Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

Agree with that.

 

Makes sense.

Personally I like how they do it in Vietnam. No worship of Gods, but they keep shrines to their departed loved ones after they die. So every house has a little shrine to grandma, even after the grandkids are old themselves.

Honouring your loved dead instead of some theistic control mechanism.

 

An agnostic is a person who doesn't have enough brains to know what to believe.

 

Oh no, I can talk about plenty of philosophers.

Huxley however invented the word agnostic, and that outs the denialists that deny the source proving they are irrational.

There is no better reference on the planet than the inventor of the word AGNOSTIC, to comparing the way you and others have bastardized it despite the FACT that all universities agree with Huxley, which makes your contemporary propaganda of meaning since no university on the planet sanctioned it, as singing from the peanut gallery cheap sets.

If neoatheists want to play ball with me, they have to at least reach the point of a second string player, sorry

Case in point as we can see by the bird the neoatheist position is so weak that they found is necessary to fabricate strawman arguments and ignore any proofs to the contrary.

If I were a neatheist I woujld be embarrassed to be associated with that nonsense.
this thread should require a grammar and logic test be passed first before people can post here to at least establish a minimum of subject matter comprehension.

Exactly what cake do you think you are talking about?

and atheism does not?

strawman, Christ is purported to be or represent a God, so define God.

Easy? I totally agree with easy!
neoatheists claim that the requirements to be an atheist is exactly nothing at all. Brain dead is fine. absence and lack of believe are both categorical and etymological fallacies, not to mention they both violate LEM, and LNC.
I have been poting here for some time, I have yet to see any this bragged about superior [neo]atheist reasoning, all I have seen so far is massive failures in logic, grammar, and reason.

Yes atheists have no proof no God exists, they operate by making a giant leap of faith.

Well lets see, seems to me God said dont lie cheat steal murder so then you are saying that neoatheists do not live that way.

true, there is however a 3rd path.

Not true.
neoatheists only requirement to wear the badge is brain-dead.
agnostics DECIDE what they believe
theists DECIDE what they believe
neoatheists claim to need no brain what so ever to wear their 'neoatheist' badge

 

None of what you said made any difference. You are still hiding from the truth.

 

The definition we had (source) seems to match "not believe God exists" word for word:

Definition of atheist noun from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
atheist noun
a person who does not believe that God or gods exist
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/atheist​

(my underlining)

Do you not agree with the definition you insisted on?

Well, the citation would be the same as above:

In logic, negation, also called the logical complement, is an operation that takes a proposition to another proposition "not ", written , or . It is interpreted intuitively as being true when is false, and false when is true.​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negation.

The negation of P is that which is true when P is false and vice versa. It follows that unless "believes God exists" is true, then "believes God exists" must be false, and the negation "not believe God exists" must be true. There is no exception for "actions". (I'm not married to the idea of a "state", "not P" must be true if P is false, even if you've thought of some notion that isn't a "state".

True, but it does say that for a correctly formulated negation, exactly one must be true. Since it is possible to fall between the chairs "believe God exists" and "believe God does not exist" (for instance by not believing either), they must not be direct negations of each other. I'm not using just "any imagined grammatically incompatible BS", I'm using the negation as logic demands it is used.

"Chief use", "most common use", "standard and primary use" all imply that there are indeed correct uses that do not follow that pattern (i.e. that it is not incorrect to use another pattern, just that it isn't very common).

Luckily, Flew spells out exactly what he means ("someone who is simply not a theist"). There are many linguistic features that you are allowed to use (for instance, the definition of orange as a fruit), you're just not allowed to assert that someone else was using that feature, when in fact they spelled out that they didn't use that feature.

Nope, I do in fact not appeal to the dictionary, I appeal to definition that Flew uses and details when he constructs the argument. It is not the entry in a dictionary that makes something a definition, it is the fact that Flew uses the word in that way that makes it the definition (for the purposes of that context).

Not sure what you mean by "semantic opposition". Luckily, the definitions do not invoke this "semantic opposition", it invokes negation, and in logic, the negation of P is that which is true when P is false and vice versa. If you have managed to construct some "semantic opposition" that is at odds with that, then you must have construct something other than what makes one an atheist.

It is true that a brain dead person lacks belief, in fact, that they lack every belief. There is no violation of LEM or any other logic in that statement. If you conclude that simple, demonstrably true sentences are against the logic fundaments, then it seems you do not understand the logic fundaments.

I do not demand that agnostics believe God does not exist, I demand only that agnostics do not believe that God exists, which is only equivalent to that the statement "agnostics believe God exists" is false. Again, you have taken a sentence I agree with, modified it using a "rule" which I do not agree with, and pretended erroneously and/or dishonestly that the result is something I would agree with.

