Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

After the heat-death of the universe, you are still going to be going on about this nonsense huh?

 

You deleted the punchline from my quote, the result of arguing general usage in place of philosophical review when examining words:



As I said Flew failed, as Stanford said Flew failed, and I have a guy here who argues orange versus orange trying to create an academic argument out of a non sequitur and cram it down my throat.

 

The Stanford article doesn't, it calls it legitimate. The slang angle seems to be one that you made up to try to save face.

You started talking about that usage the moment you said things like "neoatheists will scream that atheism is not a religion", "simply because they said it and pretend their opinions are proof" and "Neoatheists simply excuse themselves from providing the same level of proof they demand of theists" (source).

Of course, you can make arguments in any context you want, but if you pick a different one, then nobody has made the arguments above in that context.

Of course there is, it carries meaning. Some people use it, some people don't, but arguments made using it still makes sense if you use the definition correctly. I don't see how that has any impact on any of my arguments.

I am going to exactly the level that was used when atheists "excused themselves from providing ... evidence". Some of those are academical, like Flew, others, I'm sure are not. Some are internet forum levels. I don't think it matters which "level" it is or what you call them, as soon as you referred to those kinds of arguments, you have either addressed that level or committed the fallacy of equivocation.

It seems to me people are using it just fine to communicate, it takes its full role in places like the Stanford article, it seems to me it's just you who are out of touch.

Fundamentally, I'm commenting on arguments you have made, so the discussion fits best in this thread. If you don't want people to point out your errors, stop making erroneous arguments.

 

So did I, at least twice and here you are once again creating a bullshit quagmire merry go round. Thanks for playing, I am done riding your merry go round, I can see why rahl refuses to respond to you.

 

I don’t refuse to respond to anyone.

by the way, atheism remains by definition, not a religion. The same way not playing baseball isn’t a sport.

 

rahl, posting the definition that applies to theism does not magically vaporize all the definitions of religion that apply to atheism , from your source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

Definition of Religion

Theism is a Religion: "b(1) : the service and worship of God or the [worship of] supernatural"

Below is what you dishonestly omit from your posts is that nontheists IOW atheism is also a religion.

Atheism is a Religion 1 : manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality .....[no G/god exists]
Atheism is a Religion 2 : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance [faith based]
Atheism is a Religion 3 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices [faith based]
Atheism is a Religion 4 : conscientiousness
Atheism is a Religion 5 : a cause, [a] principle, or [a] system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Why do you pretend the definitions saying atheists and nontheists are religions do not apply?

Why the deceit and intellectual dishonesty?

 

And atheism remains, as it did the very first time you made this moronic claim, by definition not a religion. Sorry

 

How is that not delusional when we can see it clearly falls under several of the 5 definitions for religion? What logic or reason or none are you using to make such a statement?

 

I've given you the definitions of both. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. By definition, atheism is not a religion. The same way not playing baseball isn't a sport.

 

Sorry but the quote I posted proves otherwise. And I don’t get the relevance of your questions to anything other than ducking from my proof of your fraudulent logic.

here it is again if you failed to read It or comprehend it the first time:

https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~pluralsm/affiliates/jainism/jainedu/jaingod.htm

 

So you do not know the difference between a link and quote I see.
You quoted NOTHING.
Please provide a quote proving that Jains worship a deity. How long you gonna dodge this? Self worship is not deity worship, atheists do that
I need a 'quote' to see exactly what you are referencing.
Quotation please?

 

I was pointing out that the slang angle is your conjecture and not supported by the article. I've seen you say it is legitimate (although you said within the slang department, without justifying it or describing why or how that is relevant to the argument at hand) and that you reject it. It's unclear to me how you combine those or why you should do so.

So, with that in mind, when "Neoatheists simply excuse themselves from providing the same level of proof they demand of theists", you're quoting people who are using the Flew definition, but when you say "Its is not rational to claim their position of faith (atheism) has any greater relevance to the facts than than the theists position of faith", you use the "there is no god" definition of atheism, i.e. you are guilty of equivocation.

