Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

Geebus swensson, I cant believe you would be in a philosophy/logic discussion trying to define words and phrases etc and not understand conventional expectations of the task?

You really surprise me when you ask craziness like this since its paramount to demanding I prove why we have to add when we see a '+' sign.

Not to mention it takes 2 seconds to goog it, all it served you to demonstrate how weak your position has become.


For example, reflection symmetry has now a precise definition in terms of invariance under the group of reflections. Finally, we have the resulting close connection between the notion of symmetry, equivalence and group: a symmetry group induces a partition into equivalence classes. The elements that are exchanged with one another by the symmetry transformations of the figure (or whatever the “whole” considered is) are connected by an equivalence relation, thus forming an equivalence class.[3]

The group-theoretic notion of symmetry is the one that has proven so successful in modern science. Note, however, that symmetry remains linked to beauty (regularity) and unity: by means of the symmetry transformations, distinct (but “equal” or, more generally, “equivalent”) elements are related to each other and to the whole, thus forming a regular “unity”. The way in which the regularity of the whole emerges is dictated by the nature of the specified transformation group. Summing up, a unity of different and equal elements is always associated with symmetry, in its ancient or modern sense; the way in which this unity is realized, on the one hand, and how the equal and different elements are chosen, on the other hand, determines the resulting symmetry and in what exactly it consists.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/symmetry-breaking/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/symmetry-breaking/notes.html#note-3

 

It should be 'painfully' obvious you dont use water to define the elemental characteristics of oil, and that is what you are attempting to do with your flew premises when you ignore the fact that the premises you are using does not associate with the conditions of theist, (as I, ((and stanford)) have told you) therefore cannot be placed into the same group without massive equivocation. stanford made that perfectly clear. Just because a few people coined it and say it does not mean you can use it in the manner in which you are trying to use it. Pounding square pegs in round holes.

You are supposed to know this stuff BEFORE attempting to argue philosophy not demand that your opponent teach you basic convention, it makes you look very weak.

 

They stated in philosophy we want symmetry. Flew does not meet philosophical convention of defining "atheist". Nothing I can do if you simply deny convention without any qualifying reason or justification which is what this is coming down to. Thats not to say you cant invent an appropriate sense and try again, just because 'people say it' is enough justification to qualify to put it in the dictionary strictly to illustrate people use it that way, but that is not a functional symmetrically associated 'best fit' definition, in fact its not a fit at all.

 

Not only me though, you always seem to forget stanford does as well.
Then you again lose your focus, stanford explains it I explain it and you bring the same thing up over and over as if it was never cited or explained.

"Psychological states cannot be true or false nor can they be the conclusions of arguments" which is why @yardmeat telling us and defending his psychological state of mind as an answer a proposition was such a hilarious blunder. (what else would we expect when they come out here claiming they are a logic teacher) lol

AGAIN:

Psychological states cannot be true or false, nor can they be the conclusions of arguments. Granted, philosophers sometimes define “theism” as “the belief that God exists” and it makes sense to argue for a belief and to say that a belief is true or false, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. If, however, “theism” is defined as the proposition that God exists and “theist” as someone who believes that proposition, then it makes sense to define “atheism” and “atheist” in an analogous way. This means, first, defining “atheism” as a proposition or position so that it can be true or false and can be the conclusion of an argument and, second, defining “atheist” as someone who believes that proposition. Since it is also natural to define “atheism” in terms of theism, it follows that, in the absence of good reasons to do otherwise, it is best for philosophers to understand the “a-” in “atheism” as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”—in other words, to take atheism to be the contradictory of theism.

Therefore, for all three of these reasons, philosophers ought to construe atheism as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, as the proposition that there are no divine realities of any sort).

 

So you dont know what a percentage of something is?
a glass with water in it that is considered 50% full is filled to 1/2 its capacity.
Not too difficult right.
So what is strong atheism versus weak atheism if not some percentage of commitment/belief?
What else could it mean?
I cant imagine what kind of obscure distinction could be used not to understand the concept of less than a total.

 

sure let me answer that for you AGAIN:

AND:

 

Very true. There are atheists who believe in the supernatural (I know many Buddhists who fit in this category, and I've met atheists who believe in ghosts, spirits, souls, etc.) and you can be a theist without believing in the supernatural (Spinoza, Epicurus, etc.).

 

Holy crap, he's still at it..

 

I asked him several times to explain how a color can have a truth value, what it means to say "yellow is true," but he never responded.

 

nothing like a false representation of the proposition to come to a false conclusion to make a false accusation!
Thanks superstrawman for rescuing us again with your invaluable input!

So I m not on iggy after all LMAO

 

Im sure those very same atheists believe in the HOLY GHOSTS too! This just keeps getting better all the time.

Lets not bother taking into consideration their religion may very well hold insane contradictions!

But then wait a second, atheism is claimed to be grounded in logic and reason, not mysticism so I have no fear, I am sure atheists can PROVE that "atheists who believe in ghosts, spirits, souls, etc." are grounded in PROVABLE FACTS!


