Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

I accommodated you against my better judgement.

I have had it with your foolishness, so please stop trolling me with it. The point has been proven, the only place to go for your side of the argument is stupid and stupider ****. We suffered through that in a previous thread.

There is nothing you can do to save face on this, anyone who comprehends the most simple forms of logical analysis taught in elementary schools can comprehend and conclude the correctness of what I posted.

There was only one door left open for you to go outside of your concession and that door has already been closed several posts ago, though as usual you failed to recognize the point.

I highly recommend that you refrain from getting in over your head in the future if admitting you are wrong is so difficult for you.

Your previous statements resulted in an auto concede though you did not see it and never will because you have already proven that your only interest is somehow saving face anyway you can, nothing more.

No need to bait or troll me by telling me I am wrong or some **** like you you just dont understand, as if I have some obligation to dignify responding to the utter bullshit you have started to post, I dont and it wont work.

Talk to the hand.

 

I think the whole debate boils down to you not understanding that the positive assertion bears the burden of proof. Proving a negative is sometimes said to be impossible. I would say that if the negative being proven is fairly limited then maybe you can (proving person x was not at position y at time z, e.g.). But when we're talking about the concept of God, proving a negative with that kind of scope is not possible. But it is perfectly reasonable and requires no faith to lack belief in God because the theists claiming there is a god have not supplied proof.

And no, lack of belief is not the same as saying a god cannot possibly exist. The term atheist covers both positions. Some people call a lack of belief agnostic, but agnostic is more a position of inevitable uncertainty, not merely a lack of belief.

 

Obviously, I think I've proven my point too. How am I on the stupid side when your side is the one that breaks the fundamental laws of thought while doing unjustified jumps of logic that you can't seem to write down?

Seems this thread and others are full of people to whom the "correctness" of your logic is clearly faulty. Either way, the intellectually robust solution to it is not to stop communication or fail to answer the direct questions and challenges I bring up.

Nope. I have shown specifically that changing a functioning negation like existence/nonexistence to "lack in belief existence/nonexistence" does not retain the negation-ness of the statements. The example of the syrup (together with the detailed explanations) shows what you did wrong and the law of the excluded middle confirms that your result is wrong.

As much as the above seems to me to provide a strong case for my point, it is in practice even more damning that you can't show your logic. If you had a good reason for thinking what you do, we could examine it and see how it differs from what I think, but since most of the time, you have failed to directly answer the questions (ironic for someone who often points out the distinction between a direct answer and other answers) and the rest of the time, it's been things like "it goes without saying" (which to me is a sure-tell sign that the justifications simply don't hold up).

I seem to recall directly addressing your claims of an "auto concede", and again, the issue seems to have been you applying several steps of logic which are inconsistent with the fundamental laws of thought. I'm happy to revisit it, or examine it more closely, indeed, I believe that is what I was doing when last you started failing to directly answer the questions.

Of course, you're not disallowed to believe things that I think are wrong. You just need to be aware that if you're unable to answer the questions, you don't have much to stand on when you argue this in other threads or with other people.

 

false, burden rests upon the claimant. The claimant can make a negative claim. Accepting atheism is a negative claim.

No its not impossible at all, however the scope in which you would be required to provide evidence may very well be impossible, therefore choose you assertions carefully.

Proving it either way is impossible, negative or positive.

false if you have no 'proof', regardless of the reason, you believe it on faith, the most you can say is you have not been able to discover evidence therefore you believe God does not exist, but your belief is based in faith nonetheless.

Which is why philosophy is forced to throw it out as useless in defining atheism/theism, lack of belief as I have proven beyond 'reasonable' doubt cannot be used as a negation of theism therefore cannot be properly used to describe atheism..

You can say white is green, does not mean it follows logical discourse.

 

Different theistic religions have different gods. Depends on the particular theistic religion. Theism, however, just discusses "god" in a very general sense as a "higher being". Specific theistic religions will define "god" more specifically.

Belief is simply defined as "the acceptance of a conclusion as a True".

Correct. Another word for this is a circular argument. It takes the form A->A. It uses its own conclusion as a predicate.

