Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Kokomojojo, Nov 24, 2019.

  1. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    19,489
    Likes Received:
    1,185
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nice, you have no qualms about straight up admitting you are an atheist, contrary to those here who want to claim atheist while simultaneously disassociating themselves from it, which I find hilarious frankly.
    The position is an operation difference, if you do not see any operational difference then you cant be an atheist.
    Lots of people take that position! I mean lots, hedge their bets precisely like that lol
     
  2. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    19,489
    Likes Received:
    1,185
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Dictionarys simply report usage, philosophy tosses the garbage in the can.
    Stanford and other philosophy departments explain why that is not true.

    People also ask
    Do agnostics believe in a God?
    [​IMG]

    Atheism is the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

    However, 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.

    What's The Difference Between Atheism And Agnosticism?
    https://www.dictionary.com › ... › Mixed-up Meanings



    Lets see your definition that agnostic is the same as atheist from any credible university, because you arent making sense, not when you contradict yourself like that.
     
  3. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,670
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think your last two sentences are good enough. You would need to explain your suggestion that I'm not an atheist! I do think I have standing on that question!

    Just to consider Christianity for the moment, NO branch of that religion thinks you can satisfy God without full on belief. The founding principle of the new testament is that you can not work your way to heaven. If some agnostic is trying to appease the Christian god on the grounds that such a god MIGHT exist by behaving in the manner called for by Jesus, they are just making a big mistake - according to Jesus.

    I doubt many religions think it is good enough to just go through the motions.
     
  4. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,670
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wow.

    Flew was an Oxford scholar of religious philosophy who had Gilbert Ryle as an academic adviser and who is majorly recognized as making numerous significant contributions to this specific field.

    THEN you ask for a reference from a credible university!!!

    You really need to feel TOTALLY embarrassed!
     
  5. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    19,489
    Likes Received:
    1,185
    Trophy Points:
    113
    PDF (((( DOWNLOAD ))))

    There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind By Antony Flew

    Read and download Antony Flew book

    There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
    in PDF, EPub, Mobi, Kindle online.

    Free book There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind by Antony Flew.

    There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind PDF

    BY ~ Antony Flew


    [​IMG]
    √PDF | √KINDLE | √EPUB


    READ ONLINE

    Book Details :

    Title: There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind

    Author : Antony Flew
    Pages : 256 pages
    Publisher : HarperOne
    ISBN-10 : 0061335304
    ISBN-13 : 9780061335303

    [​IMG]

    There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind BY Antony Flew

    Read Online and Download There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. In There Is a God, one of the world's preeminent atheists discloses how his commitment to "follow the argument wherever it leads" led him to a belief in God as Creator. This is a compelling and refreshingly open-minded argument that will forever change the atheism debate.


    There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind by Antony Flew
    Tags: There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind by Antony Flew Free download, epub, pdf, docs, New York Times, ppt, audio books, Bloomberg, #NYT, books to read, good books to read, cheap books, good books,online books, books online, book reviews, read books online, books to read online, online library, greatbooks to read, best books to read, top books to There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind By Antony Flew books to read online.

    All you theists and believers out there, here is your citation! Go get em!

    Book Sypnosis:

    In There Is a God, one of the world's preeminent atheists discloses how his commitment to "follow the argument wherever it leads" led him to a belief in God as Creator. This is a compelling and refreshingly open-minded argument that will forever change the atheism debate.

    There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. To get started finding There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, you are right to find our website which has a comprehensive collection of manuals listed.



    Flew is the son of a Methodist preacher and came up with that brilliance at the wise old age of 27 years old, because he was disgruntled with daddy's preaching and like so many here with a chip on his shoulder.


    Yes Wil, I cant begin to tell you how embarrassed you are! LMAO

    Flew buried you all wil! lol

    I can see through your foot man!

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2021
  6. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,670
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This discussion doesn't turn on whether Flew or ANYONE ELSE is a theist or atheist or agnostic.
     