.

 

Moreover the word "God" itself has multiple meanings. You may be speaking of a personal God who interferes in human affairs, or you may be talking about a deist God, or you may simply be talking about love or other emotions and calling that God with no element of the spiritual or supernatural (as I recently saw somebody on this board do).

And said symmetry of concept to theist is also present if you say "Strong Atheist" to mean what Draper prefers "Atheist" to mean. So this is just bickering over wording and we still haven't seen any actual arguments.

 

What is supernatural belief?


Supernatural beliefs are beliefs in things that do not and cannot exist to the best of scientific knowledge, but which appear real to believers. Examples are the belief in god, angels, daemons, reincarnation, ghosts, and mind-body dualism.Nov 14, 2021

Supernatural Belief Scale - PsyToolkit
https://www.psytoolkit.org › supernatural-sb

Just another along a long line of failed @yardmeat arguments! !
Hi yardmeat I know your obsessed with me, hows putting me on iggy working out for ya? LMAO
The words cognitive dissonance comes to mind!


What are signs of cognitive dissonance?


Signs you might be experiencing cognitive dissonance include:

• General discomfort that has no obvious or clear source.
• Confusion.
• Feeling conflicted over a disputed subject matter.
• People saying you're being a hypocrite.
• Being aware of conflicting views and/or desired but not know what to do with them.

Nov 30, 2020

What Exactly Does Cognitive Dissonance Mean?
Let’s say you’ve been exercising like a boss—paying for virtual training sessions, jogging through your ‘hood, conquering any hiking trail within a five-mile radius—and eating healthy, all in a quest to drop that quarantine 15.

Then you go food shopping and spot a tub of edible cookie dough, which you put into your cart thinking you’ll only have just one spoonful here and there. Even though you buy it, you know you shouldn’t have because, well, sabotage. And that’s when the discomfort, guilt, and shame start to settle in.

This is cognitive dissonance—a mental conflict that occurs when your beliefs don’t line up with your actions. “It’s an uncomfortable state of mind when someone has contradictory values, attitudes, or perspectives about the same thing,” says psychiatrist Grant H. Brenner MD, FAPA, co-founder of Neighborhood Psychiatry, in Manhattan. “The degree of discomfort varies with the subject matter, as well as with how well the person copes with self-contradiction.”

Cognitive Dissonance: What It Is & Why It Matters - Psycom.net
https://www.psycom.net › cognitive-dissonance



How do you break cognitive dissonance?




4 Ways to Address Cognitive Dissonance

1. Mindfulness. ...
2. Challenge current beliefs. ...
3. Consider the importance of dissonant thoughts. ...
4. Justifying behavior. ...
5. Induce effort. ...
6. Provide choice. ...
7. Provide a safe space and consider the use of relaxation techniques. ...
8. Discussing discrepant behavior.

Cognitive Dissonance Theory: An Example & 4 Ways To Address It
https://positivepsychology.com › cognitive-dissonance-the..

 

speaking of cognitive dissonance! Right on Q!
Thats because to the REST IF THE WORLD words have 'significant' differences in meaning.

"I didnt commit murder" allows you to go to the bar and sip on a cold tall one.
"I did commit murder" allows you to go to the grey bar hotel and a cold tall one has you!

Yes "just bickering over words!"

You are correct that YOU have made no arguments!

Doing great at gaslighting though!


Whats it mean to Gaslight someone?

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which the abuser attempts to sow self-doubt and confusion in their victim's mind. Typically, gaslighters are seeking to gain power and control over the other person, by distorting reality and forcing them to question their own judgment and intuition.Nov 4, 2021

How To Tell If Someone Is Gaslighting You | Newport Institute
https://www.newportinstitute.com › mental-health › what_...


another one that is obsessed with me and long gone lost the initiative!

.

 

which of course has absolutely NO BEARING on the proposition "God Exists", since its whatever variant of God that you see in your mind, multiple meanings notwithstanding.

If these guys didnt have tangents to run off on theyd have nothing to say at all!

 

If irony was explosive, your state would be a smoking ruin..

 

Im not the one pounding square pegs into round hole like those 2 are.

Feel free to fully explain how atheists can believe in ghosts and spirits and NOT believe in the HOLY GHOST of the triune God oh wise one of the great pejorative ad hom.

Lets see some neoatheist brilliance shine for a change instead of the same ole ad nauseum dissonance eternally repeated!

 

Yep, all the more reason to recognize the fact that, if we are talking about theism and atheism, we are talking about psychological states.

It's all semantics. Those who realize that words are tools (almost everyone here) don't have a problem with the fact that these words have multiple meanings. It just depends on the right tool for the job. There are times when historical definitions are more important, times when technical definitions are more important, times when etymological definitions are more important, and times when current usage definitions are more important. And there are, of course, subcategories of each.

