Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

so iyo atheism is an inactive belief. How does that work?

 

As I have stated several times now as usual:

Expanded examination of Antony Flews Atheology concerning atheism and theism;

1) Atheists 'lack belief' that God exists. True or False
2) Theists 'lack belief' that God does not exist. True or False

Oops!

Did I accidentally give away the correct answers to the test?

Incorrect. No one actively denies anything, they just lack.
Its the results of Flews logic, which is why stanford rejects it.

Yes 'that logic' based on atheologies 'enlightened logic and reasoning' that they are presently using to rewrite all the dictionaries,

They gave birth to: The laws of 'the included middle', a tremendous contribution to logic and philosophy.

Strangely enough, rahl and Swensson cant accept the conclusions of their own logic.

 

atheism is the lack of belief in a god. Theism is an active belief in a god.

 

Which question do you think I dodged? I can revisit it and provide any details or justifications you want.

I agree, theists lack the belief that god does not exist.

It is not the definition of a theist, since theists in addition are required to have the belief in the existence of a god. For instance, an agnostic lacks both beliefs, but that is not sufficient to label them theists. However, I agree that it is a true statement and proposition.

 

Yes we know that you lack belief and when anyone who lacks belief that is not playing intellectually dishonest games are forced to respond to the proposition does God exist with a 'no'.

You just addressed it below.

Ok progress

Its not intended to be the definition of theist, any more than flew intended lack of belief to be a definition of atheist.

Required? There is no requirement (using neoatheist atheology) for someone to be a strong theist to carry the label theist any more than there is a requirement (again using neoatheist atheology) for someone to be a strong atheist to carry the label atheist. You are making that up.

I am not talking with you about agnositics, they are not included in the proposition.

Atheology dictates that weak theists do exist, so it most certainly is sufficient.

Therefore the default conditi9on is theist.

 

you've already had these word games completely destroyed. Atheism still means lack of belief in a god. Theism still means belief in a god. Atheism still remains, by defintion, not a religion. Atheists remain, by definition, not theists.

 

Ok since you deny that people who lack belief in God would answer 'no' to the proposition 'does God exist', unfortunately the only other choice is, people who lack belief in God choose yes to the proposition 'does God exist'.

You are doing a great job defending neoatheology!



keep up the good work!

 

you've already had these word games completely destroyed. Atheism still means lack of belief in a god. Theism still means belief in a god. Atheism still remains, by defintion, not a religion. Atheists remain, by definition, not theists.

 

but I have already destroyed your position using contraposition and negation, even Swensson agrees the proposition is true.

Logic/philosophical proof overrules popular usage which is the purpose it was put in the dictionary, this is logic 101 that you claim you are an expert, not popular usage.

As you should know word usage is also put in a dictionary just so people can understand what each other is saying and it has no bearing what so ever on the 'real definition' of a word

 

Nope. Atheism remains, by definition, not a religion. Atheists remain, by definition, not theists. This will continue to remain true no matter how many moronic threads you start on this same topic. Sorry.

 

Think you have confused god with Popeye the Sailor Man.

 

How is it you don’t include agnostics. Are you so stuck in binary logic that it blinds to to actual reality. .

And you do recognize that weak atheists also exist which nullifies theist as the default condition.

 

Did you just make that up? Perhaps you can supply the post number.

 

There is another choice. I don’t know or even I have no opinion. You make the assumption that the choice is binary which clearly is a false assumption and invalidates the entire rest of your logic.

 

Maybe because agnostic was not the proposition being reviewed? ya thank?
The proposition stands on its own merit and is 100% valid.
Agnostic is not under review at this time.
Yes the proposition as stated is a binary proposition, either true of false.
There is no other response that qualifies.

AGAIN:
Maybe because agnostic was not the proposition being reviewed? ya thank?
The proposition stands on its own merit and is 100% valid.
Agnostic is not under review at this time.
Yes the proposition as stated is a binary proposition, either true of false.
There is no other response that qualifies.

