Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

which is 100% a STRAWMAN ARGUMENT FOR "GOD EXISTS".

you also claimed you were going to take me on in the holocaust thread and never showed up!
(not that I blame you since you didnt even survive 10 rounds before the big KO.)

I am not the one who made this thread about semantics, I suggest you talk to swensson and the bird, thats their merry go round. Thats what happens when people try to shoehorn in words and meanings that cannot stand up to reason, much the same as you when you tried to pretend "I dont know" is a legitimate answer to any proposition.

you were called out to post a citation to validate that nonsense, and you will forever dodge the issue because you like everyone else here knows YOU MADE A MONUMENTOUS BLUNDER!

No amount of sophistry and gaslighting will EVER fix that and NEITHER will creating a new thread that does not apply.

FALSE: Its when you make a blunder then go into denial without a a reason supported in logical, That is what drags threads like this on, likewise the dishonesty of your side throwing a constant barrage of **** at the wall praying to get something to stick, and NEVER with any supporting citations.

Compared to me who has posted citations proving my points.

What you propose has already been hashed to death in this and other threads so no need for the pretense, the rest of us have already BTDTBTTS.

 

If God is not known to you, that would make you agnostic, and therefore practicing agnosticism.

Practicing agnosticism is not practicing theism by definition.
Practicing agnosticism is not practicing atheism by definition.

It appears your claim is not rational.

Please read the title and OP of the thread.
Just because the discussion diverted to swensson and the bird trying to shoehorn in their personal definitions which were not the intended subject matter of the thread is not the end of the thread though Im sure you would very much like it to be since the rationality of your choices are in serious question.

Whats a shame is when the thread is trolled with constant strawman assaults.

 

Don't think that is what I said, I said that colour blending has a whole bunch of separate rules that are not fundamentally logic-based. In this particular case, colours blending in an additive colour model is not an accurate modelling of how "and" works.

No, as you may recall, I consider the entire tirade into yellow/red/green to be a red herring (no pun intended). Since the point was to challenge conjunction elimination, I want you to show how you construct your conjunction (in fact, I believe you have constructed your conjunction wrong).

If you want to use "yellow is green"/"yellow is red" to disprove conjunction elimination, then the relevant conjunction is "yellow is green and yellow is red". You've twisted that, first into "yellow is red and green" and then into "yellow is red and green blended in an additive colour model", both steps that would have to be justified. Until you've justified those, you haven't even got to the point where "yellow is red and green" matters.

But I have challenged you on this several times and heard nothing in return, so I'm not holding my breath.

Which citation? I have yet to see anything that links any colours or additive colour models to the logical AND. I've reviewed a few citations you've given, and they haven't said it, but them I'm not sure which one you're referring to.

My picture is red and green. If red and green was yellow, then the picture would have to be yellow, but it is in fact not yellow. Your assertion that red and green is yellow fails.

In fact all (or the vast majority) of the picture is green and red. If green and red was yellow, then all or the vast majority would be yellow, not just a little bit in the borders that you can find if you zoom enough.

I had a hexagon (outlined in black), I took half (50%) of it and made it into a new shape (marked in green). The green shape is 50% of a hexagon, however it does not have six sides, and is therefore not a hexagon at all. Its hexagon-nes is 0, "the green shape is a hexagon" is a false statement, not a half-true statement.

The explanation of what 50% belief looks like is still conspicuously absent.

Swe: "Flew's definition isn't ambiguous, it is pretty well defined. "Someone who is simply not a theist" is a pretty straightforward criteria" (source)
Koko: "you ignore the fact that the premises you are using does not associate with the conditions of theist" (source)​

Why would I want any premises to associate with the conditions of "theist"? Flew's definition is of "atheist", not of "theist". So I guess I am ignoring it, mostly because you haven't shown me a reason why I should care about it.

The Stanford article didn't say anything about "personally preferred words". Again, if you're having to change the words in order to make your point, then your point isn't really made. Similarly, I find no references in the text to them attacking Flew on logic grounds, that is something you have added, both poorly and without justification.