When I'm on the job, I use a different definition of "risk" than I do during my off time. On the job, the technical definition within my field is more important, and in my field "risk" can mean both positive and negative change. But if I use it to mean a positive change outside of work, it just causes confusion. Everyone in my field understands what it means to say, "There's a risk this task will be done ahead of schedule," but it makes little sense outside said field.

When we get into theology, it gets even more complicated.

 

yes you are pushing more strawman BS again.

After all those dumb assed professors at standford u cant compare to the lord god superstrawman who has his own meathead bible that he dictates to all humanity stupidity on levels never before seen in philosophy.

What does being a semantic mean?

"'It's just semantics' is a common retort people use when arguing their point. What they mean is that their argument or opinion is more valid than the other person's. It's a way to be dismissive of language itself as carrier for ideas. Oct 30, 2019
https://people.howstuffworks.com › semantics

Same with the bird where everything is word preference such that no word is more applicable than any other to the point being made. Im sure that came right out of the meathead logic bible too. Try telling that to any attorney or judge.

same dismissive no argument garbage gaslighting.

 

UNBELIEVABLE! HE AGREES WITH ME! FINALLY he is actually learning something about language and logic, I think Im in shock, it cant last. I just got done posting an argument about the importance of symmetry.

Yet you use a hammer in place of a screwdriver and defend it in your BIG LOGIC BLUNDER that you think you can pretend and bullshit out of existence. We all witnessed it. serious case of cognitive dissonance!

 

That is a term of art.

AGAIN he picks up the wrong tools!

WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING TERMS OF ART IN THIS THREAD!

Not to mention if talked stupid **** like that in a board meeting I would the wtf stare.

"There's a risk this task will be done ahead of schedule,"

AS STATED COULD ASLO carry the meaning that if one project is finished prior to another it will screw up change the whole schedule.

That is indicative of someone who is blue collar filling in for a white collar supv for a day and they want to draw attention to themselves not by 'effective' communication but by forcing everyone to ask WTF do you mean!

Thats what happens when these guys try to cover their blunders they create an infinite number more.

PUHLEASE, learn to crawl first by learning that answering a proposition with "I dont know" is neither a 'legal' or 'logical' answer.

Both those characters put me on iggy but they are obsessed with me and instead they now POST BY PROXY!



Confucius says "dont be a captain blunder"

 

I am actually curious how a discussion from the OP may have progressed had somebody taken it's core position and conversed in good faith.

Idea seems to be that OP doesn't like the language some use for these words that include all who aren't God believers as "atheists". The motivation seems to be a concern that it yields a higher number of "atheists" than it otherwise would.

Even Dawkins in on record saying he isn't 100% certain Gods don't exist, and that he doesn't have any belief that they do because he sees no evidence for them. I think that is the case for the vast majority of self described atheists. So by Draper's definition would such people not be "atheist"?

It seems by the "symmetry" definition wherein "atheists" have as much certainty that Gods don't exist as theists have that they do exist, very very few atheists exist, and even most of the "neo-atheists" are actually not "atheists" but this definition.

Draper offers "non-theist" for what Flew calls "atheist". Folks who use Flew's definitions use "strong atheist" for what Draper calls "atheist". So the same concepts are covered under both sets of definitions, so it's just a matter of taste and maybe perception.

I am curious why this that would matter so much to anyone. The motivation definitely seems to be political. A fight over how common/rare "atheism" is, while not actually disagreeing on the facts.

That makes me curious how many atheists care how common atheists are and why. And also how many theists care how common atheists are and why. That would have made a more interesting conversation I think.

 

Too late to edit after rereading above.

I meant most of those called "neo-atheists", including Dawkins and Harris are not "atheist" under the OP's demanded meaning of the word.

I don't think I have ever actually met anyone who is as certain Gods don't exist as theists are that they do exist.

Is another reason for this word preference to aid in pushing the strawman that these people do hold that view, and thereby attempt to reverse or equalize the speaker's own burden of proof?

 

I am pretty curious about the percentage of people who self identify as 'atheist' 'non-believer' and 'agnostic' both in the developed and undeveloped worlds as well as here and comparing the data to 10 years ago, twenty years ago and a way for those polled to quantify their certainty level. I would like to find out how they feel about organised religion, and the role its served in society and how they feel about spirituality, the existence of an afterlife etc.

Then I want them all resurveyed every ten years to see how age, and time changes their views.

I recognise that what we are measuring, depends on both self perception and how they are applying their terms, neither of which involve great science, especially when we are dealing with translation into French, Spanish, Russian, swahili.

I would like to see that survey anyway.

 

Yes. And as you note it would be absolutely vital in such a survey to clearly and explicitly define what the survey means by each word.

I would be curious how many people lack any belief in God's, how many positively believe Gods don't exist, and to what level of certainty.

I suspect the numbers have fallen dramatically in the west but may have risen elsewhere.

And I would also be curious to see how many in each category show concern over how many others fall into their category.