Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

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

  1. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    2,790
    Likes Received:
    1,658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No you didn't. You felt backed into corner and declared a concession that was never given. It was downright comical. It is especially comical that you say "non responsive blathering" when that's what you yourself did.

    You have not once even attempted to prove I can choose to believe I am an elephant or believe that God exists. You just repeatedly made the claim, and pointed at one man whose mind was changed, without any evidence whatsoever that it was by his choice.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2021
  2. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    54,520
    Likes Received:
    10,919
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2021
  3. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    54,520
    Likes Received:
    10,919
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hmmmm .. no wonder your word-view is so out of whack .. not much good can flow from a false premise.

    Someone stating they do not know something .. is not a religious belief ..
     
  4. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    7,931
    Likes Received:
    916
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope, true. It is the definitions that determine what is sufficient (and necessary) to identify a theist/atheist.

    Like it or not, as the dictionary definitions have shown, the theist definition contains the positive statement "belief God exists" and atheist contains the negative statement "not believe God exists" (as opposed to the positive "believe God does not exist"). The former excludes agnostics, the latter does not.

    You seem to understand that a negative definition would include agnostics (since you say a negative phrasing of theist would include agnostics), so the if theists are defined positively and atheists are defined negatively, it should be clear why agnostics are included as atheists and not as theists. It is not a mistake that theist is defined positively and atheist is defined negatively.

    The belief that God exists is not present in an atheist, nor is it present in a dead body. It seems to me they both lack the belief that God exists, they both do not believe that God exists, believing God exists is something they do not do.

    Of course, an atheist is defined as being a person (in addition to not believing God exists), which I'd argue a dead body is not, so the dead body still isn't an atheist.

    The definition of theist does say that (in addition to believing in God) the theist needs to be a person. Thus, the fact that a house couldn't be a theist is fully detailed in the definition.

    If you had some edge case, for instance a cartoon character who was a sentient house (and therefore both a house and a person) who believed in God, I think it would be reasonable to label that house a theist (and fully detailed by the definition).
     
    Jolly Penguin and WillReadmore like this.
  5. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    19,502
    Likes Received:
    1,185
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Feel free to explore that in argument if you wish. Good luck with that theory!
    False, Its conditional.
    Oh?

    Ok.... well then... have it your way;

    there is nothing in the definition of agnostic that 'states' or 'directly implies' it is atheist
    there is nothing in the definition of atheist that 'states' or 'directly implies' it is agnostic
    there is nothing in the definition of agnostic that 'states' or 'directly implies' it is theist
    there is nothing in the definition of theist that 'states' or 'directly implies' it is agnostic
    there is nothing in the definition of agnostic that 'states' or 'directly implies' it is lack of belief
    there is nothing in the definition of lack of belief that 'states' or 'directly implies' it is agnostic
    there is nothing in the definition of atheist that 'states' or 'directly implies' lack of belief definition came from flew

    They all fall under your conclusions, not official statements of designation.

    Now you are really screwed, and you did it to yourself, you have now ruled out deductive philosophical logical analysis you just shot yourself in both feet and destroyed any possibility you have to 'legitmately' claim that flew applies as you 'assume' and therefore no longer can inject it as fact.

    You just ruled philosophy and logic out of this discussion altogether, and consequently conceded your position by limiting it to that which is strictly stated in the dictionary!

    You want to use the dictionary as a law book rather than a starting point fine by me! :lol:
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2021
  6. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    54,520
    Likes Received:
    10,919
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What a bunch of rambling gibberish .. someone NOT believing something .. is not a religious belief. Fallacious nonsense on staroids.
     
    Jolly Penguin likes this.
  7. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    19,502
    Likes Received:
    1,185
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Im sure it is gibberish if you have no working knowledge of whats currently on the table being discussed. That wasnt even the full proof, I omitted a few, just like calculus is gibberish to a high school dropout.

    Nah.... you always believe something, if you dont believe the affirmative you believe its negative.
    Neoatheists have a worldview, classically that is considered religion, sorry.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2021
  8. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    54,520
    Likes Received:
    10,919
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What does that have to do with religion. You are claiming that everything that someone doesn't belief .. is "Religious Belief" .. which is nonsense. Lack of belief in something .. is not a Religion.
     
  9. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    19,502
    Likes Received:
    1,185
    Trophy Points:
    113
    simply stating something in the negative sense does not grant you any magical exemptions, sorry
    Does not matter how you want to twist or state it, you are taking a 'religious position'.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2021
  10. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    19,502
    Likes Received:
    1,185
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are volumes of denied propositions that atheists have to relate to and make before it is even possible to claim themselves as atheists.

