Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

The contradiction has been pointed out to you over and over and over again and you try to obfuscate from it every single time. You don't respond to it. You pretend you don't say it only a post later to say it again. We all see it. I think you do too and desperately pretend not to. It's no a good look on you.

 

Indeed. In kokologic that means Koko is done and that "directly mixed" his preferred meaning for the words.

Of course, actual logic indeed instead means:

Don't expect him to address any of this.

 

Close to 400 pages ago I asked you to prove !theist = atheist is not an umbrella condition?
You dodged the question several times since.
That is easily accomplished if flew stipulated exceptions.

You failed to rationally address how stanford could possible use it as their argument.

You provided no citation that just because 10 million people decided to use something a certain way that usage is a valid scholarly argument for the purposes of exploring the distinctions between agnostic,atheist,and theist.

I have sorted it out you have not. You can read it anyway you like, how you read it has no bearing on demonstrating anything until you prove up the point.
Again

What truth do you think you have demonstrated? citation

If you read above popular usage is not germane to this, argument, stanford are experts.
As usual irrelevant to the argument, designed to piss away peoples time:

You have dodged this question with diversions since I asked it close to 400 posts ago.
I am still waiting.

source

 

Good then we agree that flews psychological definition fails as a proposition, hence flew fails for the agnostic/theist/atheist argument as argued by me for over 1000 posts and supported by stanford as shown in my above post.

Now if you want to argue that its popular there is no academic argument that can be made other than 'yup people say that', which of course is totally meaningless since people say lots of incredibly stoopid **** and that incredibly stoopid academically meaningless **** often becomes 'popular' with academically meaningless people.

Antony Flew - RIP

 

So what if it is? Isn't pretty much everything an umbrella term? If it includes more than one very particular thing, then that's an umbrella. We have thousands such words in the English language and it isn't a problem.

A definition is not an argument. It's just a definition.

What argument? What argument do you think you have made that you think Stanford supports? Nobody else sees any such thing, so either you are the worst communicator I've ever seen or you have no such argument and are merely pounding your chest over what definition you prefer.

I'm sure since he was a philosopher, Flew had actual arguments, but you haven't mentioned any to be attributed to him, you, or anybody else as far as I can see. Demanding that your preferred definition is the only "valid" one isn't an argument. It is a demand.

 

As predicted. Dodged everything you wrote.

 

invincible ignorance fallacy, great apologetic backpedaling though, too late that ship has sunk! LOL

Nice subterfuge!Do you think anyone is so stupid they will fall it?

 

Having now read some more of Draper, I can now see where Draper is coming from:

Draper finds it useful to deal with dichotomies, and likes to be able to firmly plant everything in philosophy into categories and yes/no propositions. So he defines theism as the proposition "there is a God" and defines a-theism as not-theism, which since theism is a yes/no proposition, atheism is one too, the proposition that "there is no God".

He then defines "theist" as somebody who believes the theism proposition and "atheist" as somebody who believes the atheism proposition.

So he applies the "a" negation at the level of a-theism, and not at the level of a-theist, which naturally causes a ton of confusion when atheist is also commonly defined by applying the "a" negation at a-theist. He could avoid any such issue by saying theist and "God denialist" or something like that, instead of atheist which he recognizes as a term at risk of equivocation (as Koko frequently falls into).

So that explains Draper. He never says the other use of the wording is wrong or invalid. He just finds his more useful because it lets him talk in terms of dichotomy at the level of the propositions themselves.

All he does is explain why he prefers his terminology. And he does indeed call the other valid. So... Yeah. There you have it. What a pointless distraction.

 

Nice review. Thanks for the clarification. It goes to my contention that Atheist is a self serving term placed on those who don't want to be bothered with what to them is nonsense. Like you guys have nothing else to do in life but to occupy a seat so as to be key holed by narrow minded people.

 

Nice 'spin'!

Yes it is, why do you persist in posting such nonsense all the time!

Good luck getting anyone who actual read and understood it (in context) to agree with you!

More falsification and I'd be generous giving your uncited rhetoric a rating of 1/2 truths.

After 2000 posts of stupidity you finally decide to read it, and still put your twist on it of course with no citations to prove up your points so people can see how badly you got it wrong.

Of course the last thing neoatheists want is a solid definition that does not tolerate their bullshit obfuscation.
My preferred definition is the best definition!

That was obfuscated spin not a clarification.

You are accepting wooden nickels.

Try reading the the actual review published by stanford if you want clarification you wont get it from neoatheists fighting tooth and nail in defense of their religious beliefs.