It seems to me that it is you who have mischaracterised the hypothesis. Of course, my characterisation leads to roughly the same conclusions as Flew's does, whereas your interpretation fails even basic logic, so I don't know why you think yours is representative of Flew's logic.

Seems to me like you have a narrow interpretation of the context. I'd say in detailing how he uses the word, Flew creates the specific context in which his logic is presented (just like a person talking about fruits can create a context in which orange refers to a fruit). On the other hand, he doesn't specify any "agnostic v atheist" context, so again, it seems that that's a context that you have asserted without justification.

Lacking also doesn't have anything to do with hair, but one can still lack hair. The negation of P is true when P is false, if you have constructed some "contextual integrity" that breaks the logical fundaments, that's not my or Flew's problem.

 

redd herring fallacy, categorical misrepresentation, please correct.

 

I mean, it wasn't meant as a red herring, in that you weren't meant to ignore the other 10 sections of argument. I agree that lacking doesn't have anything in particular to do with belief, but that doesn't mean you can't lack belief. I'd say the thing that determines the truth of this issue is the definition, as Flew used it, and the meaning of the negation. Your "semantic oppositions" and "contextual integrity" either follow the logical rules, or are red herrings.

Anyway, here is the stuff you avoided. You're not saving any time by failing to address the flaws I point out.

The definition we had (source) seems to match "not believe God exists" word for word:

Definition of atheist noun from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
atheist noun
a person who does not believe that God or gods exist
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/atheist​

(my underlining)

Do you not agree with the definition you insisted on?

Well, the citation would be the same as above:

In logic, negation, also called the logical complement, is an operation that takes a proposition to another proposition "not ", written , or . It is interpreted intuitively as being true when is false, and false when is true.​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negation.

The negation of P is that which is true when P is false and vice versa. It follows that unless "believes God exists" is true, then "believes God exists" must be false, and the negation "not believe God exists" must be true. There is no exception for "actions". (I'm not married to the idea of a "state", "not P" must be true if P is false, even if you've thought of some notion that isn't a "state".

True, but it does say that for a correctly formulated negation, exactly one must be true. Since it is possible to fall between the chairs "believe God exists" and "believe God does not exist" (for instance by not believing either), they must not be direct negations of each other. I'm not using just "any imagined grammatically incompatible BS", I'm using the negation as logic demands it is used.

"Chief use", "most common use", "standard and primary use" all imply that there are indeed correct uses that do not follow that pattern (i.e. that it is not incorrect to use another pattern, just that it isn't very common).

Luckily, Flew spells out exactly what he means ("someone who is simply not a theist"). There are many linguistic features that you are allowed to use (for instance, the definition of orange as a fruit), you're just not allowed to assert that someone else was using that feature, when in fact they spelled out that they didn't use that feature.

Nope, I do in fact not appeal to the dictionary, I appeal to definition that Flew uses and details when he constructs the argument. It is not the entry in a dictionary that makes something a definition, it is the fact that Flew uses the word in that way that makes it the definition (for the purposes of that context).

Not sure what you mean by "semantic opposition". Luckily, the definitions do not invoke this "semantic opposition", it invokes negation, and in logic, the negation of P is that which is true when P is false and vice versa. If you have managed to construct some "semantic opposition" that is at odds with that, then you must have construct something other than what makes one an atheist.

It is true that a brain dead person lacks belief, in fact, that they lack every belief. There is no violation of LEM or any other logic in that statement. If you conclude that simple, demonstrably true sentences are against the logic fundaments, then it seems you do not understand the logic fundaments.

I do not demand that agnostics believe God does not exist, I demand only that agnostics do not believe that God exists, which is only equivalent to that the statement "agnostics believe God exists" is false. Again, you have taken a sentence I agree with, modified it using a "rule" which I do not agree with, and pretended erroneously and/or dishonestly that the result is something I would agree with.

It seems to me that it is you who have mischaracterised the position/logic. Of course, my characterisation leads to roughly the same conclusions as Flew's does, whereas your interpretation fails even basic logic, so I don't know why you think yours is representative of Flew's logic.

Seems to me like you have a narrow interpretation of the context. I'd say in detailing how he uses the word, Flew creates the specific context in which his logic is presented (just like a person talking about fruits can create a context in which orange refers to a fruit). On the other hand, he doesn't specify any "agnostic v atheist" context, so again, it seems that that's a context that you have asserted without justification.