(My bolding of responses).

So it seems yet again Kokomojojo's reading comprehension fails him. So Kokomojojo's challenge to the following statements fell flat:

Belief is not a sliding scale describing how likely you think something is, it is a switch that goes from false to true when you accept something as true. Anyone who for whatever reason accepts a proposition as true has a belief in that proposition. Anyone else lacks that belief.

 

Sadly the thread was doomed from the start, since it has centered around one person's ego who isn't here to engage in good faith conversation in the first place, but to show people up. And that consistently derails everything. And aside from bickering over wording, the OP topic isn't controversial and would have likely wrapped up in a single page.

Most here agree with the OP, language games aside. Yes, having faith and being certain Gods don't exist isn't rational, since we have no way of knowing for sure because "Gods" aren't defined well and are unfalsifiable.

Calling that "neo-athiesm" (and later just "atheism"), calling it a "religion" and demanding people here hold that belief and certainty because they call themselves "atheist" (explicitly using a different meaning for the word) is why there's a long nonsensical thread. It was obviously just an attempt to mischaracterize and attack people, from the very first post.

 

I do think what would be an interesting conversation would be to examine why some theists feel the need to mischaracterize people they call atheists.

An article quoted in the OP does the same thing, as do many others.

It also does this, which I find curious and oddly contradictory...

https://www.thebanner.org/columns/2019/01/is-atheism-a-religion

 

There are plenty of atheist worldviews, but atheism isn't a worldview, nor does it "attempt to offer a comprehensive account of reality." It's all part of the whole "There are atheist worldviews, therefore atheism is a worldview" fallacy that this thread and similar ones are partially based on. There's no such thing as "the atheist worldview."

 

What I found curious is it says both "starting point" and "comprehensive world view" in the same paragraph, and then goes on to recognize that Christians are atheists as far as the pagans were concerned, lacking belief in their Gods. It's all over the place.

 

Yeah, I remembered reading about Christians being labelled as atheists, and Socrates was as well, despite the fact that Christians are theists and so was Socrates. In the original Greek, I think it related more to being generally "godless" with respect to whatever local gods were the most popular at the time. The pagan Scandinavians had a similar word, but they used it to describe people who just wanted nothing to do with the gods, whether or not they believed in them. Though that group was more accepted within their culture. All the more reason to accept that, like most words, "atheism" has several meanings. You can find historical definitions like we just discussed, popular definitions (further divided into in-group and out-group popular definitions in this case), technical definitions, legal definitions, etymological definitions. It just depends on the circumstance and, to an extent, personal preference. As far as I'm concerned, asking which definition of atheism is "the best" is a bit like asking which is better: a flathead screwdriver or a socket wrench? It depends on what tool you need for the job.

 

Indeed. Getting mired up in wording is a pointless exercise. Perhaps we should just not use the labels and describe what we mean by them instead, especially where confusion is most likely to occur, or where word games are likely to be played.

 

I should have said, “This. I am agnostic because God’s existence is unknown to me and I am an atheist since I don’t practice theism.”

 

But superstrawman said you only have 1 of 2 choices.

so then you believe you are an atheist without justification and the @yardmeat totally contradicts himself by giving you a like for your contradicton!

Doesnt get any better than this folks!

 

sorry, "yellow is red and green" is 100% legitimate proposition since it is in fact true and it is in fact a conjunction.

I chose it purposely to demonstrate and prove not all conjunctions can be reduced without destroying its characteristics, agnostic falls under those same irreducible conditions.

 

And that makes perfect sense, and describes many of us, if it is understood why you mean by those words. And that's the catch, its been shown in this thread that not everyone is capable or willing to do so, and will pretend you mean something else when you say that.

 

I haven't challenged it being a proposition.