WRONG. It is still a belief. It is still the acceptance of a conclusion as a True. This specific example is also a logical fallacy, known as the argument of ignorance fallacy. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

What "lack of belief"?

There is no "default position". What "lack of faith"?

 

Yes it is.

This is actually one of the better definition attempts that I have seen. Not bad.

I choose to express the definition of religion as "an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it".

Correct.

Wrong. Faith is required there too. Here, you are forming an Argument of Ignorance Fallacy. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Correct.

Argument of Ignorance Fallacy.

Okay, that's your belief.

Correct.

Argument of Ignorance Fallacy.

There is no "default position". While you believe that it is possible for god(s) to exist, you also believe that god(s) do not exist. That is a belief. That is a faith-based position. That is a religion, known as Atheism.

 

Yes. That's why it's impossible to make sweeping statements about all theists as a group.

No. Belief can be defined as a propositional attitude, not just a simple acceptance of a conclusion. Belief in conspiracy theories, for instance, is certainly not the simple acceptance of a conclusion as true.

The term "belief" is polysemous. It means "faith", "trust", "confidence" - different terms with different meanings.

Again, the term "belief" is polysemous. "Lack of belief" in the context means "lack of religious belief known as faith", not lack of any and all beliefs.

Lack of faith is not the assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. It's the absence of such assumption. The statement "gods don't exist" is an assumption. The statement "I lack faith in gods" is not an assumption. The first statement is non falsifiable, the second is falsifiable.

That was a reply to this gem:

So...how does one prove lack of belief?

Human beings are born atheists.

 

It's generally a bad idea to make sweeping statements like that anyway, as it typically leads to logic errors...

Sure it is. There was a conspiracy theory floated around that Sandy Hook didn't actually happen. People believed that theory. They accepted that conclusion as true. There are also flat earthers. They accept the conclusion that the Earth is flat as true. That's all a belief is.

Yup, but the common point with all of those things is that a conclusion is being accepted as a True.

But Atheism is not a "lack of faith". It itself is faith. It's just the opposite belief of Theism.

The belief that "god(s) do(es) not exist" is not a "lack of faith". It is the very definition of faith.

It quite literally IS the assumption of a conclusion. That's what a circular argument does. It uses its conclusion as a predicate. It takes the logical form A->A. A circular argument, in and of itself, is perfectly valid.

Atheists argue all the time that they believe there are no god(s) due to "lack of evidence to the contrary". This is an Argument of Ignorance Fallacy, as lack of evidence is not evidence of absence. Theists like to mistakenly appeal to this same "lack of evidence..." reasoning.

No, that very assumption is being made by Atheists.

Correct. That belief is at the very core of Atheism.

Yes it is. What you are doing is rejecting (as a True) the circular argument "god(s) exist". That rejection must necessarily be paired with the acceptance (as a True) of the circular argument "god(s) do not exist". Otherwise, you are arguing yourself into a paradox. The middle ground is Agnosticism, which simply doesn't believe either way, as it doesn't hold a view on the matter.

Nope. They are both non falsifiable. To test the null hypothesis of the second statement, one would require the ability to read minds. The closest thing we have to that is a lie detector test, but those are not 100% accurate and those are still not a "reading of the mind".

You are now locked into another paradox.

[1] Lack of belief is falsifiable. (can be proven false)
[2] Lack of belief can't be proven.

Which is it?

No they aren't. People are not born into any particular religious beliefs.

 

Surely that's the point. They're not saying that children are born believing that there is no god, but that the state of not having any particular faith (as a newborn might be described) is what they mean by atheism.

 

Very true.
Neoatheists cant grasp the primer school level simplistic concept, that if theism is considered a choice of belief then atheism has to also be considered a choice of belief to be a negation and this is only if we want to 'properly' argue the propositions 'in a negationable context', which incidentally I have proven over the last several pages.

On the other hand if atheism is to be argued without a requirement of a 'choice' of belief, then to be a legitimate negation of theism, theism also has to be argued without a requirement of a choice of belief.

Its the same game they play with the atheist-agnostic combo, they violate all the rules and simply refuse to accept proofs when they are given.

