Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

You're an agnostic. According to the definition, you don't believe in god. According to your semantic games, that means you believe god does not exist. Do you believe god does not exist? Do agnostics believe god does not exist?

 

no,
neither do I believe god exists.
I equally reject both theist and atheist claims as false premises.

no, not if they are agnostic, that is a direct contradiction
agnostic cannot be agnostic if they accept either atheist claims or theist claims as valid or true.

Simply put,
God exists = rejected as false
God does not exist = rejected as false
= agnostic.

see the top section b and disb (accidentally posted that in the wrong thread LOL)



as you can see the same thing works for lack of belief, the bottom section where its true that agnostics both lack belief and lack disbelief.

 

Q.E.D.

 

Here are some options:

1. My favorite deity exists and I believe in him/her/it.
2. Your favorite deity exists but I don't believe in him/her/it.
3. A God of some sort exists but I don't believe in him/her/it.
4. Gods don't exist , therefore I can't believe in any of them.

 

1. If you don't believe God Exists, that means you must believe God does not exist.
2. Agnostics don't believe God exits, so Agnostics must believe God does not exist.
3. Agnostics don't believe God exists. Agnostics don't believe God does not exist.
4. The above is perfectly consistent and not a contradiction.
5. I have proved you all wrong, by equivocating words, pretending you mean what you don't.
6. Look, I can make tables stating the obvious.
7. You can choose to believe you are an elephant.
5. SQUIRREL!

 

Yes. The options are many.

 

QED!

true

 

QED

you quoted it, what dont you understand? I will be glad to help.

 

Why are you here?

your 2 data sets are entirely different sets of circumstances, unrelated, stanford explained it FFS, hence this is where correct grammar and context comes into play. Otherwise you can make stupid claims like carrots are healthy because they are on the table. Faulty grammar proves your contextual violation.

shees! again you have nothing backing you up, I have stanford U covering my ass.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

 

Flew didnt, so what makes you think you can give Flew a free pass?
lack of belief is entirely different set of circumstances compared to disbelief as the dictionary defines it, not your twisted personal version.

 

true

False representation!
False characterization!

agnostic
ag·nos·tic


Definition of agnostic


1 : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

------------------------------

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.Sep 29, 2020

What's The Difference Between Atheism And Agnosticism?


Atheism is so weak atheists find it necessary to misrepresent an opponents position!

 

On the one hand you have Atheists of conscience, morals and principles who say that Christians believe in a vain fairy tale. On the other hand you have those who have put away conscience, morals, and principles, who say that those who keep those values are living in a vain fairy tale.

 

Dictionary definitions? Seriously?

Are you aware that believing in god means having faith in god? Are you aware that suspending judgement on the existence of god, which is what agnostics do, is incompatible with faith in god? How can anyone suspend judgement on the existence of god while believing in god? How can anyone suspend judgement on the value of a statement while believing that the statement is true?

 

Sure, I do that as a community service when its crystal clear someone has no clue about the contemporary meaning of a word.

Sure, it means they believe God exists.

I dont know anything about suspending anything. I made my judgments crystal clear, several times now.

no

You really arent making sense you know.

Agnostics weigh all the evidence on both sides of the equation and 'conclude' neither side has proven their hypothesis as a factual.

Agnostics are rare because they are not born with the neoatheist gene, so unlike neoatheists we agnostics are free to think for ourselves using reason and logic to make conclusions and change our beliefs as necessary because we free to 'choose' what we believe. Too bad for neoatheists whos genetics do not allow them to reason any other path in life.

Yeh its pretty much like I was telling swensson:

agnostics and theists both make "conscious calculated conclusions" to claim their titles, while neoatheists can be completely brain dead and genetically inherit theirs.