 

Ironically you used flews definition to destroy flewism.
proving braindead people are qualified flew atheists.
I suppose you still have 'denial' to fall back on, but I am not willing to entertain that nonsense.

 

Under Flew, to be atheist and "a person who does not believe" do you have have to be human? Technically corporations are persons. So corporations are atheists? Madness.

Did I just out-Koko the Koko?

 

Corporations are legal persons, thereby enjoying many legal rights and responsibilities that a natural person does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person

Legal person is often shortened to "person" in legal-like contexts, but it is not the same concept as person. For instance, wikipedia's definition of legal person is phrased as "a person or 'thing'...", indicating that not every legal person is in fact a person.

Flew only used the word "someone", which I would assume refers to person, not to legal person.

 

Lol I was poking fun, but thanks all the same

 

Why would that destroy "Flewism"? It fulfils the definition, belief in the existence of God is something they do not have (perhaps I'd say they're have lost personhood, and are therefore not atheists, but with regard to lacking belief in the existence of God, they fit the bill). It is only you who has asserted that atheism must be a belief in itself, the flaw you keep running into is yours, not Flew's.

And just for reference, here are some responses you can't seem to come up with good answers to.

The definition we had (source) seems to match "not believe God exists" word for word:

Definition of atheist noun from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
atheist noun
a person who does not believe that God or gods exist
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/atheist​

(my underlining)

Do you not agree with the definition you insisted on?

Well, the citation would be the same as above:

In logic, negation, also called the logical complement, is an operation that takes a proposition to another proposition "not ", written , or . It is interpreted intuitively as being true when is false, and false when is true.​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negation.

The negation of P is that which is true when P is false and vice versa. It follows that unless "believes God exists" is true, then "believes God exists" must be false, and the negation "not believe God exists" must be true. There is no exception for "actions". (I'm not married to the idea of a "state", "not P" must be true if P is false, even if you've thought of some notion that isn't a "state".

True, but it does say that for a correctly formulated negation, exactly one must be true. Since it is possible to fall between the chairs "believe God exists" and "believe God does not exist" (for instance by not believing either), they must not be direct negations of each other. I'm not using just "any imagined grammatically incompatible BS", I'm using the negation as logic demands it is used.

"Chief use", "most common use", "standard and primary use" all imply that there are indeed correct uses that do not follow that pattern (i.e. that it is not incorrect to use another pattern, just that it isn't very common).

Luckily, Flew spells out exactly what he means ("someone who is simply not a theist"). There are many linguistic features that you are allowed to use (for instance, the definition of orange as a fruit), you're just not allowed to assert that someone else was using that feature, when in fact they spelled out that they didn't use that feature.

Nope, I do in fact not appeal to the dictionary, I appeal to definition that Flew uses and details when he constructs the argument. It is not the entry in a dictionary that makes something a definition, it is the fact that Flew uses the word in that way that makes it the definition (for the purposes of that context).

Not sure what you mean by "semantic opposition". Luckily, the definitions do not invoke this "semantic opposition", it invokes negation, and in logic, the negation of P is that which is true when P is false and vice versa. If you have managed to construct some "semantic opposition" that is at odds with that, then you must have construct something other than what makes one an atheist.

It is true that a brain dead person lacks belief, in fact, that they lack every belief. There is no violation of LEM or any other logic in that statement. If you conclude that simple, demonstrably true sentences are against the logic fundaments, then it seems you do not understand the logic fundaments. (Although as added above, I'm not convinced that a brain dead person has personhood, so they might still not be atheists).

I do not demand that agnostics believe God does not exist, I demand only that agnostics do not believe that God exists, which is only equivalent to that the statement "agnostics believe God exists" is false. Again, you have taken a sentence I agree with, modified it using a "rule" which I do not agree with, and pretended erroneously and/or dishonestly that the result is something I would agree with.

It seems to me that it is you who have mischaracterised the position/logic. Of course, my characterisation leads to roughly the same conclusions as Flew's does, whereas your interpretation fails even basic logic, so I don't know why you think yours is representative of Flew's logic.

Seems to me like you have a narrow interpretation of the context. I'd say in detailing how he uses the word, Flew creates the specific context in which his logic is presented (just like a person talking about fruits can create a context in which orange refers to a fruit). On the other hand, he doesn't specify any "agnostic v atheist" context, so again, it seems that that's a context that you have asserted without justification.

 

WTF, Groveling!
Geezuz have a little dignity.

 

I'd say you're fully debunked. Of course, if you had a leg to stand on, we wouldn't just claim that we've won, we would boil down exactly wherein the disagreement lies, but you're very unwilling to give actual answers and responses. In the case of the "A question for agnostics" thread, you have provided no actual points whatsoever, only beratement and claims of winning that you haven't substantiated.