They are severely challenged in philosophical and logical procedures/requirements.

These people are not arguing philosophy or logic they are arguing purely agenda driven politics, under the ruse of philosophy and logic and the reality is that they could give a damn less about any level of correctness when there is a political drum to pound away on.

 

That's not atheism though. That's agnosticism.

 

Spot on! You get it.

 

Yeh the simplicity of writing a statement in the negative is blindingly obvious to everyone else.

Atheist - Theist
God absent - God present
Without God - With God
Reject God - Accept God
Disbelieve God - Believe God
Lack belief... - Lack disbelief

and thats the way that cookie crumbles.

 

Yes that is agnosticism, but they would argue that agnosticism is a subset of atheism. The state of a newborn can be described as a lack of belief in both statements "there is a god" and "there is no god". It can however not be described as thinking that both "there is a god" and "there is no god" are false.

 

... and they would be wrong. Agnosticism is its own thing. It is not a branch of Atheism.

Fine by me.

Correct. Such thinking would form a paradox and would be irrational.

 

Excellent, we agree. So you would agree that there are those who lack the belief in god, and out of those, some have a belief that there is no god, and others lack the belief that there is no god (the latter being what some call agnostics). Agnostics and those who believe that there is no god are both subsets of those who lack the belief in god. (I'm sure there are edge cases and nuances which are not captured by this simplistic approach, but it is an illustrative example).

What is your method for finding out whether a word applies to a concept?

 

Yup.

Agreed.

Agreed. Those people are what I call Atheists, since they only "lack belief" in the existence of gods (without also "lacking belief" in the non-existence of gods). In other words, they hold the belief that gods do not exist.

Agreed. These people are what I call Agnostics, since they "lack belief" in both the existence AND non-existence of gods. In other words, they don't hold any particular belief on the matter. This differs from both Theists AND Atheists, as they both hold a particular belief on the matter.

This is where I begin to disagree with you. I don't subscribe to Agnostics being a subset of Atheism.

Now, IF Atheism were defined as "lack of belief in god", then yes, one "lack of belief in god" would be a subset of another "lack of belief in god". I get what you're trying to say here.

However, Atheism is not defined as a "lack of belief in god". It, rather, akin to Theism, is defined by a very particular truth claim that it positively asserts (in this case, that gods do not exist).

Agnosticism does NOT branch off of Atheism, nor does it branch off of Theism either. Agnosticism is something entirely different, something which doesn't posit any particular truth claim about the existence of gods (as Theism and Atheism do). In other words, Agnosticism doesn't take sides. It isn't a member of any particular "team".

In order for one thing to be a subset of another, there needs to be a common point between the category and the subset that links all the subsets to the category.

Let's take the word 'religion' as an example. What one thing links every particular religion (subsets) to the overarching category of 'religion'? What one thing links together Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Shinto, Big Bang, Evolution, Global Warming, etc...?? That one thing would be an initial circular argument (in other words, an argument of faith).

That's why I believe that 'religion' is best defined as "an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it". To understand this definition, it does help to have familiarity with logic and logic notation.

 

Ok, so we agree that the idea of lacking a belief makes sense, and that both agnosticism and the belief that there is no god are subsets of lacking the belief in god. The only sticking point is where we pin the label "atheism".

I'm certainly not unaware of that interpretation of atheism. My question is about how you determine which interpretation is valid (and more to the point, which is not).

I don't think this is an answer to the question. You start off with a list of things that you want to find a common denominator for, but in order to generate that list, you have to already have a functioning method of deciding which words to include. What is the method by which you have decided that atheism is defined as a "very particular truth claim"?

 

This is where you will lose him every time, and there is nothing imaginable that will get him to realize/accept the conjunction.

​

not even pretty pictures and an electrical switch proving agnostic does not violate the excluded middle principal, neither between atheism and agnostic, neither between theism and agnostic, nor between atheism and theism. A rock solid proof.

 

Yup, that switch is a great way to visualize this discussion. Neither light lights up with agnosticism. With the other two, one light is on and the other light is off.

 

Correct.