They have claimed only that religious claims have been unpersuasive (which doesn't require evidence other than showing that certain claims do not lead to certain conclusions), however, you have ascribed to them the accepted notion that there is no god.

 

So how many G/gods does a neoatheist who is not persuaded believe exists?

 

It's a bit like asking "how many gods does a person who likes apples believe exists?". It is not specified solely by the statement that they are not persuaded by religious claims (or liking apples).

Of course, there will be those who strictly believe there are no gods, and there will be those who are unconvinced in either direction, as well as people who have never been presented with a religious claim and people who find themselves on the spectrum between these points, and I'm sure other categories.

The notion of being unconvinced by religious claims rules out answers like "one" and "fifty", but it does not rule out the answers "none" or "I don't know".

Of course, any beliefs they actually hold, be it the actual absence of gods, or religious claims being unpersuasive, should be able to argue those points, and anyone who says "I believe there are exactly no gods" is no less subject to the burden of proof than a theist is, but it is not clear from the label atheist (in Flew's definition) that an atheist believes that.

 

Therefor the answer is 0, zippo, nada.

The rest of your post with no standing, the above highlighted is the only part that is usefully applicable to this conversation.

The answer is 0, in all cases, ie: semantics.

That is why neoatheists avoid the question like the plague since it demonstrates in no uncertain terms how out to lunch their atheology really is when put to the test.

'I dont know' is not an acceptable response to the proposition based on Stanford since that is what we both quoted as metric, (philosophy), unless of course you want to play chinese metrics.

Therefore as I said its all semantic, your state of mind, and the various atheological word salads neoatheists have concocted to duck the hammer are not relevant to the proposition.

 

I presented two possible answer, boiling it down to zero only is your conjecture. It seems to me the question is designed to give an answer that you can wilfully misinterpret.

Why wouldn't "I don't know" be an acceptable answer? If a person doesn't think they know how many gods there are, why would they not answer that?

What proposition do you relate to Stanford and how? I haven't used the word "metric", where did I quote something that you interpreted as a metric? The idea I came in with, and which was reinforced by the Stanford article, is that there is no universal metric.

Depends on which proposition they're responding to. I would imagine most people who use Flew's definition think of a different proposition than you do, so again, the problem is only your unwillingness to actually consider the argument that is being presented. You shoehorn people's arguments into answers to propositions that they are not meant to answer.

 

Where is "I dont know" on the number line?

Please show where "I dont know" is on the number line

Like -1, I dont know, 0, 1?

False, the question precisely describes exactly how many G/gods they believe in, ZERO, any conclusion other than zero is blatant intellectual dishonesty and fraud.

Unless of course you can show us where I dont know lands on the number line.



Good luck with that.

 

Who says the answer has to be on a number line? You've presented a system with answers on a number line, I don't think it is a good representation of reality.

For this simplified system, I would set up a two dimensional model, where the dimensions are "this person believes that God exists" and "this person believe that God does not exist" (without loss of generality you can adapt this model to multiple answers, polytheism, partial beliefs or any number of variations, should you want to).

A theist is represented by (1,0) (the first statement is true, the second is false), a person who believes there are no gods is represented by (0,1), an agnostic is represented by (0,0) (the choice (1,1) is contradictory, but has a place in the model where certain crazy people or hypocrites might go). An atheist according to Flew's definition is one where the first number is 0, regardless of what the second number is, i.e. the definition does not specify whether you're sure that there is no gods, or if you've just been unconvinced by religious claims.

Are you suggesting there are people who believe in -1 gods? It seems to me the problem is just you having set up a faulty model.