I have read all the things you have quoted towards me, and several arguments rest on ideas you haven't justified. I have of course asked for clarification and justification, but have received mostly deflections and beratements.

Sure, I've moved it to this thread instead. Of course, my last post in here also contain many points which you haven't answered satisfactorily.

You have not successfully argued that Flew had to, or did, use the phrasing "not believe" to mean "believe not" (in fact, he explicitly says that he does the opposite). You have not successfully argued that your interpretation of "semantic opposition" is relevant to the definition of atheism (although you've done so poorly that I can't even tell whether you're failing to evaluate it properly, or failing to argue for its inclusion into the evaluation at all). You have failed to present any problem with the idea that someone braindead (or for that matter dead) lacks belief (of course, in order to be an atheist he'd have to be a person, which I think is up for debate, but a dead/braindead person is a good enough example for what it means to "lack belief", since it is a case where "has belief" is false). You have indeed consistently shown that your interpretation of what is being said is at odds with what is actually being said, and what everyone else understands to be said. Some of the above, you have attempted to argue, just not without mistakes (usually because you won't explicitly provided answers and responses).

 

Of course, I would expect nothing less than a false turnabout from you.
In the real world of sane people, you simply cant extract someones brain and claim Hey look, "they lack belief, therefore they are atheist".

 

this is why I dump you, that is your false representation. you have been told this and its been proven to you countless times and you simply ignore it, spewing the same bullshit mantra falsely claiming I did not counter your nonsense.

 

this is also false, I want academically accredited citations proving your justifications of every statement and claim you make if you want to continue hammering on this nonsense you are obsessed with. It isnt bad enough you misrepresent me. Lets hold you to the same standard you hold me and put the same shoe on your foot! So you can forget what 'you think' fantasies and how it 'seems' and all the BS nonsense you post and pretend is fact. There are rules and conventions in logic that must be adhered to, and I am not here getting paid to be your private tutor.

 

stanford philosophy dept argued it, look up the link I posted countless times.

Prove a negation, in a strict sense, can contain a different meaning/sense from that being negated.

 

FALSE, shees....

 

So much deflection and berating. Zero argument. If you had proved what you keep claiming to have proved there would be fewer false victory laps and more actual proving. Infact, if you spent as much energy in good faith argument, actually seeking to understand others and address what they say and prove what they say wrong, as you do in flexing and berating, you may actually have won the victories you falsely claim.

 

Yes everyone is taking notes and learning from you, the one thing you do well. Well not really well since you always get busted.

Yep thats you alright, zero quotes, zero argument 100% beratement, all you do is rant berate and call names, you cry berate when I correct the foolish **** you post. There is a difference.

If you wanted to argue in good faith you would learn the material and correct inferences.

Its not a good faith argument when people post **** thats outside their skill set.

Did you know its SOP for people on forums that lie through the teeth on forums NOT TO QUOTE the people they lie about? What do you think of people that never quote and just accuse with name calling?

I proved it but you and swensson are in denial.

Hate to tell ya, but they arent false just because you two are in denial, you have to prove it,

Oh wait!

I almost forgot!

I posted a whole series of definitions to prove I am right at and the last barrage of birdshit you and swensson threw at the wall.

Oh wow, thats right, you unwittingly sunk your own battleship.

Why all the pretense?

Maybe this can help you guys?
Moving past denial


When faced with an overwhelming turn of events, it's OK to say, "I just can't think about all of this right now." You might need time to work through what's happened and adapt to new circumstances. But it's important to realize that denial should only be a temporary measure — it won't change the reality of the situation.

It isn't always easy to tell if denial is holding you back. The strength of denial can change over time, especially for someone with chronic illness — some periods are linked to less defensiveness, and at other times denial may be much stronger. If you feel stuck or if someone you trust suggests that you're in denial, however, you might try these strategies:

• Honestly examine what you fear.
• Think about the potential negative consequences of not taking action.
• Allow yourself to express your fears and emotions.
• Try to identify your irrational beliefs about your situation.
• Journal about your experience.
• Open up to a trusted friend or loved one.
• Participate in a support group.

you're stuck in the denial phase — consider talking to a mental health provider.

He or she can help you find healthy ways to cope with the situation rather than trying to pretend it doesn't exist. https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/denial/art-20047926

You have proven that dont even know how to comprehend a dictionary, and you imagine things in phrases/clauses that simply dont exist.