  7. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    19,489
    Likes Received:
    1,185
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Flew is NOT credible, sorry
    I laughed my ass off when you posted this:
    He concocted that nonsense when was on a religious vendetta against daddy when he was 27
    The only avenue you have is to out argue me and several philosophical departments to prove any minuscule remnant of credibility as has been an ongoing failure thus far by everyone who tried.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2021
  8. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,670
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Flew has major credibility due to his massive work product and the respect it has achieved in the field of philosophy.

    You're some guy on some politics board.

    And, you think it's YOU I should listen to!
     
  9. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    19,489
    Likes Received:
    1,185
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FALSE---Flew HAD major....until he sunk your boat right along with his!

    Go for it, argue his theory see how far you get! LOL

    He is a laughing stock at stanford

    Im some guy that can argue the point, if you arent up to the task thats not my problem.

    Flew ****ed his neoatheist groupies over when he said he has to go where ever the evidence takes him, it took him back to God, nullifying his theory.

    Oh and to be fair, he did make a couple compelling arguments in his career, but nothing that applies to or will help you here.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2021
  10. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    7,931
    Likes Received:
    916
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We've been through this before, I don't understand why you're avoiding the questions I pose (which specifically probe the source of the disagreement we have) in favour of statements that we already know I disagree with.

    Using the correct "translation" between the two contexts as shown above, you get that these two sentences have the same grammar and logical structure:
    1. If you did not vote yes, it does not mean that you voted no, you could have abstained, and that is 100% logical.
    2. If you did not believe God exists, it does not mean that you believed God does not exist, you could have been agnostic, and that is 100% logical.
    If one is true, then so is the other.

    We already have a definition we agreed upon. If you're wanting to backtrack on that and commit equivocation, I will accept your concession without rubbing it in your face.

    Why would I provide that? That's not what I've been saying. I say agnostic is a subset of atheists (i.e. some atheists are agnostics, but not necessarily all).

    An atheist is a person who does not believe god exists, an agnostic is a person who does not believe god exists and also does not believe that God does not exist.
     
    Jolly Penguin and WillReadmore like this.
  11. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    19,489
    Likes Received:
    1,185
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No reason to when Im in the catbird seat!
    Q: Hey buddy, do you believe God exists, A: "No", I do not believe God exists.

    Not real difficult, an atheist rejects the proposition God exists.

    Neoatheists seem to have extreme difficulty going from negatively stated proposition to a positively stated proposition that carries the precise same meaning.

    no, if not then not is ****ed up, fix it. How many times did you post that same **** and you have not figured that out on your own even though I told you about it umpteen pages ago?
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2021
  12. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,670
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    - Do you believe God exists, A: "No".
    - Do you believe God does NOT exist, A: "No".

    Agnostics would surely be free to truthfully give both these answers.

    Maybe part of the problem here is interpreting what "believe" means - is it some sort of exclusive and 100% prior credence? No. That's just not a legitimate interpretation of what humans say.

    In fact, I would propose that if an absolute answer is required, then it isn't even a valid question.

    When humans talk to each other, they don't talk in 100% absolutes. If that were the case, we would answer pretty much ever question with "I don't know" - because there really aren't that many things that we know with 100% certainty.

    So, when someone says they don't believe god exists, it's NOT as if they have gone through some exercise of proving god doesn't exist and thus have a 100% absolute statement to make. Prior credence doesn't work that way.

    In fact, giving an answer that would somehow numerically represent ones prior credence would be just as ridiculous.

    It's just plain NOT legitimate to take answers in this realm as if they are absolute when we NEVER do that in other realms.
     
  13. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    7,931
    Likes Received:
    916
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They don't carry the "precise same meaning", just like "did not vote yes" does not carry the exact same meaning as "voted no" (since as you have agreed, if you did not vote yes, it does not mean that you voted no, you could have abstained).

    The logic follows the same line as the voting example that you agreed with. I'm pretty confident in the argument behind it, but you're avoiding answering the questions I pose to figure out exactly where our disagreement lies. You just saying something over and over just indicates that you don't seem to have a good of grasp why it would be so (and therefore, whether it really stands to reason).
     