    No one can reasonably attach the label atheist to themselves without first knowing or having some belief of what G/god is and then comparing those belief sets to what they think G/god is compared to the word atheist/theist/agnostic and that cannot be accomplished without some level of life experience to even be capable of making such a comparison.

    So while its a fact that all atheists lack belief, that is if lack is defined strictly as 'totally without' it is also an undeniable fact that theists logically lack disbelief.

    Its not possible for any reasonable person to conclude they are either theist or atheist without first comparing a plethora of hypotheses to get to that point.

    the word theist and atheist become the final reduction or composite of often hundreds of conclusions just to get to the point of attaching their identity to that label.

    Its not just 'one' belief as so many neoatheists want pretend, that is not remotely close to reality.

    Before becoming theist or atheist people start by 'not knowing' anything about G/god, odd thats just like an agnostic.

    Thats the essence of basic human thought process that neoatheist regularly deny
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2021
  11. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    2,790
    Likes Received:
    1,658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Whether or not the person is an atheist changes depending on how a proposed God is defined. Most people who are atheist in regard to literal bible God and other Gods like him, are not atheist if instead God is defined by a hippy as nothing but Love.

    Sure, yes. But nobody defines "theist" as only that. Lacking disbelief is not a full definition of theist. Lacking belief is a full definition of atheist.

    I think that nobody actually knows anything about God. And yes, that squarely fits me into a common definition of agnostic (not yours), which I am, along with being atheist (by definition also not yours; so you are guaranteed to misread this sentence).

    "Neo-atheist" is a stupid label that I have yet to hear any atheist self identity as.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2021
  12. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    19,502
    Likes Received:
    1,185
    Trophy Points:
    113
    such garbage bankrupt rebuttals.

    psychopaths dont self-identify as psychopaths either. where do you dig this laughable ankle biter **** up from anyway?

    Neoatheists brag about how they have superior reason and rationality and you do know what neoatheist is? Are you serious?

    neoatheist

    Jump to navigation Jump to search
    See also: neo-atheist

    English
    Etymology
    neo- +‎ atheist


    Noun
    neoatheist (plural neoatheists)


    1. A member of the vocally anti-religious movement that came to prominence in the early 2000s.
      • 2008, Robert Jones, Progressive & Religious, page 186
        A fundamental blind spot that so many of the neoatheist critics of religion share is that they have been unable to imagine an authentic religion that does not operate with certainty as its only common coin ...
      • 2011, Frank J, Re: All Finnish public 3 IDists are now practically or close to YECs ... Group: talk.origins just denied unguided evolution and attacked strongly on neoatheists
      • 2012, Charles Crawford & Dennis Krebs, Foundations of Evolutionary Psychology, →ISBN:
        I praise Dawkins' clarity, I rejoice in Dennett's call to study religion scientifically as a natural phenomena, and I admire S. Harris's keen polemical skill. Yet I think these thinkers are all arrogantly out of their depth. These "neo-atheist" authors chiefly use highly selective analogy, anecdote, personal sentiment, and rash generalization...
      • 2013, The Faces of Satan, They batter believers in religion with smug certainty Group: can.politics, link
        neoatheist thinkers such as Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, I thought it amazing that he still wanted to learn something new

    Projection of personal defects is the neoatheist debate methodology.

    I thought you were at least literate enough to read and comprehend a dictionary, or are you on a mission to bait me with bullshit?

    You know full well, since the dictionary spelled it out in very simple terms that knowing does not determine agnostic because agnostic does not choose a side and you are choosing a side, which also contradicts your previous "No Choice" nonsense. Good job you just shot yourself in both feet
    Im not and have no intention to define theist, please try to stay on point.
    Neither is lacking belief a full definition of atheist, is that supposed to have value beyond simply posting another one of your redd herring adventures?
    No its not, its a broad scope factual conclusion, (If lack means 'total') and so is lack of disbelief a factual broad scope conclusion for a theist. Both are true statements.
    Believe in one G/god natural or supernatural or anything supernatural generally and you ceaseto be atheist, that would also make you highly irrational by neoatheist professed standards.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2021
  13. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    2,790
    Likes Received:
    1,658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is adorable that you think that because you quote one meaning of a word from one dictionary, that there are no other meanings of that same word.