 

I just explained in one post what you failed to explain in over 200 posts. You're welcome.

 

as always you spun it, youre welcome.

 

As always you write that but don't even try to explain how my "spin" (accurate explanation) isn't correct, and instead just thump your chest. You don't engage in conversation at all. And you still haven't responded to what Swensson was saying either. And you still haven't addressed your self-contradiction.

 

says the poster that never read the article until over 2400 post mark, never includes references or citations, and has been and continues to just thump his chest blathering on moving goal posts and obfuscating meanings.

as usual that is all your personal spin, no references, no citations to back so much as one of your claims. as usual! SSDD!

AND you know what? If you read more you will discover your contradiction claim is an invincible ignorance fallacy, not my contradiction, as has been explained to you severaltimes.

 

No it isn't. Despite it being explained to you countless times by numerous different people, going all the way back to 2017 and possibly even before then, you still pretend its something else. You refuse to address what you've actually been called out on. And you also can't remember claims you've made... because you are talking out your ass obviously.

 

Your splainin is intended to be taken seriously?

Just because you have a couple of group think pals that have the same illogical never cracked a book rational and you pat each other on the back for some of the stupidest posts I ever read doesnt make an argument rational as stanford made very clear.

Everyone spamming the thread alleging splainin is wiped out by stanford!

Antony Flew (and your lackluster lackers), RIP

 

Why do you have that quote in your signature?

 

500% off topic, please dont spam the thread with off topic posts, Rule 5
If you want to talk about it feel free to email me or start your own thread.

 

I have responded to this several times, most recently in this post, to which you provided no response.

The proposition "God does not exist" is an interpretation of atheism that Flew never included or intended to include in his definition.

Note, it is not failing to include *people* who hold the belief that God does not exist, it is failing to include the proposition itself. This is not a problem for Flew as a whole, but it is a problem if you're claiming Flew's definition is an umbrella term, which Bullivant did, but Flew didn't.

Well, the fact that they did it should be good evidence that they can do it. They didn't mention any problem with using usage as a good justification for meanings of words.

I did provide an argument: the English language. There is no word that carries any meaning other than what people assign to it, that's why it there's nothing stopping us from booting every single word and using another language if we want to. For instance, most words in every language (with the exception of some onomatopoetic words) must have come into existence like that. I presented this, and you have given no response, shocker.

That being said, linguistic prescriptivism and linguistic descriptivism is are mostly used in to complement each other. I am not arguing that descriptivism is the only true interpretation of language (so it is a bit strange that you're asking me to prove it), just that it is one basis that is available to Flew, dictionaries and others.

The proper definition of words.

The Stanford article doesn't write anything about germane, it points out that it is often used and is consequentially legitimate. Your interpretation reads in information that simply isn't there.

It seems to me, the "context" you refer to is just you adding a bunch of assumptions that aren't actually true, and that you try to avoid admitting. Write out what you get from this "context", and see if it stands up to scrutiny.

I agree that Flew's definition is a psychological state and not a proposition. I do not agree that this is a failure in any sense, or that this is a problem for the definition. Stanford also agrees that Flew's definition is a psychological state (and not a proposition), but only states that this is a problem for an umbrella term, which is of course Bullivant's idea, not Flew's.

The step from psychological state to failure of the definition is a step you have not justified, despite continuous questions.

There is clearly disagreement, so for your supposed proofs to have any value, it's up to you to prove it (like we've asked for before, but met with a deafening silence on your part).

Dictionaries focus on usage, not out of any arbitrary whim, but because that's the only possible source of correctness of language. There is no meaning to words other than what people use. But feel free to try to patch the holes in your proofs if you want to.

 

I have seen a lot of flews work I have not seen any stipulation to !theist (which you failed to respond to my point asking you what makes you thik an all inclusive claim like !theist can be anything but an umbrella term).
So cite it for me please since you have the little habit of inserting your words in place of what is actually meant.

 

Not sure where I'm losing you, the response is right there in the post you quoted. You ask what it is that isn't covered by the umbrella term, and the answer is the proposition "God does not exist".

 

Flew advocated and pushed his !theist atheology, I want to know what makes you think !theist is anything less than an umbrella term. Not sure how you got that out of what I said.

 

Yep.

The fact that it doesn't cover the proposition that "God does not exist". "It leaves strong atheism out in the rain". I've said this several times, what about it isn't coming across?

 

Great so then you finally came around and now agree that lack of belief flews default claim and the presumption of atheism is a failure. Bravo! source