 

No, in my opinion, you're misunderstanding, misconstruing or misapplying "contextual integrity". The law of the excluded middle says that a statement or its negation must be true, and your assertion that a negation must also be a conscious calculated conclusion is unwarranted and in fact incorrect. No reference to contextual integrity will let you get out of that (especially not one so poorly supported or detailed as what you've provided here). If you're finding this contextual integrity to be at odds with the laws of though, chances are your interpretation or application of contextual integrity is wrong.

You've also not provided any references or searchable/checkable rules of this contextual integrity (when I search for it, "contextual integrity" seems to refer to a theory of computer privacy). Provide the rule and the reference (as I have with the law of the excluded middle), and we'll be able to assess what it actually says and if you're applying it correctly.

Not sure what you mean, doesn't seem relevant.

What two datasets? My argument here derives directly from the law of the excluded middle, I don't think I have even supplied any datasets.

Either a proposition or its negation is true. There are no exceptions for "conscious calculated conclusions".

Or that you are misconstruing the grammar. Of course, you have failed to supply any justification for your arbitrary rules, while I have anchored my arguments in logical rules, so chances are it is your grammar that is wrong.

We've been through this many times before, the Stanford article only calls the usage certainly legitimate. The usage that is argued against is Bullivant's umbrella term, which we're not using.

Sure he did, he explicitly provided the definition he was using. One can use any definition one wants when constructing a standalone argument. That's why we're perfectly able to talk about oranges both as fruit and as colours, by simply picking the definition that helps us convey a certain message.

The error lies in what you did, take an argument that is made with one definition, and interpreting it as if it was made with a different definition. That is called equivocation, and it is a fallacy.

I'd be inclined to agree, which is why I don't bring up "disbelief" at all. The definition of atheist as we have agreed upon it says only "does not believe in God". To take the detour via attempting to phrase it in terms of "disbelief" seems only to be an attempt to muddy the water (since disbelief can believe several different things).

The set of circumstances that the definitions use is "not believe God exists", which is the state where "believes God exists" is false.

 

Swensson , I think it ultimately comes down to Koko's unfounded claim that to not believe God exists is the same as to believe God does not exist. That is where he keeps adding in "disbelief" and why you keep going off track from what you thought your agreed definition of "atheist" was.

So long as a person sees the two as the same, you won't be able to make any sense of them.

 

FALSE,
that is YOUR regurgitated definition NOT the one we supposedly agreed on!

Oh? Citations please! You keep 'saying' that.

If you think s 'state' can be substituted as a negation of an action Im going to need a citation on that as well, since stanford U says it does not work that way, and we all know you read stanford sine you quoted is more than once in the past.

It does not say you can use any imagined grammatically incompatible BS as a negation, feel free to prove your choice is correct, citations accepted.

You dont look very far do you!

How do you use negation?

When you want to express the opposite meaning of a particular word or sentence, you can do it by inserting a negation. Negations are words like no, not, and never. If you wanted to express the opposite of I am here, for example, you could say I am not here.

Negatives and Negation–Grammar Rules | Grammarly

Of course getting past all the bird **** spammed throughout the thread we have to wade through now days.

Negation

First published Wed Jan 7, 2015; substantive revision Thu Feb 20, 2020

Negation is in the first place a phenomenon of semantic opposition.

But the prototypical use of negation is indeed as a denial of a proposition attributable to, or at least considered by, someone relevant to the discourse context.

While affirmation standardly introduces a proposition into the discourse model, negation—in its “chief use” (Jespersen 1917, 4), its “most common use” (Ayer 1952, 39), its “standard and primary use” (Strawson 1952, 7)—is directed at a proposition that is already in or that can be accommodated by the discourse model.

As stressed by Bartsch 1973 (cf. Horn 1978; Horn 1989, Chapter 5), when there are only two alternatives in a given context, as in the case of neg-raising, the denial of one (I don’t believe it will rain) amounts to the assertion of the other (I believe it won’t rain).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/negation/

FALSE
Appeal to dictionary fallacy

FALSE, agnostics do not believe God does not exist, and lack of belief is a semantic opposition only to lack of disbelief, it does not express a denial of the proposition that God exists, you are chasing your tail going around in circles again.

