Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

I'm kind of the opposite.

All atheists are agnostic but then again all theists are also agnostic

This stems from the idea that no one KNOWS if a God exists...it is all belief.

 

Many claim to know. I would hinge being Agnostic or not on that. Otherwise it is a useless word that distinguishes nothing, as you say.

 

There are some who would define Gnostic/Agnostic as the position on whether knowledge of God is even possible.

But at the end of the day Gnosticism/Agnosticism has no bearing on whether or not one is a Theist/Atheist.

 

Correct under your definition.

But that isn't the definition Koko was working with. If you want to address what he said (and his self contradiction within it) you need to do it with his definition.

 

Yes they confuse reasoning leading up to the conclusion with the conclusion itself, like the bird and the yard meat, both of whom are obsessed with me as you can see.

Right, no dictionary defines either atheism or theism are functions of 'knowledge', I agree.
They are both beliefs.

In so far as defining yourself agnostic-atheist, since knowledge is not connected with the atheist or theist doctrine, you added a crazy tangent no different than saying 'Im a high blood pressure atheist agnostic mechanic cook liberal investor biker hiker swimmer card player, NONE of which have anything what so ever to do with atheist.

I assume you agree listing everything you are is not a very good way to argue a single 2 position issue?

Noone seems to realize how utterly ridiculous and contradictory that joinder is, especially since its not the actual 'LOGICAL POSITION' an agnostic would take, at most its the reasoning that gets you to the point of taking an agnostic position, just like atheists have their reasons and theists have their reasons.

Do you know what the actual metaphysical position an agnostic by necessity has to take to be logically sound and avoid the mass equivocation the bird is advertising?

 

@Nwolfe35 "high blood pressure atheist agnostic mechanic"
accidentally added atheist LOL

All these guys are arguing with is 'projection' of the nonsense they see in their own mirror.

 

There are personal experiences that cannot be reproduced that can be considered “knowledge” of god.

 

false
agnostics do not share an atheist nor theist 'belief' position.
To do so is not logical, you commit a contextonomy fallacy.
knowledge and belief are 2 entirely different subjects.

 

Furthermore;

atheist and theist 'belief' positions have nothing to do with knowledge they have everything to do with belief!

agnostic 'belief' position has nothing to do with knowledge it has everything to do with belief!

If you ask the question do you know God exists, that has to do with knowledge, however atheist and theist are not defined in terms of 'knowledge', they are defined in terms of a belief position.

Likewise to be compatible in logic, agnostic has to be defined in the same terms as atheist and theist, as a 'belief' position.

Agnostic is in fact defined by its author in terms as an exclusive 'belief position', which means no blending what so ever with atheist or theist.

When your logic is belief vs belief vs belief then and 'only' then do you have an in context set of propositions.

 

You can claim to know. You can think you know. But can you actually know? I don't know.

 

Quickly revisiting the elevator analogy:

An elevator is either going up, or it is not going up.
If it is not going up, that doesn't necessarily mean it is going down. It may be stationary.

Likewise, a person either holds the belief that God(s) exist, or they don't hold the belief that God(s) exist.
If they don't hold the belief that God(s) exist, that doesn't necessarily mean that they hold the belief that God(s) do not exist. They may hold neither belief.

No belief that God(s) exist isn't the same thing as belief that no God(s) exist.

It is very simple.

The only confusion has been word games.

 

The only confusion has been YOUR word games.

yes it certainly is for some of us.

Or before that;
My left right neither analogy
Or before that;
My forward reverse neither analogy
Or before that;
My yes no abstain analogy

In a 3 option world, not in a 2 option world.

Yes, accept that God exists or reject that God exists.
It by necessity has to be explicit.
declaring you do not hold a belief in God is rejection
declaring you do hold a belief in God is acceptance
Explicit declaration expresses rejection or acceptance to the proposition.

declaring no belief in God is a declaration of rejection of God and acceptance of no God.

Yep and thats the definition for agnostic.

Amazing how you conveniently omitted the agnostic part!

 

You can’t truly prove you love someone but you know when it’s true.
I’m not saying it’s scientific because science needs experiments that can be repeated. Science doesn’t answer everything though.

Humanity lives in that state of flux between experience and fact. It’s a bit like Plato’s world of forms. Somewhere there is a world of forms in which there is a perfect chair but in this world where we just see the shadow of a chair on a cave wall, how we define what is a chair can range from a tree stump or an upside down bucket to a jewel encrusted throne. The same is perhaps true of concepts like “god’. I don’t know if an actual “god” exists but I do know that the concept of god exists and that conception can make all the difference in the world to some people. And, just like your chair might be manufactured by IKEA and have four legs and a cushioned seat while mine is a stack of encyclopedias, your concept of what god is, or is not, will be different than mine somewhat. You and I know that a placebo is not real medicine, but we also know that 30% of the time it works. So from the point of view of the 30% isn’t it real?