    Lacking belief that God(s) exist is a full definition of atheist. It is a very common one. It just isn't the definition you prefer and demand.

    Depends on what you mean by disbelief (one of your weasel words). If you mean belief there is no God, then no, lack of that belief does not fully define a theist by any common definition of theist. Theism requires a belief that there is at least one God.

    That does not follow even from your demanded definition of atheist. Just because somebody believes there is no God does not necessarily mean they don't believe ghosts or faeries exist.
     
  14. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    19,502
    Likes Received:
    1,185
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please stop projecting.
    You are the one who demands a definition created by one man that has been thrown out of academic circles because it cannot be used within this scope not me. My preferred usage is supported by accredited universities as the appropriate usage/meaning for this task, and I agree with them, while your misapplied political spin has been thrown down the sewer.

    You just hate it that you cant get any traction in support of your cwazy political theories which is why you dont hesitate to knowingly and willfully conflate the 2 in argument.

    There is no such thing as a 'full' definition.
    Bullshit lacking belief is the definition you demand, along with political usage when arguing a religious sense, NOT me.
    Again academics (that means really smart people) threw it out as not applicable to this discussion.
    They are 100% correct in doing so.
    You are pedaling your politics in pretense its religion.
    common? ad populum fallacy

    You are the one demanding your definition is used when its use in this context is not applicable.
    Here we go again, you fail demonstrate adequate grammar skills for this discussion time and time again.
    again I am not defining anything, my statement is a statement of truth and a fact and no amount of your flimflam political spin will ever change that.
    the negative of lack of disbelieve is belief, which describes a theist.
    Flew, a well known failure is YOUR demanded definition, not mine.
    Well then not to surprising, neoatheists are lying to us, they in fact do believe the supernatural. There appears to be a strong connection between lies and neoatheists.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2021
  15. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    2,790
    Likes Received:
    1,658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pure projection. I have noted and demonstrated again and again (most recently directly above) that I can work with either definition. You refuse to, to the point of pretending people mean what you know they don't.

    I don't conflate the two. That's again yourself. It isn't me that keeps pretending people meant one meaning of the word when they themselves said they meant the other. That is you. And it is pathetic.

    Apparently you don't understand how language works. If a word is commonly used to mean something, that's a definition of the word. It can and does change over time, and there can be and are multiple definitions of many words.

    No, again, that is you. I can and have worked with either definition.

    When you use your weasel words, people may call you out on it. When you set yourself up so you can equivocate, people may call you out on it. We can all see what you are doing.

    And there is the weaseling I spotted coming. The negation of lack of belief is belief. You have not established that the negation of "believe does not exist" is "believe exists". You know this, and this is why you use "disbelieve" as a weasel word, so you can use it to flip between lack of belief and belief of opposite. We can all see this coming. You don't trick anybody except possibly yourself.

    Some atheists do. Not all do. You keep speaking as if all atheists must think exactly alike. They don't. Not under either definition of the word atheist.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2021
  16. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    7,931
    Likes Received:
    916
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Seems to me for several lines, there in fact is something in the definitions directly implying that they are or can be part of one another.

    An atheist does not believe God exists.
    An agnostic does not believe God exists and in addition does not believe God does not exist.​
    I.e. an agnostic fulfils all the criteria to be an atheist, and in addition is required to not believe that God does not exist (i.e. not all atheists are agnostics). I appreciate that you don't agree with that, but it does show that the definitions include direct implications. The cartoon house example illustrates this as well.

    If there is any "substance of the condition" that affects whether a word applies to something, it gets included in the definition. In the case of atheism, the substance of the condition that got included was the negative "not believe God exists", whereas the positive "believes God does not exist" was not (it only shows that the "act" of believing is not carried out, it does not specify whether the opposite idea is embraced/ignored/otherwise). The definition of theist however uses the positive condition "believes God exists".

    You seem to understand that a negative definition would include agnostics (since you say a negative phrasing of theist would include agnostics), so the if theists are defined positively and atheists are defined negatively, it should be clear why agnostics are included as atheists and not as theists. It is not a mistake that theist is defined positively and atheist is defined negatively.

    I don't think I have done any such thing, I just say that which logic applies for a particular word is determined by the definition. In this particular case, the positive logic (which excludes agnostics) is found in the theist definition, but the negative logic (which does not exclude agnostics) is found in the atheist definition.
     