If you and swensson would spend some time learning logic and reason prior to attempting to argue points that you are not capable of drawing the correct inferences you would know you have been beaten and debunked about 5 different ways already, LMAO. OK back to your usual name calling and denial.

 

Why not? You haven't provided a justification for why you can't, so you've got nothing but a baseless assertion so far. If you have a good argument, don't just proclaim what I can't do, show me why.

That being said, I technically agree with the words you've said here, since in order to be an atheist, it is not enough to lack belief, you must also be a person: "Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods". If someone's brain has been removed, I'd argue that they are no longer a person, and therefore are still not an atheist.

If you have extracted someone's brain, or killed them in some way that means that they do not hold beliefs, that seems to me to be adequately described as lacking belief (even though they might not have enough personhood to be called an atheist).

Nop, it is in fact the true representation. I can put it in bold too, if you think that makes it any more believable.

All your supposed proofs have failed to give justifications. The orange example proves that the final arbiter of how a word is intended is the person who puts together an argument, and none of your references to neg-raising or whatnot gets you out of that. (Don't get me wrong, a person putting together an argument still has a duty to be clear about how they're using a word, but Flew meets this duty in his argument). You on the other hand have failed to provide any good justification why your interpretation of the word should be used. You've provided some bad ones, but none that actually apply to the English language.

So yes, if you can't provide a good justification, why wouldn't I ignore it?

Yes, but when I ask for which ones (so as to check whether they actually apply), you haven't been able to provide an unbroken line of logic from anything true to what you're trying to argue. I'm not asking you to prove your justifications with "accredited citations", I'm merely asking what your justifications are, so that I can assess whether they are any good.

I'm happy enough that you have provided the link, but all it argues against is Bullivant's view, not Flews. You're welcome to provide some more detailed logic linking each statement in there to what you think they mean and why, but so far, you've merely claimed it. Do you think Bullivant's and Flew's versions are the same? If so, why would they be presented differently and indeed contrasted with one another, and if not, why would discrediting Bullivant's amount to discrediting Flew's?

I mean, this seems poorly worded, the sentence "I have a car" obviously means something different than "I don't have a car", that proves a statement and its negation can have different meanings. That being said, I think you want me to show something a little more specific. It's not quite clear what it is you want me to show, but I'll show that which applies to our disagreement.

In logic, negation, also called the logical complement, is an operation that takes a proposition to another proposition "not ", written , or . It is interpreted intuitively as being true when is false, and false when is true.​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negation.

1. There is a statement "agnostics believe that God exists", let's call it P.
2. The negation of that statement is "not P", which is the same as "agnostics do not believe that God exists".
   
3. If you said "agnostics do believe that God exists", you would be lying, so statement P is in fact false.
4. As can be read in the definition above, "not P" is true whenever P is false, and vice versa. If P is false, then "not P" must be true.
5. P is in fact false, so "not P" must be true
6. It is true that "agnostics do not believe that God exists".

You might argue that the negation of "agnostics believe God exists" is actually "agnostics believe God does not exist". However, it is possible that both those statements are incorrect (indeed, both statements are in fact incorrect). Since a negation of P by definition must be true when P is false, "agnostics believe God exists" cannot be the negation of "agnostics believe God does not exist".

I should also be noted that you have some other understanding of what the phrase "agnostics do not believe God exists" means. Your aversion to the conclusion is due to your inability to understand the sentence, not due to actually conflicting with the sentiment you're trying to express with it.

 

You are describing yourself, but not quite accurately. Sometimes you DO quote parts of what people write, only to purposefully twist it and claim they wrote what they did not.

You proved nothing. If you had, at least a few here may have agreed with you. It isn't just Swensson and I who see you for the crackpot that you are. It is almost everyone here.

Your chest thumping and pretend victory laps? Yes, that is false, all meant to make you feel superior when you are inferior. It is a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Definitions don't prove anything. Definitions are mere language.

Again, you should take your own advice. You have not thought this through. You are pointing frantically at outside "sources" you don't understand, and you have repeatedly failed at very simple logic, as has been pointed out by many here other than Swensson and myself.

 

I agree. This is one the key spots where Koko's claims/logic fall down. He claimed repeatedly that to not believe there is a God and to believe there is no God are the same, and the difference is only semantic. He never backed that up but claimed repeatedly to prove it. He then repeatedly stated that as what he calls an "agnostic" he neither believes god exists nor believes god does not exist, making himself a direct contradiction of his claim. Every time we have tried to get him to explain this, he has dodged and chosen beratement over explanation. Had he tried to explain himself, perhaps there is something he has communicated poorly and can clear up for us, but as it sits, he appears in complete self-contradiction.