Even if the inclusion of -1 here is just a reference to a different scale, it highlights the point that you have to justify your choices and present them clearly when you choose models. And that's the justifications I've been asking you for for a long time, but which you have failed to present. Instead, you put us back on the merry-go-round by asking a question I already knew you wouldn't understand the answer to.

Where on this scale do you think agnostics fall then?

 

Im suggesting you most likely do not know what a number line is so I drew a picture for you strictly as an example of what a number line looks like so you could show me where I dont know falls on the number line.

You have failed to do that and instead introduce extraneous arguments (strawmen) outside the scope of where I dont know falls on the number line in reference to a neoatheist as stated and as being discussed.

We are not talking about agnostics, we are talking about how many gods a neoatheist believes exists, if you wish to claim its different than 0 for neoatheists then you need to prove which definition applies to your version of neoatheists and where 'I dont know' falls on the number line for neoatheists or we are done.

 

Correction, you already agreed to the definition in a previous post, you only need to prove where I dont know lands on the number line for neoatheists.

For the question 'How many' where you listed I dont know as a numeric option, you need to explain where it is placed on the number line since it appears to be nonsense.

I am not aware of any numbering system on the planet that incorporates "I dont know' as part of the number line neither does 'I dont know' answer the question how many.

 

I know full well what a number line is, what I don't know is why you have made up the idea that every atheist (by Flew's definition) needs to have a numerical answer to the question. That seems to be something that you have made up, and even worse, you seem to either not have noticed that you made it up, or you tried to sneak it in without declaring it.

"I don't know" is not an unreasonable answer to the question, if that doesn't fit your model of what people can answer, then I guess your model is wrong.

As you might recall, one of the issues you once had with the fact that atheists included you and other agnostics in their definition. So if we use that definition, some atheist (according to Flew) are also agnostics (like the agnostic atheists which there are many examples of but you somehow argue can't exist). Some (but not all) of the Flew atheists are agnostics, so yes, we are talking about agnostics, among others.

Which definition of what do you mean I have agreed to, and where do you think I have agreed to it?

You're right in that "I don't know" is not a direct answer to how many gods there are, but a person who does not know how many gods there are will be unable to give an answer to the question, and may very well answer "I don't know".

Some people will answer "I don't know", if that doesn't fit on the number line, then the number line can't be the full range of possible answers.

 

bullshit
I dont know does not address the question asked
3 strikes you are out

If there is anyone else here who is not playing in the



and is capable of responding ON POINT feel free to respond,

To everyone else, the question remains, how many Gods does a neoatheist believe exists?

I am out of this over the top ridiculous disingenuous intellectually dishonest circle jerk strawman dodging with this guys posts, quagmire of nonsense as predicted.

 

Because you haven't justified thinking that there needs to be an answer. There will be people who truthfully answer "I don't know" to the question. It may not be a direct answer, in the sense that it isn't a number, but it reflects reality. If reality doesn't fit in your understanding, then your understanding is flawed.

Strawman? Have I ascribed any belief to you that you do not hold?

 

For a neoatheist who does not know if a God exists, how many Gods do they believe exists?, your whole premise is garbage.
You purposefully put me into a position where I have to crayola the ****ing obvious then whine piss and moan that I use caps to stress a point then accuse me of getting angry.
Its always about your screwed up logic

 

1) For a neoatheist who 'does not know' if a God exists, how many Gods do they believe exists? 0
2) For a neoatheist who 'does not know about God', how many Gods do they believe exists? 0
3) For a neoatheist who 'lacks belief', how many Gods do they believe exists? 0
4) For a neoatheist who 'lacks belief in God', how many Gods do they believe exists? 0
5) For a neoatheist who 'is without God', how many Gods do they believe exists? 0
6) For a neoatheist who 'absent belief in God', how many Gods do they believe exists? 0
7) For a neoatheist that identifies 'as an atheist', how many Gods do they believe exists? 0

in ALL cases the answer is ZERO!
The bottom line does not give a **** about their psychological state, none believe in a God.