Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

The word "atheist", you mean?

I think his main error is his tendency to not actually take in the argument being presented. Anyone can be wrong about stuff, especially when it comes to equivocations. However, there is a process for getting to the bottom of it, which Koko consistently and sometimes acrobatically avoids.

 

No, you have correctly provided a definition, but your logic is based on a different definition than the one you quote. The definition you point to says explicitly "!X" (and nothing other than "!X"), but for your logic to work, you need the definition to be "!X,Y", which is not consistent with the definition you have provided.

You accuse us of a "composition fallacy", which Wikipedia defines as "an informal fallacy that arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole" (source). In actuality, we infer that someone is an atheist based on the definition, not based on some subset of atheists or agnostics. So you are incorrect in your accusation.

So point to which premise you don't agree with, instead of quoting just the conclusion, so we can get to the bottom of whether it is false.

(As above), nope, we base the inference on the definition, not any subset (which would be required for something to be a composition fallacy).

Reductio ad absurdum isn't even a fallacy. Not that random accusations of fallacies would count for anything unless you can point to them and show that they are there.

In what sense is that a "distinction"? The agnostic you have described, which has !X,!Y, fits the description you have on the atheist, !X, as well. You seem to have merely proclaimed it as a distinction, without showing that there couldn't be overlap.

Why don't you write it out step by step in the deductive reasoning form (you say you use deductive reasoning, but so far, you haven't been clearly linking your conclusions from your premises, or even declared your premises).

You say "you can't have an input with a gate", what makes you think that?

It seems to me there is nothing at all keeping me from just not connecting an electronic wire, and there is nothing keeping me from setting all the inputs to all their possible combinations and reading the output (and populating the truth table in the process).

It seems to me your "you can't have an input without a gate" is merely your opinion, and not actually found in reality.

There is nothing illogical about having a conclusion that does not depend on a particular input. For instance, you can have the input "left-handed", and it has no impact on whether you qualify as "French". Electronics and truth tables can be constructed to reflect that fact, but fundamentally, it is a self-contained fact.

 

They call that dirty debate tricks.
I give the explanation and you respond by demanding an explanation. Leaves 2 choices, either you totally fail to comprehend the material or Im being trolled.
and I said withOUT a gate, not with a gate.
NO like the rest of your rewind-repeat bullshit, I wont go back and explain it again.

That says it all, thanks for admitting your position is '-in which of course produces -out', now theres no need for me to respond to the rest of the nonsense you and the cheerleader posted.

The core problem here is that I gave full explanations, both you and the cheerleader gloss over and ignore all the salient points, then whine that I did not 'TEACH YOU', only to ignore it again.

Anything I have already explained in sufficient detail such that someone who understood the material would recognize is not getting repeated, thought you would have figured that out by now.

But its been fun, I made my case, you and your pals proved it. (in triplicate)

Maybe some of nonnies friends will show up that have a working understanding of the material and process. That may have the potential for a fun debate.

 

You're right, I meant to say:
You say "you can't have an input without a gate", what makes you think that?
It seems to me your "you can't have an input without a gate" is merely your opinion, and not actually found in reality.
There is nothing illogical about having a conclusion that does not depend on a particular input. For instance, you can have the input "left-handed", and it has no impact on whether you qualify as "French".

Answer that one instead.

I have no need for you to repeat things you've already said, I am fully capable of reading back. What I need you to is to link the statements you have made to the assumptions that you use in your logic. You provided a !X definition, and then started your logic with an !X,Y definition, failing to provide the link between the two. You have often complained that Flew's definition of atheist includes agnostics, but you have failed to provide a reason why that should be a problem.

Of course, it would be trivial to simply point to the arguments (I have done so several times in my posts), but instead, we're getting a lot of dodging from you. I bet you've spent more time writing out "nah, I've totally provided it already" than it would take to point us to it if you had actually provided it.

I have read through our discussion here several times, and not found any of the arguments that I am requesting. It may be that you think you have provided it, but I don't agree with some of the assumptions or conclusions you've added without writing it out. Since you're hiding behind your I-don't-dare-revisit-it routine, we can't tell.

It seems to me, one of your more "salient" points is whether one can be agnostic and atheist at the same time. Indeed, I'm not ignoring this point, I have been asking over and over again where you get the idea from, and why you think it is true.

Again, you've failed to connect a bunch of dots. I'm putting X and Y into the logic, ignoring the Y, and using the X to evaluate !X, which is what determines an atheist. Has nothing to do with "-in", even figuratively. In a move that has become characteristic of you, you've made a bunch of steps that you have not declared, do not make sense and most likely, you do not understand.

