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:
    9,463
    Likes Received:
    4,377
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And there right on cue is your equivocation.

    No, it isn't a contradiction it you use your odd definition for "theist". It's only a contradiction if you use the more commonly used definitions in which atheist is defined as not-theist.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2022
  2. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,960
    Likes Received:
    1,908
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ah! bingo! Thank you!


    That is correct in so far as they negate each other, when comparing atheist to theist.

    It is incorrect in so far as including agnostic, in which case you just created a contradiction, and of course accuse me of equivocation for YOUR SCREWUP!

    there is no equivocation what are you talking about now?
    do you know what equivocation means?
    true
    then why do you define and use atheist as !theist
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2022
  3. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,959
    Likes Received:
    5,232
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ignore…Premature post from phone
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2022
  4. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    65,816
    Likes Received:
    36,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm talking about people who think that the Christian scriptures (including the Old and New Testament) are divinely inspired. The OT obviously taught this and even the NT teaches that those who "hate god" are "deserving of death." For over a millennia and a half, this is how Christianity operated. Across many denominations. The peaceful version of Christianity arose during the Enlightenment, but what I said applies even to them. They still think it USED to be okay to execute non-believers. Just that it isn't okay ANYMORE. Jesus PRAISED the OT laws, including the laws that punished apostasy and blasphemy with the death penalty. Christians are stuck with two options 1) Claim that the scriptures aren't always accurate (fine by me) or 2) Claim that it at least USED to be okay (not only okay, but morally required) to murder blasphemers, apostates, etc.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2022
    Jolly Penguin likes this.
  5. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,180
    Likes Received:
    1,080
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    By all means, this is the most recent point that remains unanswered if you're dumping your last tirade:

    1) Koko does not believe there is no God
    AND
    2) Koko does not believe there is a God (source)​

    Conjunction elimination demands that whenever A AND B is true, then A must be true. Therefore, "Koko does not believe there is a God" is true (following the above two lines).

    If you drop the part where you don't know how to construct a conjunction, then this is the bit that stands unchallenged.

    Sure, there is an ambiguity on whether rejecting A means believing that A is false, or merely that it would be false to say that they believe A.

    It would be false to say "Kokomojojo believes that God exists", so in that sense Kokomojojo rejects the belief that God exists.
    However, saying "Kokomojojo believes that 'God exists' is a false statement" is not true, so in that sense, Kokomojojo does not reject God existing.

    Either are perfectly good ways to talk about rejecting something, as long as you don't equivocate between them. The fact that you bring up the concept without pointing out which one of them you mean suggests that you might be getting ready to do some equivocating.

    "Agnostics reject the premise there no God", sure, but in Flew's definition, the premise that "there is no God" is not what atheism is, so rejecting that idea doesn't preclude you from Flew's atheism.

    Flew's logic includes one definition of atheism (simply not being a theist). If you try to include a different definition (the "premise" that there is no God), then you have included a second definition for the same word, which is equivocation. In Flew's logic, there was only one definition, so no equivocation.

    The Stanford article made it clear that Flew's definition is legitimate and that they do not proscribe what meanings they attach to the "atheist" label.

    They have made no argument pertaining to 420 or anything like that.

    Belief is a psychological state. Without psyches, there is no such thing as believing.
     
  6. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,960
    Likes Received:
    1,908
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I answered this already even crayola'd it, why dont you read my responses before claiming I did not respond?


    [​IMG]

    We assume the ball is at 0, it is neither left nor right, the same place agnostics are.
    Agnostic rejects that the ball is on the left, and Agnostic rejects that the ball is on the right.
    Because Agnostic rejects that the ball is on the right does not mean its on the left.
    Because Agnostic rejects the ball is on the right does not make it a subset of the left
    Because Agnostic rejects theism does not convert them to atheist
    They cant be atheist, They reject atheism!
    They cant be theist, They reject theism!
    Clearly we can see that simply rejecting the right did not magically move
    the ball to the left and magically converting it to a subset of Left.
    Clearly we can see that simply rejecting theism did not magically move
    the ball to the atheism and did not magically convert it to a subset of Atheism.
    If you created a definition that concludes the ball magically became a subset of the left because it rejected the right then you concluded an irrational definition.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2022
  7. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,960
    Likes Received:
    1,908
    Trophy Points:
    113
    it depends on what is being compared.
    if the only options are moving forward or moving backward that is true. If you reject A then !A
    when we put in a nuetral everything changes. If you reject A then either !A or nuetral