  14. Dirty Rotten Imbecile

    Dirty Rotten Imbecile Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2016
    Messages:
    850
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Which is why I barely read his posts anymore.
     
    Jolly Penguin and WillReadmore like this.
  15. Pisa

    Pisa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2016
    Messages:
    3,001
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    OK.

    My post for you:
    As long as you don't know what atheism really means, and as long as you don't understand that there are two different definitions for agnosticism - Huxley's and the definition in your dictionaries - you won't be able to understand neither Russell, nor Huxley, nor why an agnostic can be an atheist. Russell himself, in the same essay you quote, admits an agnostic doesn't believe in God.

    What differentiates between agnostic and atheist, according to Russell, is not the content of their beliefs, but the method used to reach conclusions. He uses Huxley's definition, not the one in the dictionaries. He's of course correct, but if we look at the content of beliefs, then an agnostic can be an atheist, since both lack belief in god(s), something he admits in the other, earlier essay.

    By the way, "belief" and "faith" are not always synonyms. Their meaning greatly depends on context, which you choose to ignore when it suits you. Coloring, bolding, and generally shoving the word "belief" right in the eye of the unhappy reader as if it always means "faith in god(s)" is simply wrong.

    By the way number two, Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

    I'll tell you what's my problem with agnosticism. Claiming that we can't know if gods exist is a sound philosophical position, but we still have to define "gods". Saying that undefined beings - with powers and weaknesses that wildly differ between cultures, intent on rewarding, punishing, or torturing humans just because, who eternally battle each other for our souls (yet another poorly defined term) - exist in some (again undefined) realm sometimes called "supernatural" - is not something for which enough evidence could ever be presented. What is it we want evidence for, exactly?

    Keeping the above in mind, it follows that I can be agnostic regarding one particular god, one that would be thoroughly defined, but I'm still an atheist. That's one way a person can be both agnostic and atheist.
     
    Jolly Penguin and WillReadmore like this.
  16. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    19,489
    Likes Received:
    1,185
    Trophy Points:
    113
    apparently you didn't bother reading the previous posts where I posted the definitions and complained about the army of neoatheists that fail to comprehend the English language. How about helping them to understand what they are saying.
    of course it is, expression of beliefs are precursors to and often are found to be facts, every complaint in the courts is based 'precisely' on that principle, and you think they are nuts? Seriously?
    what are you talking about "since I agreed", I'm the one that created the proposition and you agreed please stop trying to steal credit for my genius.

    projection!
    I'm not the one saying the same thing over and over again all you have to do is look back at your colored posts that date back 50 posts ago that you keep repeating because you dont understand a straight answer when its given to you, Of course that SOP for the neoatheists, blame what you do on to everybody else.

    again I'm the one that created the voting example not you, you agreed to my example. and I gave you specific answers on each occasion. Once an answer was given and you failed to rebut I see no need to repeat it.
    I give conclusive answers however there's a certain level of understanding (starting with the english language and its usage) that has to be in play before those answers are going to make sense to you, it's not my job to take you by the hand and beat distinctions into you that you do not understand, in fact refuse to understand into you, I just give you the answers, sorry thats not satisfactory

    that's not true, the reason you barely read my posts is because you can't respond any of them like you admitted earlier they're outside your boundaries of understanding, unless of course you magically became an expert in the last few posts?
    Of course
    yes/no works really well, (you know like the courts require, its called a valid response) and when it comes to what one believes agnostics give a direct yes or no exactly as atheists are theists are supposed to be doing, however NEO-atheists do not give straight answers because they know they cant logically or reasonably defend them and have resorted bald faced equivocation, double-think, and outright fraud to maximize ambiguity to funnel into their movement those who lack the necessary education to see through their bullshit.
    What don't I know Pisa?
    Since you claim to understand, tell us what 'atheist' means with sample sentences using what you think is correct usage and context for each case.
    What two versions of agnosticism are you talking about?
    Again tell us what agnostic means and give us examples of what you deem is proper usage and context in each case
    what do you think I don't understand about Russell?
    I understand Russell quite well, including his oversights.
    agnostic and atheist our 'exclusive' and incompatible with each other.
    agnostics reject atheism as faulty logic
    agnostics do not believe God does not exist, atheists believe God does not exist.
    yes I know, he forgot to say, or maybe it did not occur to him that agnostics do not disbelieve in God which is a different condition. He did state that atheists 'believe' God does not exist, which is the correct understanding of the word, I agree with him.