If you want to use "yellow is green"/"yellow is red" to disprove conjunction elimination, then the relevant conjunction is "yellow is green and yellow is red". You've twisted that, first into "yellow is red and green" and then into "yellow is red and green blended in an additive colour model", both steps that would have to be justified. Until you've justified those, you haven't even got to the point where "yellow is red and green" matters.

We have only claimed that conjunction elimination always works. The "reduction" that you try to perform is not conjunction elimination. The fact that you can go off on your own and create logic that doesn't work is not a problem for the rules of logic that do work.

A: Yellow is green
B: Yellow is red
A and B: Yellow is red and yellow is green

A is false, and B is false, we look at the truth table:

As marked in yellow, both conjuncts are false, so the conjunction is false. "A AND B" is also false, "yellow is green and yellow is red" is false. So conjunction elimination cannot be applied (since conjunction eliminations only apply to conjunctions with the truth value true).

The above shows a correct way to construct and evaluate a conjunction. My complaint that you fail to construct a correct conjunction would be resolved with roughly that amount of detail.

The fact that Kokomojojo can go off and create a similar-sounding proposition "yellow is red and green" (by which he actually seems to mean "yellow is red and green blended in an additive colour model") is neither here nor there.

 

yes conjunction elimination is a reduction, from 2 terms to 1 term, that is the while purpose of conjunctioin elimination.

eliminates nothing however.
it still doesnt work! LOL
therefore "yellow is red (blended in an additive colour model)"
sorry yellow is not red
likewise:
agnostic is not atheist

Im enjoying watching you kids step all over yourselves as you continue to use a 100 ton pile driver to pound a square peg into a round hole. Your hero and savior superstrawman just buried everyone on your side in one clean sweep. While it may not be /thread since that is not what the thread is about it certainly is /agnostic-atheist RIP

 

the first line T T T determines the truth value.
Its not yellow under any other condition
yellow is red and green is true, the conjunction is true.

You do realize that yardmeat 'destroyed' yours and the birds and DRIs arguments HERE

 

Indeed.

Pie is crust and filling.

Doesn't mean pie is crust and pie is filling.

 

Did someone say Pie?

 

Finally you made a logical statement that makes sense, just like yellow is red and green does not mean yellow is red and yellow is green, like yardmeat claims it 'has' to be, (without any citations of course).
swensson wont sleep for a week! lol
Im sure it was an unintended blunder, but its a start in the right direction for you!
Glad you finally agree with me, maybe you are learning something from this after all!
But do you understand 'why' that is is the case?
Either way! Bravo for you!
(and of course yardmeat likes it because he hasnt figured out you just contradicted his nonsense) LMAO
Grrrreat stuff peeps!
This just keeps getting better than I ever imagined!

yup!
I take it that your like means you also agree with me, wow what a day in this thread!
unberiebable

Koko scores a hat trick!

 

You're still picking the wrong conjunction. The actual conjunction is "yellow is green and yellow is red", and it can only be true if "yellow is green" is true. You're right in that yellow isn't red blended in an additive colour model, and conjunction elimination doesn't claim that it is.

Well, on the first line, p and q are true, i.e. you've selected the line where, "yellow is red" and "yellow is green" are true, whereas you've said they're actually false.

Of course, the solution here is that "yellow is red" and "yellow is green" are not conjuncts of "yellow is red and green". You've picked conjuncts and conjunctions out of two different truth tables and failed to show what they have to do with each other.

Use the quote or tag function (linking like this to a specific post is also fine), or I won't get the notification to respond or read.

I don't see a contradiction between them.

Yardmeat says that if you do not know whether God exists, you have the option to believe anyway, or refraining from believing. DRI mentions that he doesn't know whether God exists, and that he refrains from believing (thereby being an agnostic). DRI is picking one of the options that Yardmeat suggested, no contradiction.

In parallel, we can ask ourselves whether DRI is a theist, which he mentions he is not. I.e. he is someone who is simply not a theist, which means he fulfils Flew's definition of atheist.