I mean we know that what we mean when we say “there is mo god” can change based in what we mean when we define “god”. The god of Abraham is different to a Muslim, to a Christian, to a Jew and to an atheist but if we think of Spinoza’s god even most atheists can get on board.

 

Its ok not to know, however being agnostic is based upon 'scientific' principle, hence if you do not know the truth value to the proposition then 'scientifically' you cant take a side either way, because it would be lying based upon 'scientific principle'.

I [Huxley] have a sort of patent right in "Agnostic" (it is my trade mark); and I am entitled to say that I can state authentically what was originally meant by Agnosticism.

1. Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern.

Agnosticism simply means that a man shall not say he . . . believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to . . . believe.

https://mathcs.clarku.edu/huxley/UnColl/Rdetc/AgnAnn.html

That means if you claim you are an atheist and you have no scientific grounds to prove God does not exist Huxley is calling you a liar, (and he actually put that in print)

The only way you can be agnostic on 'anything' is to be 100% neutral, otherwise if you take either side you are in fact whatever side you toake, and NOT agnostic.

Neutral is NOT atheist, and neutral is NOT theist. Agnostic is neither, it stands exclusively by itself.

There now you heard it from the inventor (author and creator) of the word and like he said, he has patent rights to validate the authentic definition.

NeoAtheists tried to hijack and as this thread has proven beyond the most ridiculous doubt are desperately trying to hijack the word agnostic, (and frankly look pretty foolish in the process)

Thats why its defined as:

What's The Difference Between Atheism And Agnosticism?

Sep 29, 2020 — However, an agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in a god or religious doctrine. https://www.dictionary.com › ... › Mixed-up Meanings


If you believe you are an atheist then you cant logically claim to be agnostic. Neoatheists always conveniently forget about the nor disbelieves part.

 

You know I don’t read your blather right? Feel free to not read my blather.

 

Just look at what you are missing!


I [Huxley] have a sort of patent right in "Agnostic" (it is my trade mark); and I am entitled to say that I can state authentically what was originally meant by Agnosticism.

1. Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern.

Agnosticism simply means that a man shall not say he . . . believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to . . . believe.

https://mathcs.clarku.edu/huxley/UnColl/Rdetc/AgnAnn.html


Thats why agnostic defined as:

What's The Difference Between Atheism And Agnosticism?

Sep 29, 2020 — However, an agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in a god or religious doctrine. https://www.dictionary.com › ... › Mixed-up Meanings


If you believe you are an atheist then you cant logically claim to be agnostic. Neoatheists always conveniently forget about the nor disbelieves part.


......in the dictionaries.


I suppose you dont read dictionary blather either?

Youd never claim to be one of those agnostic-atheist contradictions in terms anyway would you?

Look at it from the bright side at least you get to enjoy all the pretty crayola colors, a standard requirement for obtusity on the subject! LOL

 

I am going to guess koko posted something and this wasn't directed at me.

 

That’s right. Not that what I post is so brilliant but I just get tired of being talked down to, even if I am an imbecile.

 

agnostic atheist is no more rational than theist-atheist, but then you are in good company since the bird thinks he can be a theist and an atheist at the same time, then has the gall to bitch and pretend that I am equivocating, cant get more over the top than that. lol

 

sorry if Im a threat to your sacred space

 

Yep it was, that is mine was and it toasted your argument in fact, and was a great demonstration how you contradict yourself and make distinctions without a difference.

 

Dude, he is a troll who constantly purposefully misunderstands people, pretends they say what they don't, and thumps his chest thinking he is somehow of superior intellect. He clearly has a dangerously low self esteem and needs to talk down to people to talk himself up.

Remember, this is a guy who calls himself agnostic while saying that's impossible, says I believe in ghosts (because he can't tell atheist from materialist and I said atheism is only about gods and nothing else spiritual; so an atheist who believes in ghosts would still be atheist), and says yarmeat thinks there are more than two possible truth values to yes/no questions just because he admitted he doesn't know the correct answer.

Don't let trolls get you down.

 

Wait. Hold on. That almost went over my head. I see what you are doing. You don't care if he tries to insult your intelligence any more than if he called you unclean or expired food.

It's right in your name. You are so confident and self-actualized that you named yourself ironically just for the laughs. We see you sir. We see what you are doing.

 

Isnt he one of those agnostic-atheists?
I see what he is doing, he is conjoining 2 exclusive positions.
His elevator is standing still and going down at the same time! LOL
You people insult yourselves!
Dont shoot the messenger.