Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

if thats the case then it appears you do not know the subject matter of what we are talking about, seriously?

Have you considered reading the thread and connecting the dots?

Where are your definitions?

WAITING

 

Its obvious you lost the initiative and replaced debate with obtuse.

 

We can't know this unless and until you present any logic or reason. Unsubstantiated claims and insisted on definitions aren't that. It should not be difficult for you to make an actual point, but for some reason you decline to. It is a wonder to behold.

So tell us, what do you think you have provided?

What claims?

You continue to troll. Do you have any other intention whatsoever?

 

when all else fails resort to name calling and false claims

 

Illustrated in a multivariate table for you, and ignored.

 

Are you talking about yourself? You appear to be.

Why can't you tell us what you think you have offered other than empty claims and insisted upon definitions?

Why can't you tell me what claims you think I have made (nevermind proved)?

Why do you post goading photos of skeletons at computer consoles?

 

That isn't an answer to the question of "my what failed". And ironically, you seem to be replacing discussion with "obtuse".

 

false

as usual you are projecting again.

maybe I should put you on ignore since you are hell bent to disrupt this thread with bullshit and a constant barrage of false accusations directed at me.

 

But the same rules do apply. Theists assert the existence of a god or several gods but fail to prove the claim. Atheists reject the claim but do not make assertions of their own pertaining to the existence of a god or gods. Simple as that.

 

I tried to explain that to him as well. So did people long before me. He refuses to acknowledge that atheists don't share his definitions, and has been trying to cram his definitions down our throats over and over again. It has spun the thread in circles.

And as stated by Swenson back on page 6 (also from 2019 - WOW Kokomojo has been spinning in circles for a long time):

Kokomojo's tried to make arguments against "neoatheists" by taking what they've said, and trying to force a shift in definitions so what they said becomes erroneous or nonsensical. It is not an argument. It is a rhetorical trick attempting to attack something without addressing that something.

 

Yep, I've noticed the same pattern. Arguing with Koko is as productive as arguing about the moon landings with Scott.

 

Has he tried telling you what gods you believe in yet, that is a fun one.

 

Im supposed to respond to a constant barrage of bullshit and accept it as a 'debate'

If I see an on point post that I have not previously addressed I will respond, otherwise I have no interest in these people who use every possible low-ball strawman fraudulent characterization they can dream up to pick fights and disrupt the thread.

 

"Atheist do not believe in your tooth fairy"

Sums it up nicely. Do you have something better to bring to a debate than straw man attacks against your opponents?

 

My last post (and others before it) was completely on point. It invalidates everything you've been saying.

Again, Swenson summed this up way back on page 6, and back in 2019, and you have ducked and dodged ever since, doing exactly what he was describing. As I just wrote, and you just dodged yet again, you've been taking things "neoatheists" say and have insisted on shifting definitions, to use definitions they weren't using, to twist what they wrote into something wrong or nonsensical. Whether or not you realize it, it is just a rhetorical trick, and proves absolutely nothing, no matter how many pretty tables you use to illustrate your insisted upon definitions (that weren't being used by the people who wrote what you've tried to attack).

You never responded to this since Swenson pointed it out. You've never shown or even denied this is what you are doing. You've not shown any other argument in this thread either.

And you've posted a LOT of goading and personal attacks on people, yet you whine about others mocking you. If you, the creator of the thread, don't regard others respectfully, how can you expect them to regard you respectfully?

 

do you have something to add to this topic

atheism is not a religion, but religion can be atheistic, just like theist is not a religion, but religion can the theistic

 

refreshing to finally see a post thats not all mischaracterizations and lies.

Ok so when you use the term religion what is religion to you?
.

 

think of it this way

do you think theism is a religion, or is Christianity one of many a theistic religion?

 

I guess you dont plan on answering the question.

 

that is the answer, but you need to think about it to understand it

the answer is in your answer to the question, will you answer it?

 

have a nice evening

 

I didn't think so, think about it, and ... you have a good evening too, see ya

 

This describes Kokomojo perfectly in this past page or two of the thread. He refused to discuss, tried to obfuscate, and now runs away. Which is ironic given how combative he has been and how he dressed things up as some sort of competition instead of engaging us in interactive discussion.

 

Yeah. The fact that religion can be atheistic does not mean that atheists are religious the way Koko is claiming.

 

You're not being very clear here. You write "you cannot have 2 different outputs", whereas my understanding of your point is more like "you cannot have 2 different values for one output". Having two outputs is fine (for instance, in your table below, Q and Qbar are two outputs, and that works fine). Having two values for the same output, I agree is not allowed.

I'm not sure which "output line" you're referring to. Could you mark it please?

That being said, the Law of Non-Contradiction applies to contradictory statements only, and you have not shown that the statements you compare are contradictions. Indeed, the fact that they both turn out true (for a possible set of inputs) is in itself proof that they in fact do not contradict each other.

So first, you say that it is invalid, and then you provide an example from a reputable source (link is always appreciated) using it in the same way that I propose to use it. This seems to me to be a very good indication that it works very well and isn't invalid at all.

The point of Flew's atheism is that it is defined as "not (believing in a god)", i.e. having a zero in the X column (in this table). Indeed, that leaves "believes there is no god" as an unused input, that has no effect on the output.

Yep. This proves that it is possible to draw two conclusions (have two outputs) at the same time, and even that it is possible for both of the outputs to be true.