 

So the proposition is valid in binary but has no validity in reality and therefor defines nothing and has no relevance to a discussion of atheism and theism.

 

So asking for an answer to the question 'Does God exist' has no validity other than in my own mind?

Now thats some seriously twisted **** man.

Unless of course you are about to argue that 'lack of belief' really means agnostic, not atheist?

 

Not that, any of that has anything to do with 'lack of belief' atheology.

Unless you lack belief in 'I dont know', or maybe you lack belief in 'I have no opinion'?

Then those may apply depending.

If you dont know, how many Gods do you believe exist, I know you will pretend the question was never asked, the answer is '0' as in Zero

If you have no opinion, how many Gods do you believe exist, I know you will pretend the question was never asked, the answer is '0' as in Zero

If a theist lacks belief in the nonexistence of God, how many Gods do they believe exist, I know you will pretend the question was never asked, the answer is 1 to infinity.

Thats a wrap!

 

It seems to me Flew intended the lack of theism to be the definition of atheism, but the definition of theism to stay "the belief in god". Stanford for instance writes about Flew's definition:

Instead, “atheism” should be defined as a psychological state: the state of not believing in the existence of God (or gods). This view was famously proposed by the philosopher Antony Flew and arguably played a role in his (1972) defense of an alleged presumption of “atheism”. (my bolding, source)​

Seems pretty clear about the lack of belief in the existence of god being the definition of atheism (in that context).

So that is the difference between the two statements. Flew's definition of atheism is a definition, the statement "theists lack belief in there not being a god" is just a statement (albeit a true one). The logic that many atheists present relies on that definition of atheism. Therefore, you can't use the same logic on theism as you can for atheism, and therefore, your counterexample of "theists lack a belief in the absence of god" doesn't work.

The requirements for which labels are applied when are set out in their definitions. "Neoatheist atheology" as you call it sets out that the requirement to be an atheist is to lack the belief in god (i.e. to not be a theist), but says that the requirement for being a theist remains to believe in god. As usual, the main factor in you thinking "neoatheism" doesn't make sense is that you have misunderstood "neoatheism".

Well, agnostics are an excellent counter example to your logic. Avoiding it puts your view in a bad place. The only reason I can see for you preferring not talking about it is that you know that your view won't hold up.

I don't see how that follows. Theists are defined as "having belief in god", so only explanations which include that are sufficient to label someone a theist. Where are you getting you "atheology" from? It looks to me like a misunderstanding of atheism more than anything.

Nope. That logic works for atheism because "lack of belief" is the definition of atheism. "Lack of belief of there not being a god" is not the definition of theism, so it doesn't lead us to conclude that theism is any default condition.

 

So now you resort to posting a total deception of stanfords position, wtf is up with that man.

While this might seem etymologically bizarre, perhaps a case can be made for the claim that something like (metaphysical) naturalism was originally labeled “atheism” only because of the cultural dominance of non-naturalist forms of theism, not because the view being labeled was nothing more than the denial of theism. On this view, there would have been atheists even if no theists ever existed—they just wouldn’t have been called “atheists”. (Baggini [2003] suggests this line of thought, though his “official” definition is the standard metaphysical one.) Although this definition of “atheism” is a legitimate one, it is often accompanied by fallacious inferences from the (alleged) falsity or probable falsity of atheism (= naturalism) to the truth or probable truth of theism.

Departing even more radically from the norm in philosophy, a few philosophers and quite a few non-philosophers claim that “atheism” shouldn’t be defined as a proposition at all, even if theism is a proposition. Instead, “atheism” should be defined as a psychological state: the state of not believing in the existence of God (or gods). This view was famously proposed by the philosopher Antony Flew and arguably played a role in his (1972) defense of an alleged presumption of “atheism”. The editors of the Oxford Handbook of Atheism (Bullivant & Ruse 2013) also favor this definition and one of them, Stephen Bullivant (2013), defends it on grounds of scholarly utility. His argument is that this definition can best serve as an umbrella term for a wide variety of positions that have been identified with atheism. Scholars can then use adjectives like “strong” and “weak” to develop a taxonomy that differentiates various specific atheisms.