    Then there is the context matter.
    Sure if you are comparing ONLY 2 nonthinking conditions that is in context,

    You are not doing that. You want to compare a nonthinking condition to a thinking condition which as I said several times is a contextonomy fallacy

    If theist is an active belief then atheist also has to be an active belief to maintain context, not comparing active to the passive nonthinking negative bs you get from lack, without, or absense. Just another way of saying the same thing stanford said when they rejected flew from being 'philosophically' valid.

    So if you want to compare lack, without, or absense no problem, none of them require so much as one neuron in the brain to fire or a brain at all for that matter to meet the requirements for that classification.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2022
  8. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,960
    Likes Received:
    1,908
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Stanford:

    Defining “atheism” as the state of lacking belief in God faces similar problems.

    First, while this definition seems short and simple, which is virtuous, it needs to be expanded to avoid the issue of babies, cats, and rocks counting as atheists by virtue of lacking belief in God. While this problem is relatively easy to solve, another is more challenging.

    This additional problem arises because one can lack belief in God while at the same time having other pro-attitudes towards theism.

    For example, some people who lack the belief that God exists may nevertheless feel some inclination to believe that God exists. They [Lackers] may even believe that the truth of theism is more probable than its falsity.

    While such people should not be labeled theists, it is counterintuitive in the extreme to call them atheists.


    The psychological definition also makes atheists out of some people who are devoted members (at least in terms of practice) of theistic religious communities.

    This is because, as is well-known, some devoted members of such communities have only a vague middling level of confidence that God exists and no belief that God exists or even that God probably exists. It would seem misguided for philosophers to classify such people as atheists.

    A third reason to prefer the standard definition in philosophy is that it makes the definitions of “atheism” and “theism” symmetrical. [CONTEXT SYMMETRY]

    One problem with defining “atheism” as a psychological state is that philosophers do not define “theism” as a psychological state, nor should they.

    snip

    Psychological states cannot be true or false, nor can they be the conclusions of arguments.


    The Holy Book of meatheadism states that "I dont know" is true to answer the proposition "God exists" and it teaches school kids how to flunk out out of college if they can even make admission under those circumstances.


    snip, continuing;

    Since it is also natural to define “atheism” in terms of theism, it follows that, in the absence of good reasons to do otherwise, it is best for philosophers to understand the “a-” in “atheism” as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”—in other words, to take atheism to be the contradictory of theism.


    Therefore, for all three of these reasons, philosophers ought to construe atheism as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, as the proposition that there are no divine realities of any sort).


    While such people should not be labeled theists, it is counterintuitive in the extreme to call them atheists.

    Although Flew’s definition of “atheism” fails as an umbrella term, it is certainly a legitimate definition in the sense that it reports how a significant number of [UNEDUCATED] people use the term.

    The issue for philosophy and thus for this entry is which definition [atheism] is the most useful for scholarly [EDUCATED] or, more narrowly, philosophical [REALLY EDUCATED] purposes.

    The word “atheism” is polysemous—it has multiple related meanings. In the psychological sense of the word, atheism is a psychological state, specifically the state of being an atheist, where an atheist is defined as someone who is not a theist and a theist is defined as someone who believes that God exists (or that there are gods). This generates the following definition:

    atheism is the psychological state of lacking the
    belief that God exists.

    Therefore koko cannot be classified as an atheist because:
    Agnostic is the psychological state of lacking the belief that God does not exist.