 

yep thats what you always do when your back is against the wall, slight shift in context to devolve the issue to madness.

Unless and until you have new material Im not much interested in any more of your quagmire bait.

There is no point in continuing with you when you continue to ignore or fail to understand points that prove you wrong. Total waste of my time. I gave sufficient explanations, its simply not my problem if the material is outside your knowledge base.

 

That's exactly what he is doing, and it was pointed out a dozen pages ago (almost immediately in the thread and by more than one person) and he has consistently refused to address it, instead resorting to insulting those who ask. I am personally astounded that you have entertained him is this roundabout as long as you have.

 

I think this nugget from Kokomojo illustrates his other primary error. He seems to be demanding that identities cant share inputs or overlap. But of course they can, and often do.

An agnostic as he defined it above is a type of atheist as he defined it above. That doesn't mean there can't also be other atheists who are not agnostic. He is equivocating that it does mean that, but it does not by his initial definition.

If theist means insists there is God, and atheist means doesn't insist there is God (saying nothing of if atheist insists or not there is no God), and agnostic means neither insists there is God or insists there is no God, then agnostic is a subcategory of atheist, with the other subcategory of atheist being the one that does insist there is no God.

I can say that in a paragraph and don't even need fancy tables. It isn't complicated, and Kokomojo's trying to complicate it is leading him to error.

 

FALSE



Defining Atheism and the Burden of Proof

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 April 2018

Abstract

In this paper I demonstrate how certain contemporary atheists have problematically conflated atheism with agnosticism (knowingly or unknowingly).

The first type of conflation is semantic fusion, where the lack of belief in God is combined with the outright denial of God, under the single label of ‘atheism’.

The second is morphological fission which involves the separation of atheism into two subcategories where lack of belief in God is labelled as negative atheism and outright denial of God as positive atheism – and while here they are more explicitly demarcated, they are still positioned under the broad notion of atheism.

I argue in this paper that atheism should be better used as the propositional denial of God and that uncertainty and unknowability about God should be reserved to characterize agnosticism.

Conflating these positions under the single term ‘atheism’ mischaracterizes agnostics and inflates the territory of atheists.

In clarifying these terms, I review how the nuances in the prefix a- in atheism have potentially contributed towards these misnomers.

I also suggest the use of the categories ‘local atheism’ and ‘global atheism’ to clarify on whom the burden of proof lies within the discourse.


Research Article
Information

Philosophy , Volume 93 , Issue 2 , April 2018 , pp. 279 - 301
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819118000074
The Royal Institute of Philosophy 2018

Nice try.

Projecting and attributing your semantics, and your equivocation on to me to promote your atheist agenda.

Yes I have been very patient.

 

Note how you don't say why what I said was false. You know, where I quoted YOU defining a word one way and then using it another way. The way Swensson did the same. Note how you don't respond to that at all and instead play your weird games.

YOU explicitly wrote that "atheist" means !X. You said nothing whatsoever about Y in relation to atheists. Then you said "agnostic" means !X!Y. By these very statements you have defined "agnostic" to be a subcategory of atheist. Since you left Y unclear for atheists, that means atheists can be Y or !Y. If !Y, that's !X!Y, an "agnostic" by your definition. If !X,Y THAT'S what you later equivocate "atheist" to mean. Its amazing that you can't see yourself doing it.

A perfectly good set of definitions.

And what the author proposes agrees with the definition you kept insisting on pushing on everyone. And denied doing so.

Only if you insist so strenuously on that particular definition of "agnostic" to the point of pretending using any other definition is not allowed or is illogical (which you do). And that would be in itself a fallacy.

Tell me what I have equivocated. We've shown you where you are doing it. Show the rest of us where we do it and perhaps, unlike you, we will correct any such error.

This here is the absolute key to the whole thread I think. You (not I) have an agenda. You want to declare things about "atheists" so you have to play the equivocation games you are playing. You are not discussing things in good faith. You are presuming we all have some "atheist agenda" that conflicts with the agenda you want to push, and that probably explains why you keep talking down to everyone as well.

 

Quite annoying that this board times you out on editing a post. So I'm posting this again with my final edit. I hope it is more clear.

Note how you don't say why what I said was false. You know, where I quoted YOU defining a word one way and then using it another way. The way Swensson did the same. Note how you don't respond to that at all and instead play your weird games.