    Agnostics do not believe God does not exist.

    if that's what follows, and presuming you are correct then all theists are really atheist-theists because they reject thousands of G/gods yet believe in one G/god of their choice. In other words that theory is completely absurd, and total nonsense displaying ignorance regarding logic/reason, which russel just happened to do much development work that frankly I use to prove the neoatheist nonsense.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2021
  17. The Last American

    The Last American Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2021
    Messages:
    815
    Likes Received:
    691
    Trophy Points:
    93
    You sure are an optimist, Koko.
     
  18. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,670
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This idea of clipping tiny fractions of what people say and then responding to those fractions is not a valid method of discussion.

    To a fragment of mine, you said:
    This is NOT a court of law.

    The objective of a discussion is to find greater understanding.

    Suggesting that you've asked questions where understanding would come from "yes/no" answers is ridiculous.
     
  19. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    19,489
    Likes Received:
    1,185
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course not, however they set an excellent set of procedures for getting to the TRUTH of a matter which of course from my experience neoatheists avoid like the plague!
    Yes of course, getting to the TRUTH of a matter is greater understanding
    So you prefer shuck-n-jive method.....well the sun is shining but its not real bright and I feel a little blue today so Im a turnip-atheist, and who are you to tell me what I am? No one needs to understand logic and reason on an academic scale to know that shuck-n-jive explanations are total bullshit. So why are you demanding such things wil?
     
  20. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,670
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually, our legal system is adversarial - not organized as an attempt to find the truth.
    You're trying to sell something. I have no idea what it is.

    But, it is ending up with you demanding yes/no answers to questions that don't have yes/no answers.

    And, you are failing in answering questions that Swanson has pointed out, too.
     
  21. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    19,489
    Likes Received:
    1,185
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FALSE!

    These guys are trying to sell something and I proved time and time again throughout the thread they are selling wooden nickels.
    No yes/no answers exist? PLONK! Quick way to disqualify yourself.
    You didnt bother to read back far enough, again, try reading more, wil
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2021
    Jolly Penguin likes this.
  22. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,670
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure, but I just pointed out that YOUR questions don't have that property.

    Plus, I stand by the rest of what I said.
     
  23. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    19,489
    Likes Received:
    1,185
    Trophy Points:
    113
    anyone can say anything you know about everything, your claim is meaningless compared to what has been already covered in this thread.
    Sure you can stand by being wrong if you like, no law against that.
     
  24. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    19,489
    Likes Received:
    1,185
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FALSE again wil

    The adversarial system or adversary system is a legal system used in the common law countries where two advocates represent their parties' case or position before an impartial person or group of people, usually a judge or jury, who attempt to determine the truth and pass judgment accordingly.

    Adversarial system - Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Adversarial_system


    I missed that, apparently you want to pretend our court system has nothing to do with truth, you blew it again wil!
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2021
  25. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    43,670
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, our trials of the accused are contests.

    It IS adversarial. And, there are serious limits on evidence as well as wildly disproportionate powers of investigation, etc. Even the sequence of events as presented by each side is just part of that contest.

    In many cases, one side or the other has an overwhelming burden to overcome. For example, police, prominent citizens, the wealthy, and others have major advantages that have nothing at all to do with the "truth", as you call it.

    Serious trials are by jury, by the way. The judge is there to insist the rules of the contest are followed.
     

Share This Page