    [emphasis added]

     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2022
  9. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,960
    Likes Received:
    1,908
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Departing even more radically from the norm in philosophy, a few philosophers (e.g., Michael Martin 1990: 463–464) join many non-philosophers in defining “atheist” as someone who lacks the belief that God exists. This commits them to adopting the psychological sense of “atheism” discussed above, according to which “atheism” should not be defined as a proposition at all, even if theism is a proposition.
    thats right there is no physical gag stuffed in their mouths
     
  10. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,960
    Likes Received:
    1,908
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I forgot to add, Conjunction elimination demands that whenever A AND B is true, then B must be true. Therefore, "Koko does not believe there is no God" is true (following the above two lines)
    :D
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2022
  11. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    9,463
    Likes Received:
    4,377
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly. And that is half of Koko's game. He just tried to do the same thing with the word "theist" too.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2022
  12. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    9,463
    Likes Received:
    4,377
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If atheist is defined as not-theist, that doesn't magically change just because we then consider what an agnostic is. Atheist would then still mean not-theist, and nothing added to that, and "agnostic", if not theist, would thereby count as atheist. No, that doesn't cause any contradiction. You merely confuse yourself with your equivocating.

    I think you see it, intend it, and pretend you don't. I don't think you are an idiot who doesn't know you do it. So quoting cases of it (one of which you just did after asking) is pointless.

    Because it's useful for differentiating the two. And because it makes sense since "a" in front of a word often means not.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2022
  13. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,960
    Likes Received:
    1,908
    Trophy Points:
    113
    and I quoted stanford who explains why it does not work above, obvioudly you dont comprehend the proper distinctions and applications of meaning.

    Same problem different day.
    Again stanford pointed out its legitimate only because people use it, that is usage which has exactly ZERO to do with philosophy and logic. square pegs round holes until you FIRST prove usage can possibly fit the rigors of logical symmetry. Stanford says not, so good luck with that!

    Nope, you refuse to read and comprehend stanfords explanation. Citing academic resources is not 'playing games', pretending your narratives without validation IS 'playing games'!
    Its not, again stanford explained why it doe not work, there is no "IF" unless you have a very long list of supporting evidence to back you up, sorry narrative and rhetoric is not supporting evidence
    Useless definition again as pointed out by stanford. Thats a university you know?

    While such people should not be labeled theists, it is counterintuitive in the extreme to call them atheists. ~Stanford

    Nope I quote stanford, you are the one that cant wrap your head around the distinctions and application in thei explanation.
    Sure because you simply look past anything that runs contrary to your narrative.
    What makes sense is stanfords explanation not yours.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2022
  14. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    9,463
    Likes Received:
    4,377
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You quote many people. People who are smarter than you, who you rarely understand, who often agree with your interlocutors and disagree with you, and who sometimes make decent arguments against positions you falsely assign to your interlocutors. You seem to think this brings you glorious victory. Good for you.

    It is when those sources don't support you, when they actually make the opposite point, when you select bits from them while hiding others (and don't link to them, to make it harder to spot this), or when you don't even bother to read half of them, all of which we have caught you doing in this very thread, pointed out to you and you ignored.

    Yeah. There you go. Many people define the word this way and go on to speak from there, and you pretending they meant something else by the word is you equivocating. You then declaring they said something they didn't and you crowing how very wrong they are is Kokopuffery. Horray for you?
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2022
  15. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,960
    Likes Received:
    1,908
    Trophy Points:
    113
    nothing stopping you from qoting it except the embarrassment of being wrong. LOL
    you obviously know you are wrong and the above claims are nothing more than more nonsense narrative.
    HAHAHA
    Unlike you I know the difference between flew and bullivant
    Although Flew’s definition of “atheism” fails as an umbrella term, it is certainly a legitimate definition in the sense that it reports how a significant number of people use the term.
    cant get broader than not-theist, but you fail to comprehend such simple concepts

    Whats the difference between the quote above and statement below:
    Although Flew’s definition of “atheism” fails as a comprehensive term, it is certainly a legitimate definition in the sense that it reports how a significant number of idiots use the term.

    Can you tell us if there is a distinction?

