Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

you wanted to know how I understood flew, and I understand flew pretty much the same way stanford does with little deviation, in fact I expanded on draper. its fine if you disagree however you arent entitled to rewriting logic convention.

 

no its part of a list of counter arguments to yours and flews, that you failed to address

 

thats because 420 is a counter argument, and you still fail to address it.

 

again: contextonomy fallacy: your explanation of flews definition "anything other than going right" is not rational since

Theism is a belief,

Agnostic is a belief,

Atheism to be 'defined' in context relative theism and agnostic must also be based in belief which is an conscious action or position, to be a negation to theist or relative to agnostic.

at the same time their are motionless people in your a subset that did not go left, which is the precise analogy of agnostic,

Abnostic is not defined as atheist.

You are back to your same 'word salad' dilemma that you have yet to logically justify.

 

.
Both agnostic and theist explicitly 'denies' atheism.

 

flews definition further fails because agnostics 'choose' to be agnostic, again that choice is based upon reflection, belief, and conclusions of said beliefs.

your preferred definition denies agnostics because it removes their ability to reject atheism by combining them under the same umbrella, despite the fact that agnostics reject atheism.

Sounds like a bit of a contradiction to me! LNC comes to mind.

in your preferred definition one could be born brain dead and totally incapable of communication on any level and declared to be an atheist of all things, by definition, (yours/flews). complete nonsense!

 

I said the color yellow is the color red and the color green.
CE therefore the color yellow is green

three is (understood as) one and two.
CE therefore three is two

 

but we can all see that red and green is yellow, is a true condition!

I provided a statement demonstrating CE does not work in all cases, that was the point if you missed it.

You failed to counter my argument by creating a statement for yellow that does work.

Continuing to cry foul ball is not an answer.

We can all see its true.

 

Yes, he's faking it, making further engagement with him rather pointless.

His go to trick is always to insert his definitions and purposefully confuse them for the other person's (Flew's, etc), even when it is crystal clear and spelled out what the other person meant.

He insists that atheism equates to "going left" in this analogy while attacking Flew, when as Swensson points out and as we've all pointed out dozens of times, Flew's definition of atheist isn't that, but instead "not going right".

So he refuses to engage in what Swensson here actually writes, or what Flew actually wrote (or even what Draper actually wrote) and substitutes in his straw men, making it a non-conversation. Its mere kokopuffery, meant to puff him up and make him feel superior, by pretending he attacked and destroyed what he pretends people wrote (when we can all see that they didn't).

It got tiresome long ago. I'm still wondering if anybody else wants to champion Draper's points and have an actual honest conversation on them.

 

You ans swensson are the ones inserting your definition despite it being not logical.

the way you and swensson interpret your preferred definition is not logical, nothing I can do, I wont agree with you just because you want to push your agenda

You cant make it work, sorry, not my fault

Thats not the problem at all LOL

Want to know what the problem is:



and you know it!

the question is why are you still here since you dont even understand argument and have nothing worthwhile to add to the thread?

I insist on context, but then one must have good comprehension of english to accomplish such a feat.

If belief is removed from the equation which is swenssons interpretation of flew then theism is !atheist, another fallacy, LNC.

 

****, that was supposed to say "the negation becomes theism is "everyone who is not atheist" which is a fallacy.

 

I've seen lots of definitions of atheist, but what is the definition of a "rational religion"?

 

Maybe atheistic versions of Buddhism, about meditation, peace and inner tranquility, etc?

But is that really religion at all?

 

Your moral compass, regardless of the source you wish claim.

If you want an in depth philosophical definition this is the best Ive seen:

What is religion?

Religion is best characterized as the non-empirical homologue of ideological beliefs, by contrast with science or philosophy the cognitive interest is no longer primary, but gives way to the evaluative interest.

Acceptance of a religious belief is then commitment to its implementation in action in a sense in which acceptance of a philosophical belief is not.

Or, to put it more accurately a philosophical belief becomes a religious belief insofar as it is made the basis of a commitment in action.

Religious ideas may be speculative in philosophical sense, but the attitude toward them is not speculative in the sense that well "I wonder if it would make sense to look at it this way?"

Religious ideas then may be conceived as answers to the 'problems of meaning' in both senses discussed above.

On the one hand they concern the cognitive definition of the situation for action as a whole, including the cathetic and evaluative levels of interest in the situation.

This they share with ideological beliefs.

On the other hand, however, they also must include the problems of 'meaning' in the larger philosophical sense of the meaning of the objects of empirical cognition, of nature, human nature, so the vicissitudes of human life etc. ~emile durkhiem

Thought provoking.

 

I do know some Buddhists who don't subscribe to the woo of it. But not sure if that's still religion. If it is, then that's rational religion.

Atheism (the mere lack of belief in Gods; or the sole belief that Gods don't exist) isn't religion, so can't be rational religion. So the OP is kind of pointless.

Unless the point is just that it's not rational to believe that unfalsifiable Gods don't exist, to the level of certainty religious theists have that those Gods do exist. In that case, I doubt anybody here disagrees. Even Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, etc are all on record saying such Gods are possible. We just have no evidence for them.