YOU explicitly wrote that "atheist" means !X. You said nothing whatsoever about Y in relation to atheists. Then you said "agnostic" means !X!Y. By these very statements you have defined "agnostic" to be a subcategory of atheist. Since you left Y unclear for atheists, that means atheists can be Y or !Y. If !Y, that's !X!Y, an "agnostic" by your definition. If !X,Y THAT'S what you later equivocate "atheist" to mean. Its amazing that you can't see yourself doing it.

A perfectly good and useful set of definitions. Atheist being "lacks belief" and an active belief there is no god being something more than just atheist.

An interesting comparison here would be the Theist. Does this author exclude "uncertainty" from the definition of "Theist"? People who are theists rarely lack uncertainty. They usually have some doubts. The author is also wrapping uncertainty and unknowability together under "agnostic"... that that's pretty confounding and will only cause confusion.

I prefer the definition of "agnostic" to be "one who claims we cannot know" . Then we've separated belief in God(s) from belief of knowability of God(s). That's actually useful. You can have an agnostic atheist (who doesn't believe in God, and claims its impossible to know), an agnostic theist (who does believe in God, but claims its impossible to know for sure). or gnostic atheists and theists who do claim we can know. Some theists do claim to actually know (so wouldn't be agnostic by this definition). Few atheists claim to actually know or that we could for sure know, but I've met a couple.

Only if you insist so strenuously on that particular definition of "agnostic" to the point of pretending using any other definition is not allowed or is illogical (which you do). And that would be in itself a fallacy.

Tell me what I have equivocated. We've shown you where you are doing it. Show the rest of us where we do it and perhaps, unlike you, we will correct any such error.

This here is the absolute key to the whole thread I think. You (not I) have an agenda. You want to declare things about "atheists" so you have to play the equivocation games you are playing. You are not discussing things in good faith. You are presuming we all have some "atheist agenda" that conflicts with the agenda you want to push, and that probably explains why you keep talking down to everyone as well.

 

Kokomojo, I suspect that you really really want to argue against "atheists" who believe there are and can be no Gods, to the same extent that pious theists believe there are Gods. Then you could rightly say that "atheism" is religious and that "atheists" have faith. That would make you happy, right?

Problem is, you'd have a very hard time finding any such "atheists" who meet that description, not even the infamous Richard Dawkins would.

You're also going to have some trouble with this if you don't define what you mean by "God". Must it be the Christian God? Must it mean a omnipowerful, omnibenovolent, omniknowlegable being who created the universe? Who has any particular holy text or commandments? Or is "god" just another word for "love" as some would say (in which case you're not going to find any atheists at all probably).

 

Note how you fail to follow the conversation.

Only in your imagination. I see no quote.

I dont respond to issues I have addressed more than once, where you fail to make new arguments, sorry find someone else to dance with.

YOU took it and continue to take it out of context, you need to be more careful following swensson, you will get burned every time.

Nope, anyone that wears that dress is fine with me.

Im not the one arguing about the G/god you disbelieve, nice attempt at a redd herring though.

An agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in a god or religious doctrine. Agnostics assert that it's impossible for human beings to know anything about how the universe was created and whether or not divine beings exist. ... If you're not certain that god exists, you could describe yourself as agnostic.
What's The Difference Between Atheism And Agnosticism ...


Definition of agnostic

(Entry 1 of 2)
1 : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

Agnosticism is traditionally characterized as neither believing that God exists nor believing that God does not exist.
https://iep.utm.edu/atheism/

Not my problem if you want to run around in denial, sorry.
It looks like everyone but cosmos can see how wrong you two are.

FALSE, asked and answered, sorry

 

I just fixed a typo. If there is context, declare it, and we can work out whether it is an appropriate context, and which rules derive from it.

You say "you can't have an input without a gate", what makes you think that? Nothing is keeping me from simply not connecting a cable and then populating a truth table based on the behaviour when you set the inputs to its possible combinations.

Your past failures don't go away just because you're tired of them. You don't need to be interested in them, or even address them at all, just know that before you have supplied these and shown that they are sufficient, all of your statements about "debunking" and most criticism of Flew and "Neoatheists" amount to little more than noise, as opposed to the "rational" or "logical" arguments you tend to claim.

I believe I have addressed all your objections. Most of them include assumptions that you haven't justified. You say you can't have more than one row with a certain "identity", but the onus is still on you to show that it is so. You say each row can't have more than one "identity", but the onus is still on you to show that it is so.

You're right, I do not understand those things, and it is because you have failed to provide enough information to warrant understanding. Perhaps you have a poor understanding of what makes an explanation sufficient, but either way, we should work out where exactly the differences of understanding lie, not just complain about it.