Unfortunately, this argument overlooks the fact that, if atheism is defined as a psychological state, then no proposition can count as a form of atheism because a proposition is NOT a psychological state.

This undermines his argument in defense of Flew’s definition; for it implies that what he calls “strong atheism”—the proposition (or belief in the sense of “something believed”) that there is no God—is not really a variety of atheism at all. In short, his proposed “umbrella” term leaves strong atheism out in the rain.


Although Flew’s definition of “atheism” FAILS as an umbrella term, it is certainly a legitimate definition in the sense that it reports how a significant number of people [bar room boneheads] use the term. [in other words gay is legitimately defined as homosexual ONLY because [bar room boneheads] use the word in that sense and for no other reason.] Again, there is more than one “correct” definition of “atheism”. [Popular usage regardless of how wtrong it may be on a scholarly level is admissible as a legitimate definition because dictionaries report popular usage in their dictionaries.]

The issue for philosophy is which definition is the most useful for scholarly or, more narrowly, philosophical purposes. In other contexts, of course, the issue of how to define “atheism” or “atheist” may look very different. For example, in some contexts the crucial issue may be which definition of “atheist” (as opposed to “atheism”) is the most useful politically, especially in light of the bigotry that those who identify as atheists face. The fact that there is strength in numbers may recommend a very inclusive definition of “atheist” that brings anyone who is not a theist into the fold. Having said that, one would think that it would further no good cause, political or otherwise, to attack fellow non-theists who do not identify as atheists simply because they choose to use the term “atheist” in some other, equally legitimate sense.

If atheism is usually and best understood in philosophy as the metaphysical claim that God does not exist, then what, one might wonder, should philosophers do with the popular term, “Neo Atheism”? Philosophers write articles on and have devoted journal issues (French & Wettstein 2013) to the Neo Atheism, but there is nothing close to a consensus on how that term should be defined.

Fortunately, there is no real need for one, because the term “Neo Atheism” does not pick out some distinctive philosophical position or phenomenon.

Instead, it is a popular label for a movement prominently represented by four authors—Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens—whose work is uniformly critical of religion, but beyond that appears to be unified only by timing and popularity.

Further, one might question what is new about the Neo Atheism.

Stanford did NOT say or imply or infer on any level what you claim they are saying, it is patently false.

Likewise with lack of belief, if lack of belief is atheism then atheists exist even if no theists exist.

If lack of belief is atheism it impossible for someone to not belief or lack belief in something [if the proposition 'God exists'] was never proposed.

 

[Antony Flew]
Departing even more radically from the NORM..................
Departing even more radically from the NORM..................
Departing even more radically from the NORM..................
Departing even more radically from the NORM..................
Departing even more radically from the NORM..................view <--[academically useless opinion] was famously proposed by the philosopher Antony Flew

There are a whole host of psychological disorders associated with "departing from the norm" long before we rise to the level of radical!

 

For someone who's often annoyed at getting on the merry-go-around again, you sure like avoiding the arguments I made in favour of stuff we already know we disagree on.

I see nothing deceptive about my quote, it is quoted word for word, without replacing words or inserting commentary, and shows that Stanford considers Flew's position a definition of atheism. Even sources that argue against the point I'm making, acknowledge that on Flew's view, the lack of belief in God serves as the definition of atheism.

You say that "Its not intended to be the definition of theist, any more than flew intended lack of belief to be a definition of atheist". I show that the Stanford article acknowledges that the point of the "lack of belief" angle to atheism is that it is a definition. In addition, I have a reasonable understanding of how atheists put together arguments, I've seen the arguments you attack, and I know that they're made using that as the definition, not just some interesting piece of information. Even rahl, in his extreme lack of detail and explanation, makes it explicitly clear that it is the definition of atheism that is the central point of the logic.

