Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

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

  1. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I thought god was three.
     
  2. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So your author just demonstrated the accuracy the unicorn analogy. Thanks for the help!
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2020
  3. Goomba

    Goomba Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    10,717
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Well, I’m not a Christian...
     
  4. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, I've been asking you to spell out your interpretation, but you've mostly just repeated your sound bites rather than explaining them.

    You have complained about definitions using the concept of "lack" before, yet now you use one yourself. If you merrily tell us that non-theism is a lack, why was it so hard for you to understand the concept in earlier posts and threads?

    The Stanford author's only verdict on the definition is that it is "valid". He follows it up with the line 'Again, there is more than one “correct” definition of “atheism”' which seems to imply that the entire discussion is to show usable definitions rather than rejecting them. What is your criteria for usable that doesn't rely on the Stanford author's idea of a "valid" definition?

    Well, in addition to the usage acknowledged by both the Stanford article and you. You will have to connect the dots if you want to argue that the definition isn't "usable".

    I don't agree with these ideas as general rules (they may be good enough for writecheck.com, and good advice, but not really necessary rules). For starters, I wouldn't call Flew's definition slang other than in a very loose sense.

    Slang: a type of language consisting of words and phrases that are regarded as very informal, are more common in speech than writing, and are typically restricted to a particular context or group of people (source)

    Slang is language (words, phrases, and usages) of an informal register that members of particular in-groups favor (over the common vocabulary of a standard language) in order to establish group identity, exclude outsiders, or both (source)

    SLANG very informal language that is usually spoken rather than written, used especially by particular groups of people (source)​

    Either way, I don't think formal writing excludes non-standard language, especially if you explicitly state what you mean by the word. Scientific, philosophical, linguistic, academic papers etc. are full of non-standard usage, and that is never a problem as long as you're clear about what definition you use. I'm also doubtful of your insistence on philosophical wordings in contexts like internet forums.

    It is, if you consider atheism to be the negation of theism. The law of the excluded middle states "for any proposition, either that proposition is true or its negation is true". If atheism is the negation of theism (which the a- prefix would suggest), then for each proposition (such as "this person is a theist"), either it or its negation ("this person is an atheist") must be true, leaving no room for agnostics (of course, that doesn't mean that agnostics don't exist, just that they are not separate from the other categories). If this flies in the face of your understanding of atheist, then your usage of atheism isn't really a negation of theism.

    I could maybe agree that it would be more useful if people would use certain language when making the points that they are making, but that doesn't make the arguments that are being made invalid or incorrect, it just means you have to make an effort to understand it. It certainly doesn't allow you to assume that they used different definitions to make different arguments than they actually presented. Then again, my "certain language" would be nothing but a personal preference. Philosophy is good at discussing very diverse ideas, it seems to me to fly in the face of good philosophy use to reject ideas just because a particular type of language fails to grasp it.

    I mean, it is also linguistically incorrect to start sentences without capital letters, miss out a sentence's subject or miss out punctuation, all of which you do often. While I'd prefer if you didn't do those things, it would be intellectually dishonest of me to disregard or misinterpret your arguments just because you do it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2020
  5. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have either in text or by reference, and the sound bites are the conclusions of those explanations that you have failed to rebut.
    Yes I do get facetious sometimes when people chase their tails dont I?
    theism is also a lack, you know that, I dont understand why its so hard for you to understand that.
    because uneducated people use it, which has nothing to do with its accuracy, and dictionaries report common usage, yet you ignore that little factoid and pretend its more.
    Sure and they direct to specific reference that seems to cause you immense confusion for some reason.
    stanford explained it very clearly
    I already have, umpteen times.
    well they wont throw you in jail for grammar abuse, true.
    I do, it has no academic meaning or value, aside from noting and pointing out that uneducated lazy or nonthinkers use it
    you miss the point however once again that I am referring to formal discussion about some subject matter. you are never clear about it however, always trying to force square pegs in round holes.
    Sure why would we discuss anything in context, thats no fun compared to the lovely quagmires we can create discussing everything out of context.
    my usage of atheism is precisely the negation of theism, yours is not, yours on the other hand is well understood equivocation.
    project much?
    there is no assumption, your usage is crystal clear and you use it to conflate the issues under review.
    language is required to specify meaning, nothing anyone can do when you say one thing and mean another, regardless if you cognizant of it or not, that all on you.
    irrelavant, with exception to typos, my punctuation and usage most often describes the subject matter crystal clear, I do not conflate usage and pound square pegs into round holes as you try to do.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2020
  6. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you to understand its meaning and precise application with regard to the discussion based upon my usage, no additional criteria is required, that is your invention, and attempt to deepen the rabbit hole that goes nowhere.
    that was intended to say: "it has no academic meaning or value, aside from noting and pointing out that uneducated lazy or nonthinkers try to inappropriately use it as an ontological substitute for the purpose of equivocation"
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2020
  7. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    that’s a good first start towards enlightenment.
     
  8. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    unicorns are proven, nothing like posting another debunked and failed atheist theory.
    If you want to define 'enlightenment' as a house of playing cards built on the atheological fallacies that collapse to the ground as soon as a gnat sneezes like we see in these, Id agree.

    More like if he wants start towards 'delusionment'.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2020
    Goomba likes this.
  9. Goomba

    Goomba Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    10,717
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I agree. Now, if only we could get you geared towards undoing the delusion of your alleged “enlightenment.”
     
  10. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    oh that happened about sixty years ago when. I figured out the god thing was just a hoax the money changers in the temple created for their own benefit.
     