  17. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    19,502
    Likes Received:
    1,185
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thankfully the bird conceded the nonsense he posted so we wont get 50 cheerleader strawman posts disrupting the continuity of the thread.
    several errors.
    First the mechanics of claiming theist is a conscious calculated conclusion that God exists.
    It follows that the negation must also be a conscious calculated conclusion that God does not exist.

    Lack of belief as you use it, as a preexisting condition that the party may be completely unaware exists is not compatible to anything but another preexisting condition such as lack of disbelief. It does not work in other words is is not a negation to a conscious decision. Youshoujld know this since stanford very clearly explained it. It can also be used as a global description for either theist or atheist producing a true in each instance.

    If you want to use lack of belief, something a dead man can accomplish, then you are forced to use lack of disbelief something a dead man can do IF and only IF you want to maintain contextual integrity :)
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2021
  18. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    7,931
    Likes Received:
    916
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why would that follow?

    In logic, negation [...] is an operation that takes a proposition P to another proposition "not P" [...] It is interpreted intuitively as being true when P is false, and false when P is true.(Source)​

    If you pointed at Mother Theresa and said "this person believes in God", you would be speaking the truth.
    If you pointed at Sam Harris and said "this person believes in God", you would be speaking a falsehood, the statement is false. The negation statement must therefore be true: "This person does not believe in God".
    If you pointed at an agnostic and said "this person believes in God", you would be speaking a falsehood, the statement is false. The negation statement must therefore be true "This person does not believe in God".

    There is nothing about the logic of "true when P is false and false when P is true" that suggests that if one is a calculated conclusion, then the negation must also be a conclusion. If "this rock believes God exist" isn't a true statement, then it is a false statement, so the negation is true. To demand that such a negation is considered a calculated conclusion seems to simply be a failure to understand what the word "not" means.

    I do not understand this sentence. The negation to P is true whenever P is false, whether it is a conscious decision is beside the point.

    Nope, in order to figure out whether the word applies, you need to satisfy the definition, not just some descriptions ("yellow" is an accurate description of a banana, but it is not its definition). The definition of theist in fact does not include any lack of disbelief, so it does not make "theist" true.

    As we've brought up countless times before, you introduce an equivocation with the word disbelief.
    • If by disbelief you mean a lack of belief (i.e. "not believe God exists"), then a lack of disbelief is a lack of a lack of a belief, which is a belief, which is something a dead man cannot have, and you are in fact wrong in asserting that a dead man can lack disbelief.
    • If by disbelief you mean the belief in an opposite statement (i.e. "belief God does not exist"), then a dead person does lack that disbelief. This "disbelief" is not present in the definition of theist, so the fact that he does lack disbelief is not sufficient to make him a theist, so no contradiction is generated.
    It is telling that your objections can't even be formulated without introducing dodgy words.
     
    Jolly Penguin likes this.
  19. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    7,931
    Likes Received:
    916
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This also happens to be the Law of the Excluded middle, either a proposition or its negation is true. No exceptions are made for "conscious calculated conclusions".
     
    Jolly Penguin likes this.
  20. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    2,790
    Likes Received:
    1,658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Also, important here, and a mistake Koko kept repeating, is that the LEM doesn't mean if something is true then the opposite must be false, or that if something is false then the opposite must be true. Negation is not synonymous with opposite.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2021
  21. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    19,502
    Likes Received:
    1,185
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is it remotely possible for you to make a truthful statement? Please start ignoring me already.

    So then iyo 'contextual integrity' has no effect and should be readily dismissed as irrelevant?
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2021
  22. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    2,790
    Likes Received:
    1,658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not believing in God is not synonymous with believing there is no God. Not going up is not synonymous with going down, etc.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2021
  23. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    19,502
    Likes Received:
    1,185
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here we go with this **** again. Thats imaginative but you cant justify it so its 500% meaningless as I have told you countless times every time you post that spam.

    So when will I have the pleasure of of being ignored by you as you obviously 'falsely' proclaimed you would do?

    Think you could make an effort to post something truthful for a change?
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2021
  24. Pisa

    Pisa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2016
    Messages:
    3,004
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    You're basically claiming that agnostics can't exist. Nice self-defeating post.
     
  25. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    19,502
    Likes Received:
    1,185
    Trophy Points:
    113
    its really easy to simply make unvalidated cclaims isnt it pisa LOL
    I am not claiming alluding to, implying, presenting or suggesting any such thing, that is all in your imagination.
    We get a lot of that from neoatheists now days.....(unjustified imagination)
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2021

Share This Page