likes Received:
    3,847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Atheists need not deny the supernatural. One may believe in ghosts etc and still be atheist. Atheism only regards Gods. Kokomojo is wrong yet again.
     
  16. Blues63

    Blues63 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    All atheism means is 'without gods', and it only describes a position on a single issue. It says nothing about cosmology, morality or abiogenesis. Atheists merely reject the assertion gods exist, for there is no good reason to believe in the existence of invisible entities that do not appear to interact with the physical universe. One may believe fairies exist, and some paganists actually do, but there is absolutely no reason to accept their assertion either, but while many theists would ridicule such a belief system, they fail to realize there is actually little difference between the two.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2022
    Jolly Penguin likes this.
  17. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,215
    Likes Received:
    3,847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. And atheists don't believe Gods exist for the same basic reason most Christians don't believe faeries or the loch ness monster exist. Lack of evidence and/or contradicting claims.

    And again, not believing (lacking belief) isn't the same as believing something is necessarily false. That's where agnostic comes in. Kokomojo has not been able to comprehend this, or had been pretending not to.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2022
    Blues63 and Pixie like this.
  18. Blues63

    Blues63 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, we must adhere to logic. I reject the assertion gods exist, as there is simply no good reason to believe in such abstracts, as I explained earlier. However, as I cannot demonstrate non-existence, for that would be trying to prove a negative, I cannot honestly state gods do not exist, for that would be equally fallacious as the argument from assertion employed by apologists. Having said that, many label such a position as agnostic, but I disagree, as I lack belief in gods owing to the irrational nature of the claim. Many philosophers have tried to rationalize the existence of gods from Aristotle's 'prime mover' through to the Quinque Viae of Aquinas, however, these arguments are constructed upon fallacies, such as special pleading etc.. Aquinas sets up a syllogism that he claims is universal, and then he makes his god exempt from the syllogism in order to make it work ~ that is simply lazy and is known as special pleading. We cannot argue this subject through lazy reasoning and we are compelled to maintain our integrity in this area, for as we both know, our opposition often doesn't and the debate can soon devolve into an exchange of ad hominem attacks and that isn't productive at all.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2022
    Injeun and Jolly Penguin like this.
  19. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    and your able to use atheist reason and logic to prove ghosts and spirits exist?
    go for it!
    :roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol:
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2022
    Injeun likes this.
  20. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So then Christians arent saying faeries are false?
    Actually that disproves lack of belief since christians will tell you straight up there is no such thing, that means atheists lack of belief is in fact disbelief.
     
  21. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    says the guy that stuck his fingers in his ears refusing to read the counterargument, and lazily simply threw a dictionary at me then argued I wasnt debating LMAO

    Nice convoluted contradictory reasoning.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2022
  22. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Much of the logic I have seen out here from my opponents is quite ill.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2022
  23. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    christians lack disbelief in Gods, so you are on equal footing.
    how is the claim irrational
     
  24. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    if believing is a logical 1 then not believing has to be a logical 0.
     
  25. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yep thats how my opponents do business LOL
     

Share This Page