They don't contradict each other, they contradict you, and that's really just par for the course.

 

doncha just hate that when you run out of gas!

which proves the limitations of conjunction elimination as I said.
yellow does equal green and red, that is true
yellow does not equal red


A AND B
Both A and B.
True only when both A and B are true.
Means that only solutions where both A and B are true are allowed.

your version would correct if we were not talking about additive color.

 

how many more times?
you cant be motionless and going left at the same time, sorry

which is why he calls himself an 'agnostic-atheist'.
he is motionless and going left at the same time.
yes yardmeat gave you 2 choices, a rational response and an irrational response, dri picked the irrational response.
in the above example agnostic is equivalent to motionless, atheist is equivalent to left motion,
you cant be motionless and going left at the same time, that is not rational. sorry
stanford explains and demonstrates (as did I) that you cant apply flew the way you are applying flew, its a contextonomy fallacy.

 

it also proves that agnostic is neither believing nor disbelieving, therefore cannot be atheist
you cant be motionless (agnostic) and in motion to the left (atheist) at the same time any more than you can be atheist and theist at the same time.

The ony exception to the rule is if you are a bird, a bird can be atheist while also believing in holy ghosts and other spirits at the same time as was explained to us earlier by the bird.

 

Nope, conjunction elimination describes a relationship between conjuncts and the conjunction, and the sentences you've been bandying about are not conjuncts and conjunctions of each other.

I've asked you to show it, but you seem to know that it will fall apart, so you haven't even tried.

Yeah, but if "yellow is green" is A, and "yellow is red" is B, then "A AND B" is "yellow is green and yellow is red".

Your proposition "yellow is green and red" is a completely different proposition which has nothing to do with conjunction elimination. The fact that "yellow is red" is false, while you argue that "yellow is green and red" is true should be a hint that you've in fact failed to identify a conjunction (since "A and B" is only true if A is true).

If you construct your conjunction correctly, then conjunction elimination holds. You've proven nothing other than the fact that you don't know how to construct logical statements.

So conjunction elimination remains unchallenged. If a person does not believe "God exists" and does not believe "God does not exist" (for instance an agnostics), it must be true that that person does not believe "God exists" (which fulfils Flew's definition of atheist).

Conjunction elimination is still true. It makes no statement about additive colour models, it talks about logic conjunctions. The leap you've made to additive colour models is still unjustified.

Just the once would be fine, but you haven't done that yet. I have given you the flaws that need patching up (and will give them again), until that is done, you haven't mustered one.

You have never correctly identified left/right/motionless with atheist etc, so your motionless/left statement so far has nothing to do with Yardmeat's and DRI's statements. They remain not contradictory.

Nope, Flew's atheism doesn't correspond to "going left", it corresponds to "anyone who simply isn't going right", and it is in fact possible to fall into the categories of "standing still" and "do something other than going right".

You're making rookie mistakes in your parallels between the examples.

DRI picked the rational response. The path DRI didn't choose was to believe things for which you have no justification, that's not a rational response.

Nope, "atheist" in Flew's definition is equivalent to "simply not go right", which in fact is true for those who stay motionless.

It is only you who assert that atheist is equivalent to moving left, the rest of us do not, and if we don't, then all the logical flaws that you find no longer appear. The flaws you keep pointing to are all introduced by that assumption, which you haven't justified, and which is not accepted by Flew, Yardmeat, me, "lackers", etc..

I agree, and feel free to find someone who argues otherwise. In the meantime, you might want to consider the argument that all of us actually present:

Go right = believe God exists = theist
Go left = believe God does not exist
Flew's atheist = anyone who is not a theist = anyone who did not go right

People who remain motionless are in fact a subset of those who did something other than going right.

The Stanford article doesn't say anything about a contextonomy fallacy. And you have yet to explain what context you think Flew was in, so this is just another addition to the pile of things Kokomojojo hasn't been able to justify (that's not fair, it's not a new addition, it's the same issue you've had for a long time).