Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

If you aren't a theist (and your answer keeps changing about that), then why do you need "theological speak"?

 

Its not about coming up with a definition though.
Atheist is the negation of the 'root' word theist, (a-)theist.
Theist is actually the definition of those who accept the existence of a supernatural entity or deity as true.
How can someone reject some unstated hypothesis that never came into existence?
The word theist would not exist for you to add the (a-) to.
Thats the problem with using LoB, Absence, and Without as a 'definition' for atheism.
In every case each of them can exist not only without the word theist also without the existence of the 'word' God which of course leads us to total absurdity in logic.
This is why, in philosophy, the definition of atheism is someone that denies the existence of God, where atheism is properly thought of as the negation of theism.
How can you not be a driver if nothing first exists to drive.
It defies sanity.

 

Not my terms, ask him.

 

Cool, so you don't even actually agree with the argument you are advancing. Glad we can both agree that your question was completely irrelevant.

 

yep SSDD always blaming me for your screwups.

 

Lol, you literally asked a question, I asked you for the basis of your question, and you ran away from your own question. I didn't hypnotize you into asking the question that you now acknowledge to be complete nonsense. This was your screw up. You are, once again, guilty of exactly the same thing you are accusing others of.

 

Koko said that atheism as lack of belief in god can exist without theism. I disagree.

You have to have the idea of god, and belief in god, before you can say that some people lack belief in god. You can't have lack of belief in god if the idea of god doesn't exist. It would be impossible to even think of atheism if theism didn't exist.

Think of a tree that falls in a forest where there are no living beings. Does it make a sound? Can you define "sound" if there's no ear to hear it?

 

I disagree. If theists wouldn't exist, the idea of god, and belief in god, wouldn't exist. Lack of belief in god wouldn't exist.

 

What a crock, I did not advance an argument, I asked a question about HIS argument that HE is advancing.
you post twisted **** then blame me, same MO as the Jbird

 

Thats why LoB, Without, and Absence cannot be a ligitimate definition of atheism because all of them can stand on their own without the existence of a theist. The atheists of the [Neo] variety have really lead people on a wild goose chase, sorry.

You could say lack of belief, Without, and Absence of belief for anything you never heard of, which creates an an absurdity. ie: nonsense.

Dictionaries merely publish popular usage so we can somewhat better comprehend what each other is saying.

In most cases they do not analyse the words outside determining best 'usage' of the time.

Usage all to often has nothing to do with what a word actually means in an analytical sense which is the sense philosophy has to deal with words.

 

Basically what they have done is turn logic on its head.

We dont start with a atheist, (nonexistence) then negate it with existence, theist.

We start with a 'claim' something is true (exists), then the negation is a direct counter claim of nonexistence, false.

If you see a cup sitting on a counter you dont disbelieve that the cup has water in it until someone positively asserts there is water in it and you are convinced there is none.

 

I have no idea what that is.

 

I agree that we need revisions, however no one has been able to come with an effective replacement.

 

IF LoB is used as a "definition" for atheism, then atheists can exist......!
Please use the qoute feature so you get it right.
Using terms that cant be formatted philosophically takes us into a whole nuther realm of weirdness.

 

You have to have the idea, yes. You don't have to have anybody who believes it is true (ie, theism). Everybody could lack that belief (ie, atheism), without anybody thinking it true. That would apply to many fictional characters.

 

That doesn't make sense, but I shouldn't expected more.

 

true, but it does not stop there.

false, theism defines 'what' is believed, or the positive hypothesis.

Sure but that does not make it acceptable as a definition as I previously explained.
So you claim to put me on iggy then use pisa as a proxy!

 

arent we still talking about rorty?

 

We know that fictional characters don't really exist. I might be wrong, but it seems to me that knowing that something doesn't exist is not the same as lack of belief.

 

Heres the thing,

If you walk up to someone and say; "hey what do you think about god", and they look at you and say duh wha?
That is a person that truly lacks belief in God.

Now you take someone like yourself or the bird or anyone else that is informed about God and they claim they lack belief in God that misrepresents their true position. Once they think about it, and have made a decision after tinking about it that they do not believe it, they hold the conviction that they cannot agree with belief in God, once that decision is made its no longer lack of belief, its now a decision not to believe, therefore they hold the belief that God does not exist. I have yet to find so much as one person that claims lack of belief that is totally uninformed and has not made a decision to disbelieve.

 

Are our decisions truly our own? Do we decide, solely on a conscious level, what to believe? I don't think so. Unless you can prove that our decisions are made solely at a conscious level simply because we knowingly choose them, I can't answer your post. Your whole argument is based on an unproven premise.

 

Of course, and you are the source.
If you pull out a gun and toast someone there is no court on the planet that is going to buy that you did it anything but consciously.

Even if you could prove the decision was unconscious, there is no way that you could prove your standing 'conviction' is unconscious. your counter fails.

 

No, 'we' are trolling.

Which should tell you something, seeing as this is a philosophy forum..

 

Yes. They are not equal. Though the former indicates the latter, the latter does not require the former. You lack belief in the affirmative if you affirm the negative or also if you don't believe in either direction (what some would call agnostic).

 

That is a good question, and the answer appears to often be no when it comes to our beliefs. We often don't choose consciously what to believe. Some of us may have greater ability for self delusion that others, but can any of us really truly will ourselves to believe things such as that we are elephants, etc?

Our actual perceptions along with logic dictate most of our beliefs, and at least for many atheists that includes atheism.

I never chose not to believe the Muslim God exists, and I can not will myself to believe that God does exist regardless of how hard I try to. No more than I can will myself to believe I am an elephant or that I can flap my arms and fly. I didn't decide to be atheist. I just am.