    You havent told us how you think lack of belief is different from absence or without?

    Do you even know what flews definition of atheism is? tell us.
    Nope you are pretending nonsense is a legitimate philosophical argument, sorry, do not pass go! your endless narrative is nothing more than blathering birdbrainery.

    put your proof where your keyboard is, I do
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2022
  16. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    9,463
    Likes Received:
    4,377
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Who cares if a word is an "umbrella term" or a comprehensive term? It remains a term, and has uses. It not being completely comprehensive does not make it invalid or bad, nor does it make anyone an idiot for using it.

    It's also more comprehensive than the definition that further requires belief that there are no Gods. That's an even less comprehensive term, one that leaves out agnostics. But again, so what? It's still a word people use and has uses.

    And these are words, not arguments. You have yet to make clear what argument you think I am making that you are declaring not a legitimate philosophical argument. I have only been noting some definitions of words, and noting your constant equivocation between them and your Kokopuffery, etc. I haven't made any argument beyond that.

    It's sometimes hard to discern what strawman you are pushing onto people at the moment.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2022
  17. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,960
    Likes Received:
    1,908
    Trophy Points:
    113
    lol
    you could have simply manned up and admitted that you dont know.
     
  18. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    9,463
    Likes Received:
    4,377
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I did. I don't know what straw man you are pushing one when you say I am making an argument that isn't a legitimate philosophical argument.

    Or did you mean the difference between your quote of Draper above stating his preference for terms, and your version of it calling people idiots (which he doesn't)?

    The difference seems to be that you are more of an ass than he is.

    But neither of you give good reason to prefer the particular terms. He dismisses "strong atheist" and prefers just "atheist" for the same meaning. And he states the need for a term like what Flew calls "atheist" but says that should be "non-theist" instead. He gives no good reason why, and nor do you. Your appeal to his authority isn't a good reason.

    The state of mind vs proposition bla bla bla is irrelevant, since he means the same meaning by "atheist" as Bullivant means by "strong atheist". So both theism and strong atheism point to propositions and mere atheism does not. So what? That's just bickering over wording.

    Also, who says "theism" isn't a state of mind? It can be defined that way just as "atheism" can. Again, so what?

    All this bla bla bla over terminology doesn't get anybody anywhere regarding any actual arguments. And no, Draper being from Stanford doesn't change that anymore than Bullivant being from Oxford does.

    You have a tendency to fall into argument from authority fallacy. Arguments need to stand on their own merits.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2022
  19. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,960
    Likes Received:
    1,908
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wow you are so lost!

    academic citations demonstrate my arguments in fact do stand on their own merits.
    You cant figure it out and need us for free philosophy lessons eh

    Feel free to try again.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2022
  20. Injeun

    Injeun Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    13,583
    Likes Received:
    6,441
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Or unbelievers murdered the prophets. Unbelievers murdered Jesus. And then more unbelievers murdered other unbelievers in the name of God. To say this reflects on God is absurd, when it reflects on deceit and the love of evil. Your personal interpretation is just another distortion of the truth.
     
  21. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    9,463
    Likes Received:
    4,377
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, that's not what standing on its own merits means. That's an argument from authority fallacy.

    That's not an argument either.
     
  22. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,960
    Likes Received:
    1,908
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL

    Yours, like yardmeats, are arguments from gaslighting fallacy! You admitted that you did not know whats even going on.

    Its either trolling or you are in way over your head, I think its the later.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2022
  23. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    9,463
    Likes Received:
    4,377
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I understand better than you do.
     
  24. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,960
    Likes Received:
    1,908
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you did you wouldnt constantly need instructions on what stanford is talking about, and you wouldnt constantly be making such ridiculous conclusions demanding I explain convention all the time. Im giving you the benefit of a doubt because if what you say is true then it falls under trolling.
     
  25. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    9,463
    Likes Received:
    4,377
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am not and I don't, and everyone but you can see that. It is you who is either lost or trolling, and you know it. Your Kokopuffery knows no bounds.
     
    yardmeat likes this.

Share This Page