  11. Goomba

    Goomba Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    10,717
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    In other words, you no longer referred to a particular idea or concept to perceive reality; you just exchanged it with something else. That’s not enlightenment- that’s delusion.
     
  12. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FALSE, well there are little parts that are true. Getting back to your post as I promised.

    For theism and atheism to be properly reviewed in philosophical terms one must be a negation of the other that is a direct response to the question 'does God exist', and in those terms requires a straight up yes or no. Not this 1/2 way bullshit that neoatheists try to claim then further use that answer to illegitimately drag people who are not atheists into the atheist camp as you have just done.

    The problem you have of course is that I can also propose theism negatively, same disingenuous underhanded 'word salad' trick atheists are using to horn everyone including agnostics into atheism, such that:

    theism lacks belief in the nonexistence of God, therefore anyone who does not answer no to the question 'does God exist' is a theist.

    Which of course using your logic means that agnostics are theists. It goes full circle and comes right back to bite you in the ass.

    rahl will be very unhappy to find out he is a theist after all ;)
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2020
  13. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As you are aware, atheism by definition is not a religion, or theism.
     
  14. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    rahl, my post had nothing to do with a 'religion' claim, please reread it, it is a theist claim, your response is non-sequitur, it does not address the point made, it proves (using Flews definition standards however, which are the definition standards that you use) that you are a theist, not an atheist as you claim. LOL
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2020
  15. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly which is why anyone who does not answer a straight up no to the question does God exist is a theist, because theists lack belief in the nonexistence of God. Which is why stanford edu philosophy dept does not accept flews 'lack of belief' neoatheist 'word salad' and file 13'd it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2020
  16. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Still nope. The concept of a negation requires either the proposition or its negation is true. You have to abandon logic to get out of that one. The idea that the negation has to be a direct response to the same question, however, is not a requirement, and given that that idea disagrees with one of the fundamental laws of logic, it simply isn't true.

    I can see how your ideas might seem reasonable if not examined well. "There is a god" is a negation of "there is no god" (since the middle is excluded, one of those statements have to be true), so I can see how you would confuse that with the idea that the beliefs in those propositions are negations too. However, the law of the excluded middle shows that if that was true, being an agnostic would be impossible, so that argument falls apart.

    Also nope. Theism is not required to be a mirroring of atheism. Flew's definition of atheism describes what the word "atheism" means, and has no impact on what we mean by "theism". Theism is still by definition a person who believes that a god exists, so your assertion "theism lacks belief in the nonexistence of god" is not the definition of theism, even in Flew's view.
     
  17. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope? Try reading for context, that what I just said :roll:
    WTF?
    Citation?
    Now I understand why you think you can use strawman nonsequiturs
    False, your 256 shades of belief are not relevant.
    All that is relevant to the proposition as stated 'does God exist' is 'YES' or 'NO' as stanford exhaustively points out.
    I told you I wont discuss agnostic with you, you dont understand the foundation of basic logical propositions.
    Required? That makes no sense what so ever.
    So hypocrisy is ok?
    Flew can invent his personal little definition for atheism but regardless of the fact that the statement "theism lacks belief in the nonexistence of God, therefore anyone who does not answer no to the question 'does God exist' is a theist." is 100% true (or equally as true as Flews definitional prowess applied to theism) you would dismiss and handwave away the very logic and reasoning logic when applied to theism that he applied to atheism? Seriously?

    Suffice to say, you just shot both your feet off.

    Atheism 'was' by definition 'no God(s) exist', until flew, and theism by definition was at least 'one God exists',

    now by definition (in neoatheistville) atheism is the lack of belief that God(s) exist, and 'theism is lack of belief that Gods dont exist'.

    Therefore anything that lacks belief Gods dont exist is a theist and theist is the default condition. :eek:

    Seems you got a contradiction, 'lack of belief' fails.

    This is totally hilarious because as you and everyone else can plainly see that you cant destroy the proposition 'theists lack belief that God(s) do not exist' logic without destroying Flews logic :winner:
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2020
  18. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    atheism by definition is the opposite of theism, so it is not theism.
     
  19. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you did not answer 'no' to the proposition 'do God(s) exist', you claim you lack belief that Gods exist, which is Flews definition, that is not a 'no', it is not a valid response to the proposition;

    therefore using flews format precisely: 'theists lack belief that God(s) do not exist', you did not confirm that God(s) do not exist as required by the proposition therefore you are a theist.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2020
  20. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you seem to think this moronic word game you play somehow changes what words mean. Atheism, by definition is the opposite of theism. It is not theism.
     
  21. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hardly, Its your word game I just play it better than you, but then I have the philosophical universities on my team.

    Suck it up buttercup either respond with a 'no' to the proposition or you are by definition a theist!

    well unless you can find a material error, and trust me there is none lol
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2020
  22. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    no you don't. words mean things. the meaning of atheism precludes it from being theism. It's right in the definition.

    atheism, by definition, is the opposite of theism. Claiming atheism is theism is absolutely retarded.
     
  23. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I never claimed atheists were theists, where did you dredge that up from?

    'theists lack belief that God(s) do not exist',
    you did not affirm that God(s) do not exist as required by the proposition
    therefore you are a theist, the default condition is theist.

    The only way you can falsify that statement is to find a material error, and there are none, its as rock solid as flews now contradicted and debunked diatribe.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2020
  24. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I’ve already proven your statement false. Using the actual definition of atheism. Sorry
     
  25. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    false, I have made that so simple that anyone with pre101 logic skills can see you are posting fiction.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2020

Share This Page