 

5000 posts slow but your learning, finally.

awe and you were doing so well in your last post, drowning again

no one has a 'sole' belief Gods do not exist, weve been through this already, pure made up nonsense.

proving you did not bother to read the posted citations saying it is.

Puts atheists on an identical intelligence level as rocks and boulders,
since no brain is required to lack belief in anything, G/gods included.

Sounds pretty rational to me, not what we see in this thread for sure.
.

 

The logic I have provided follows exact logical rules:

1. "yellow is green" is false
2. "red is green" is false
3. The conjunction between them must also be false, since a conjunction is true if and only if its conjuncts are true.

Even if "red and green is yellow" was true, that would just show that you have failed to construct the conjunction correctly, because the conjunction between 1 and 2 must in fact be false.

Nope, conjunction elimination works only on true conjunctions, and the previous paragraph shows that you have failed to construct a conjunction. Conjunction elimination remains correct.

Nope, your argument would be incorrect even if I had said nothing at all. Your example barely counts as an argument, since you've failed to demonstrate that your example is subject to conjunction elimination whatsoever.

Sure it is. If you have provided an argument, and one of the logic steps is incorrect, then your argument is in fact unjustified, and the correct action for me is to point it out.

All I'm seeing is a diagram of additive colour mixing, I have seen no indication that this corresponds to the logical AND.

A conjunction is true when all conjuncts are true, not when you can find colours in a picture.

Nope, "yellow is green" is not a conjunct of "yellow is red and green". You've misapplied conjunction elimination, conjunction elimination remains unchallenged.

Nope. One plus two is three. Conjunction elimination applies to true conjunctions, not to things which Kokomojojo has arbitrarily decided to understand as a conjunction when they are in fact not.

You seem consistently to fail to construct a conjunction. I suggest (again) that you use the definition, a conjunction is true when both conjuncts are true. Therefore, you must first establish two true statements, and then construct the conjunction correctly, for instance:

A: 2+2=4 (true)
B: Humans are mortal (true)
A AND B: 2+2=4 and humans are mortal (also true)

If you only knew that A AND B was true, from that you could use conjunction elimination to derive 2+2=4, which is indeed also true.

Not convinced that agnostic is a belief either. The Stanford article mentions several definitions of agnostic, some of which are beliefs, some of which are not (and they don't seem to have a strong preference).

Seems to me you've picked the wrong context. Flew is pretty clear about what the context he invokes is:

"I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the original Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it is customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral', 'atypical', and 'asymmetrical'".​

So it seems that you have simply failed to identify the relevant context. If you read it in the correct context, then your assertions about "must also be based in belief" are simply not true.

Yep, all motionless people fall into the category of people who didn't move right. They also fall into the category of people who didn't go left. Those are equally true statements.

Of course, the definition of atheist is equivalent to "those who didn't go right" (which does include motionless people /agnostics), whereas the definition of theist is equivalent to "those who went right" (which does not include motionless people /agnostics).

"Motionless people didn't right" is just as true as "motionless people didn't go left", it's just that one of those is exactly equivalent to the definition of atheist, and is therefore central to this topic, whereas the other is largely irrelevant (you seem to imply that it is equivalent to theist, but that doesn't hold up when you write out the logic).

420 is just a number, you're like 90% short of an actual argument. What is it about 420 that you want me to address, what is it you think it shows, and why?

Do you argue that no aspect of usage feeds into what makes correct language? If so, you will fail to account for any word at all ever.
Or do you argue that only certain words, or certain usage feeds into it? Or that certain words/usage feeds into legitimacy in certain contexts? If so, your argument would need to spell out which words, which kinds of usage and which contexts, as well as whether it applies to "atheist".

Until you've made it clear, then you haven't really given an argument for me to even address, which leaves your conclusions unjustified.

Well then, give this counterargument you claim to have. Between "does God exist" and "do you believe God exists", which one should be the relevant one for figuring out whether "a person who does not believe God exists" is true, and why?

Seems to me, "does not believe God exists" is a negation of "believe God exists", not of "God exists".

Not really, I want to know what context you think Flew is in and why. The fact that you have decided to use another context is not very interesting to me.

 

Sums it up nicely. Then you also have a word for the equivalent of people who go left, who also fall under "don't go right" (so are also atheist) but also aren't staying still (not agnostic). That group (sometimes called "strong atheist") is symmetrical to theist, and so Koko's demand for symmetry is met, only with word labels he doesn't like.

 

Yeah. The key error here is that saying "yellow is red and green" is not the same as saying"yellow is red and yellow is green". Another language trick is being attempted there.

 

You have provided NOTHING what so ever to substantiate an error except your opinion which is not a logical proof! My claim is its a limitation on CE, I proved it. Its up to you to 'disprove' it if you do not agree with it.

Ah yes the english major right on Q! lol

I posted empirical data proving that yellow is green and red.

Nothing wrong with my construction sorry.


Looks like there is something wrong with your logic!