Someone completely brain dead can claim they lack belief in something and that applies to any topic, lacking belief in something is an extreme example of a LEM violation.

You demand that agnostics believe God does not exist, (in your opinion), no substantiation, and nothing could be further from the truth. Did it ever occur to you thats why you cannot prove the point? You are entitled to your own opinions as you are expressing, not your own facts.

 

FALSE there error lies in your mischaraterization of the hypthesis, which is equivocation, and it is a fallacy.

They REJECTED it for use in this context, (agnostic v atheist) then they simply stating that there is a context flew can be argued but NOT THIS CONTEXT. I have seen no contextual argument from you that applies to and validates flew. In fact I made a contextual argument why flew does not work and you responded with a dictionary fallacy. Pounding square pegs in round holes is your game.

 

like I said countless posts ago believes is a verb, its in the present tense same as theist, it retains contextual integrity, your flew nonsense does not negate theist, it violates LEM, LNC, presents a dictionary fallacy, in the form you use it, it is not logically presentable.

Hey I warned you this would happen before you went down this trail.

be·lieve
verb
3rd person present: believes
1.
accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.

Lack has precisely NOTHING to do with an acceptance.

Looks like we need several citations from you if anyone is to believe your opinions are anything more than wishful thinking, its pretty clear thats all you got, wishful thinking!


.

 

Thomas Henry Huxley’s Agnostic Philosophy of Science
by Jiwon Byun
M.A., The University of Chicago, 2009
B.A., The University of Wisconsin, Madison, 2007

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF Doctor of Philosophy
in The Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (Philosophy)

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)

August 2017​

​

His intention behind agnosticism was to establish and maintain epistemic merit of
science without any unknowable, metaphysical or theological, apparatus. Science is the practice
of agnosticism, and for this reason, our best way to knowledge.

Although agnosticism is commonly regarded as a religious position on the existence of God, the
coiner of the term, Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895), had more to say.

This dissertation presents a more comprehensive understanding of agnosticism and its bearings on the conception
of science by examining Huxley’s underappreciated philosophical works.

The most salient feature of agnostic position would be, ironically, refusal to take a position regarding the truth value of a given proposition. This shows that the mere absence of a belief or opinion does not sufficiently capture the state of being agnostic because it suggests that the state involves refusing.3 Consider, for example, the issue of the existence of a god, since agnosticism is most commonly thought of as a religious position. Holding an agnostic position about this issue means refusing to take both positions that a god exists and that a god does not exist.

Agnostics neither affirm nor deny the existence of a god; they are not those who simply lack a belief, opinion or interest regarding the issue.


https://open.library.ubc.ca/media/download/pdf/24/1.0354412/4&usg=AOvVaw0oJtkEgtrDEly_h63g-5Qe


That said agnostic-atheist is looney toons and swenssons absence of belief/lack of belief to combine agnostic with atheist just got flushed as illogical!

​

 

TH Huxley, the only philosopher Koko can talk about.

 

Agnostics want to have their cake and eat it too.

 

I pointed out what Pisa noted there to Koko many times and he never tried to explain the obvious contradiction. In one breath he said that not believing God exists is the same as believing God does not exist. In the next breath he says that he as an agnostic neither believes that God exists, nor believes that God does not exist.

 

Fallacy of skepticism. You have to believe in the object in order to have doubts about it.

 

The thing about agnosticism is that it has to lead to a choice about how you live your life. If you are an agnostic living in a Christian community you will either fake being a Christian and live a lie or you will be honest about your skepticism and be distanced from the community.

From the perspective that the Christian god is real, you have decided not to have faith in Christ.

Living in a modern secular world is the easiest path but even in that life you are living as though there is no god.

The fact is, as I pointed out in another thread, you MUST make a leap of faith. You either live as though god is real or you live as though god is not real. There is no middle path.