I will describe the sticking point in detail here:

Let's use Koko's light switch picture that he posted earlier as a visual aid. What you are attempting to do is to define Atheism as "lack of belief in the existence of god(s)" while defining Theism as "belief in the existence of god(s)" (in other words, you are defining Atheism by the negative rather than the positive, yet you are defining Theism by the positive rather than the negative). It's being used as a trick to lump Agnosticism and Atheism together to soften the stance that Atheism takes while still keeping rock solid the stance that Theism takes.

Now, back to the light switch visual. When turning the switch up towards Theism, the bottom light lights up and the top light stays off. That bottom light turning on is due to what is pictured as the "LOAD", which is the positive belief claim "I believe in the existence of god(s)". The top light staying off is due to what is pictured as the "BATTERY", which in this case is the negative belief claim "I lack belief in the non-existence of god(s)".

As the visual (specifically the part noted "BATTERY") shows you, Agnosticism SHARES this particular "lack of belief" with Theism. Now, does this suddenly make Agnosticism a branch of Theism in the same way that you are attempting to claim that the opposing "lack of belief" makes Agnosticism a branch of Atheism??

Looking at the light switch visual in the opposite way, when turning the switch down towards Atheism, the top light lights up and the bottom light stays off. That top light turning on is due to what is pictured as the (other) "LOAD", which is the positive belief claim "I believe in the non-existence of god(s)". The bottom light staying off is due to what is pictured as the "BATTERY", which in this case is the negative belief claim "I lack belief in the existence of god(s)". (Notice how both "lack of belief" claims are part of the same "BATTERY" line?)

As you have already noticed, Agnosticism SHARES this particular "lack of belief" with Atheism. But what you are now attempting to do is to make Agnosticism solely a branch of Atheism due to this, while simultaneously ignoring the opposing "lack of belief" that Agnosticism shares with Theism, lest you also have to consider the possibility of it also branching off of Theism.

In the end, Agnosticism shares both "lack of beliefs" (the "BATTERY"), but does not share either "belief" (the "LOADS"). It is something entirely of its own. It doesn't take a positive position on the matter. No lights light up for it. It is the "OFF" position on the light switch.

Hopefully my above detail addresses these questions of yours. I think it does, anyway.

 

no it isn't. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. That by definition, is not a religion or belief. It is the opposite of belief.

 

See my post #921.

 

saw it. it's been refuted. Atheism, by definition, is not a belief or a religion. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods.

 

This is largely true, although I wouldn't call it a trick. It is a reasonable use of language.

If I try to make a specific argument, I am within my right to pick a definition which is relevant for the argument. For instance, "orange" can be used to mean a fruit or a colour. If I want to say "I like to eat oranges", the fact that I picked the fruit definition of "orange" over the colour definition is not a "trick", it is merely regular use of language. There are some caveats to this, the definitions need to be clear, which is mostly done by picking common definitions or explaining them, at least when asked for elaboration.

Similarly, if I want to make an argument that specifically has to do with religious claims, like finding "there is a god" unpersuasive (rather than weighing "there is a god" against "there is no god", I am within my right to pick a definition that is fit for that purpose. As many dictionaries will tell you, and many self-proclaimed atheists will elaborate, the "lack of belief" definition is common enough to be used in this way.

So I wouldn't call it a trick, I'd say it is a way to make sure that there are words in use that accurately describe the arguments made.

The thing that differentiates the two versions is of course that atheism is regularly defined to mean the lack of the belief in god, whereas there is no reason to think of theism as the unconvincedness that there is no god.

The a- prefix is often used to denote negation in the sense that an a-theist is anyone who is not a theist (just like a-moral or a-sexual people are anyone who is not moral or sexual respectively, not someone who has an opposite morality or sexuality). As such, while I am suspicious of the etymological fallacy, I can see how the usage of "atheist" as including agnostics arose. If we tried to flip the script as you would in the light switch example, you end up with one a- meaning a negation and one a- meaning the difference between theism and atheism, which isn't quite the same as a negation. So, while there's nothing keeping you from making up any definition you want, it's not surprising that defining atheism that way is popular and defining theism in that way is dodgy and cumbersome.