Oh I also run across a great example of symmetry!

So he wants no moral sense, every atheist and neoatheist on this board alike argue vehemently that atheists have morals! LNCv

atypical? irregular and unusual, and you want to claim it should be used in a regular and usual sense as the antithesis to theist?

May as well be arguing a cotton ball can be used in the same context as a hammer ffs.

Please see the above graphic, there is no symmetrical relationship that can be drawn. CONTEXTONOMY

asymmetrical is loony land, trying to negate anything in this case theist using asymmetry defies all reason. Categorical fallacy

Koko argued 'precisely' the condition he wants to be understood.

If his preferred definition of atheist is to be defined as "lack of belief" then a 'logically symmetrical' negation (see above graphic) for theist is 'lacks disbelief'.

If his preferred definition of atheist is to be defined as !theist then a 'logically symmetrical' negation (see above graphic) for theist is '!atheist'. Thats how it would have to be argued

Otherwise there is no possibly way I can think of to set your dilemma up in a logically, and its been painfully clear you cant come up with a logically valid way either.

 

Sure I have, over and over. Conjunctions are true if and only if their conjuncts are true, "yellow is red" is not true, so any conjunction that includes it must also be false, yet you argue that the proposition you supply is true.

This highlights the fact that your way of finding a conjunction isn't valid at all. Conjunctions has nothing to do with RGB lights or borders in JPEGs, conjunctions are true if and only if their conjuncts are true, you're just trying to avoid the syllogism which would be how you actually find out what a conjunction is and whether it is true.

Nope, you have not shown how any of your statements are meant to relate to each other. A can be inferred from A and B, your example hasn't specified an A, nor an A AND B.

Your "yellow is red and green" examples contain no references to conjunctions, conjunction elimination, "A AND B", or anything that is actually found in conjunction elimination.

Nope, your argument is wrong even if nobody had said anything about it.

That being said, the fact that A ("yellow is red") is false means that all conjunctions involving it must be false. This proves that "yellow is red" cannot be used to disprove conjunction elimination, since conjunction elimination only makes statements about true conjunctions.

The thing you posted has no mention of conjunctions or logical ANDs anywhere in it. You've proven very nicely that yellow is between red and green in a particular picture, you have failed to say anything about conjunctions, which is what conjunction elimination is about.

What is it you're showing, and what do you think it proves? Do you think the following proves that true is false?



Seems to me Google Ngrams are a red herring.

It's a lovely example. Nothing in the picture suggests that either is disallowed though.

Don't think he's said any such thing.

Don't think I've said anything like that. I have only argued that Flew and others are able to correctly use his definition, and when you do, there are no logical issues. Haven't said anything of what should be done "usually" or "regularly".

Perhaps, but we have no demand to keep our definitions "logically symmetrical", so we'll stick to the definitions that we already have. Theist is defined as "a person who believes God(s) exist", and atheist is defined as "a person who does not believe God(s) exist".

Flew gives a few examples that are defined in a similar way:

"Amoral": Even though "moral" has complex and complicated definitions, "amoral" is sufficiently defined as "lacking moral sense".
"Asymmetrical": Even though "symmetrical" has a rather complex definition, "asymmetrical" is sufficiently defined with "not symmetrical" or "lacking symmetry". ​

Clearly, the a- prefix doesn't denote a demand for the "logically symmetrical negation" that you ascribe to it.

I can't pick a hole in your reasoning for saying definitions must be logically symmetrical, because, well, you never provided such a reasoning.

I agree that if atheist is defined as !theist, then for any theist, !atheist must be true.

theist = believes God exists = not not believe God exists = not atheist​

However, it is still not the definition of theist, the definition of theist remains "someone who believes God(s) exist".

Your failure to see the logic is not a problem on our side.

 

I agree with what you mean, and really with what you succeed in saying, however, the phrasing leaves an opening for wilfully obtuse interpretation. My understanding is:

"Yellow is red" is A
"Yellow is green" is B
"Yellow is red AND yellow is green" is A AND B
"Yellow is green and red" is a for our purposes unrelated statement​

However, one could choose to interpret your statements as:

"Yellow is red and yellow is green" is A and B (not the logical conjunction of A and B, but a set containing A and B)
"Yellow is red and green" is the conjunction of A and B​

Of course, there is a mistake in the last line, in that the statement doesn't follow from the definition of a conjunction at all. Personally, I think we allow others to obfuscate if we're not clear about the distinction. The fact that Kokomojojo refuses to construct a conjunction via the definition suggests that I might be on the right line.

Not much of a response, it is a distinction that normally should be perfectly clear.

 

You'll never get him to admit that the letters in formal logic represent propositions. If he understood that, there would be nothing more to discuss. I've provided a source for him on that (the same source that says that a proposition HAVING a truth value doesn't mean we KNOW the truth value . . . something else he doesn't comprehend), but he would not engage.

 

I seriously doubt Flew has denied morality or ethics. He wrote at least one book defending atheistic humanism and one on evolutionary ethics. He probably wrote more articles/books than that on the subject, but those are the two I know of.