This, of course, shows how your counterexample of pointing out that theists lack the belief that there is no god fails. The atheist version relies on Flew's definition of atheism, which is explicitly and deliberately spelled out. The theist version, however, is not a definition, and thus is not enough to label for instance agnostics as theists in the same way. Again, if you think Flew's definition isn't intended as a definition, then you have misunderstood the arguments being made.

 

as usual its your red herring strawman presentation of the quote that is ****ed, not the quote.
We all see the squirming.

Its you that demands that orange in the sense of a paint color can be argued as edible.

Like rahl, you think dictionary editors invent definitions while at the same time admitting it came from flew someone not associated with any dictionary.

koko proved it fails by using an identical counter argument which you can not accept the results, nor have been able to rebut.

your only rebuttal relies upon 'its not in the dictionary', therefore not a definition, therefore not valid with no evidence to support those whims.

All false and untrue presumptions as being in the dictionary has no bearing on the matter. orange paint can not be argued as an edible fruit. your plethora of false premises.

Its you and rahl trying to pound the square peg sense of atheism 'lack of belief' in this round hole philosophical debate. this has been explained to you several times by stanford and myself. your disagreement with this is not a valid premise.

Your statement falsified the definition of atheism by claiming 'lack of belief' 'IS' the definition of atheism, it is not, fact is atheism is polysemous and has many definitions each carries its own sense.

Stanford has gone into great detail explaining that lack of belief fails for academic use,

I went a step further to prove why it fails, you simply hand wave it all away with a false premise 'its not in the dictionary therefore not valid'.

All that is needed to get a word in the dictionary is to win a popularity contest which is why gay is now understood to be homosexual instead of happy.

Atheology

A`the*ol"o*gy (?), n. [Pref. a- not + theology.] Antagonism to theology. Swift.

As you can a single person 'Swift' created the word atheology and later it was added to the dictionary. You pretend with no evidence on the table that theists lack belief in the nonexistence of God is invalid simply because its not 'yet' in the dictionary.

The only reason you do not see theists lack belief in the nonexistence of God is because dictionaries have not heard of it yet. They will, give them time.

neoatheist

1. A member of the vocally anti-religious movement that came to prominence in the early 2000s. quotations ▼

It wont take long.

Just like neoatheist did not take long to get into the dictionary.

Meantime back to your smoke and mirrors. See if you can figure out what you need to do to counter my argument, 'its not in the dictionary' I assume you realize will only bring laughter and vett your position as a comedy act.

 

Neoatheist annihilation of the excluded middle

all the bs sleight of hand redd herring squirming you post wont scuff the highly polished finish on these statements that stand entirely on their own merit.

1) Atheists 'lack belief' that God exists.

2) Theists 'lack belief' that God does not exist.

There is 'no legitimate argument' that you can cook up in philosophy, logic, reason, grammar, syntax, or lexical that can defeat the above 2 statements as false, they are both true.

Anything that can be academically claimed about #1 can also be academically claimed about #2. academically defeat 2 and you defeat 1.

As I have said many times, the neoatheist foundation is built on a mountain of fallacies.

 

Excellent. This is the only argument needed to completely demolish Kokomojojo's false equivalence between theism and atheism.

I wonder why did you accept the "theists lack belief in the nonexistence of God" proposition as true, given your statement quoted above and your posts about the importance of definitions and contexts. The most important concept in this thread is still undefined, and if it wasn't for your "there is a god" (not one god, or God) observation I might not have noticed this clumsy elephant in the thread.

How do we define god? How do we decide which god is God? There are so many gods in so many religions. There's no way to define theists as lacking belief in the nonexistence of god as long as theists believe in the nonexistence of some gods.

Hope you don't mind I didn't quote the whole post, seemed superfluous.