We can make a short list (I try to supply answers to all points that are being made, but the central issues of your argument are captured by only a few of them):

• You say you can't have more than one "identity" per row, or more than one row with the same "identity". This you have not justified.
• You have provided a definition which explicitly says !X, yet you base your logic on !X,Y. This you have not justified.

 

This isn't about logic. This is about Kokomojo's agenda (and ego). So let's help:

Define atheist as "One who denies the existence of God". Define agnostic about not having certainty and admitting you don't know.

Now, since atheists claim to know what they can't actually know, they must have faith, just like theists, "atheism" is a religion and is not rational.

Ta da! Easy peasy. That's all Kokomojo is looking to do.

 

false premise that is not the definition of agnostic in reference to the question of the existence of God.

"I dont know" does not logically respond/answer the question 'does god exist'.

The negation of "I dont know" is 'I do know', you just shot yourself in the foot and proved swensson wrong if you stand by that proposition, since yes or no now indicates 'knowledge', not belief, neither affirmation nor denial, creating a nonsequitur argument.

Im shocked none of the board atheists bothered to argue with you, they dont hesitate to argue that point with me?

Again you prove swensson wrong.
an agnostic does not deny (or affirm) the existence of God.

Swensson argues that a theist can both believe god exists and disbelieve god exists, totally irrational reasoning.

swennson logic:

 

Because it is a complete strawman. When you define atheist that way you are talking about people who aren't the "atheists" you are talking at, so they feel no need to argue the point with you. They may try to explain what they actually think and what they mean, but when you won't listen, and drone one incoherently, they will tend to depart and ignore you, as pretty much everybody now has here.

 

He made it pretty clear that it was your version, and not his.

Nope. I have argued that if there was such a person who somehow both believed X and Y, they would fulfil the definition of a theist. I have not argued that any person is actually capable of holding those positions at the same time. In fact, I have argued that most likely, it is impossible for anyone to hold both X and Y, which is at odds with your strawman of my opinion.

A truth table shows what the outputs would be for a given input. It does not guarantee that each set of inputs is possible. You have misread the truth table, given that you have interpreted something as possible, which I have specified as not possible.

 

For someone who claims to understand Logic, it is most ironic that your thread is premised on Logical Fallacies, including Persuasive Definition, Red Herring, Misrepresentation, et al.

What defines Religion is:

One or more god-things
Hierarchy
Sacred Texts
Judgment
Prophecies
Eschatology

Atheism has none of those things, and "Neo-Atheism" (snicker) has even less.

Worse still, "Neo-Atheism" is a pejorative term based on bigotry, and used to label "uppity" Atheists who won't remain silent and sit in a corner and sulk in the same way it was used against "uppity" Blacks who were expected to know their place and sit in a corner and sulk instead of asserting their rights.

You're just mad because we're winning, and winning big, and x-tians are losing power and influence, and Atheists like me who assert their rights are pejoratively labeled as "New-Atheists."

 

Agnostic defined as being about knowing (or claiming to) with a theist/atheist defined as believing or not believing, is a far more useful set of definitions. It lets you have a more in depth and complicated conversation.

 

enjoy your ride up da nile!

Definition of agnostic

(Entry 1 of 2)
1 : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

Agnosticism is traditionally characterized as neither believing that God exists nor believing that God does not exist.
https://iep.utm.edu/atheism/

apparently you lost your glasses

swensson agreed to the above definition several times.

 

Sin atheists coined the term then you are claiming atheists are bigiot apparently.

yeh atheists are into most of that.

well there are a lot of neoatheists posting why would you expect anything different?

 

you dont comprehend that you cant seperate disjunctive and conjunctive logic.

You claim atheists and agnostics are the same and theists both believe and disbelieve in god, worse you defend, over the top shelf nonsense.

When crayolas dont help not much anyone can do.

there is the logic for 2 input atheist, which works like a champ when comparing 3 identities.



Flew is a disaster, which is why you cant figure ou any other way to prove it out but to claim atheists are agnostics nonsense.

put whatever silly semantical believe/disbelieve that you want for a and b. lol

 

swennson set out to prove flews lacker theory was legit and failed miserably.
its delusional to claim that someone can disbelieve and not disbelieve at the same time.
just like swenssons logic where he claims and defends that theists both believe and disbelieve at the same time.

 

Remember when you denied attempting to force your definitions on everyone?

 

No. You are pushing your strawman and not reading and considering what he actually wrote. That is the core of your problem.