Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

So this is what you are going to need. Forget the rhatoric and explanation. If I have questions I will ask. All I need is input identifiers and an output from you and I will know exactly what you did, or did not do.

IF you want to do this properly then it must follow this format:
The rules:
inputs- dont care 10,000 if you like.
outputs- one and only one per each identity, IE Flew = one identity you get one output.
Flew cannot identify as a theist or agnostic.



That said Flew absolutely cannot be: 0,0 Agnostic, or 1,0, Theist respectively, both are LEM violations. (Like you had in your previous attempt).

I presume Flew can be an atheist since that is what you claim, so 0,1 would be a legitimate identity.

use whatever euphemism or metaphor you want for disbelief.

 

Your opinions are personal definitions are hardly what I would call "facts". It is also curious that you didn't deny my theory that you are here to troll and have no point other than the idea that calling atheism a "religion" would annoy atheists.

Christianity is more than just the believe in Jesus. Atheists, Hindus, etc can all believe in Jesus. Christians make claims that Jesus was deity in human guise and have specific beliefs about him and dedicate themselves to following him. Christianity is a system of beliefs.

No. Atheism is the lack of belief in God(s). An atheist can believe in Jesus as a man, moral philosopher, etc. An atheist can even follow many of the teachings of Jesus much as the Christians do. Or another atheist could have a completely different worldview.

Here is the key to what I think your approach is. You are here to goad. I'm guessing you think atheists are arrogant because they claim to be working with logic and reason instead of faith and the following of religious dogma. And I think that got you butthurt so you like to claim atheism is a religion too, that atheists have "faith", etc. How am I doing?

And of course the same rules that apply to Christianity don't apply to atheism, nor do they apply to Islam or Hinduism. Christian rules apply to Christianity and that's why we call them Christian rules.

So? I don't live in your country and don't care what your courts say.

See? I predicted you would say that. It is weird that you say that as if its a negative thing when applying it to atheists. The only reason I can surmise you would do that is because you are trolling and think it would get under the skin of atheists, even though for Christians its considered a positive.

Atheism isn't a faith, nor is atheism based on facts. You are trying to play with straw men now. Atheism is simply the lack of theism, the lack of a belief in Gods. Atheists aren't convinced that Gods exist.

I am not convinced Gods exist because I've not seen any convincing evidence that they do. Same framework as I am not convinced you murdered your wife because I've not seen any convincing evidence that you have done so. My lack of belief in you murdering your wife is not a religion. It is not a world view. And no amount of playing with your tables can change that.

This is the language of combative trolling. I'm not in any sort of fight here and can't be "defeated" or "victorious".

That appears to be false, given how many of these threads you have created and how many pages we are into this one.

 

Predicting that I will restate the facts is always a good call. congratulations, you are correct!

No facts huh?
Yes thats a bit of a problem isnt it since no facts means neoatheists are 'believers' with NO supporting evidence for their belief, and that by definition is 'faith'.

Faith is belief without reason. Faith is by definition, irrational (knowledge lacking reason). Faith claims knowledge of the unknowable; it is contradictory. ... A belief can be proven true or false. https://ethicsdefined.org/opinion/faith-vs-belief/

After posting so many personal attacks against me its crystal clear that the above post is patently false on its face.

Either way please refrain from further personal attacks against me or anyone else so we can have a civil discussion here.

If you have an on topic point Im sure everyone would love to know what that is.

 

faith

noun: faith
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"

• a strongly held belief or theory.
  "the faith that life will expand until it fills the universe"

Similar: trust, belief, confidence, conviction, credence, reliance, dependence, optimism, hopefulness, hope, expectation.


I truly do not understand why anyone could get so upset and angry because I simply point out the most obvious facts? Especially since it seems we agree?

I dont understand why anyone would claim atheism is not a faith, when they have no proof of claim?

Thats why I am an agnostic btw, I deal in pure logic/reason and fact. I refuse to take a position on either side because neither side fits the definition and requirements of MY RELIGION!

 

There are some nice educational philosophy books available for those who are at political war with american beliefs because america does not follow lock step with atheist countries like the UK. Thats the beauty of having different countries, people can all live in peace with their own kind.

Seriously, there is no need to be angry or hateful because some other country does not share your religion with you!

Neither does that make them trolls any different than the 'thousands' of threads created by atheists neo or otherwise to discuss (or bash) Christain beliefs and their religion views et al.




We live, Critchley claims, in an age defined by a "dangerous interdependence of politics and religion," where warfare is underwritten by overt religious rhetoric. "Somehow we seem to have passed," he observes,

from a secular age, which we were ceaselessly told was post-metaphysical, to a new situation in which political action seems to flow directly from metaphysical conflict ... in which religiously justified violence is the means to a political end.

But if today's violent conflicts — in the Middle East, for instance — are connected to a "clash of fundamentalisms," this, for Critchley, is only a symptom of something more deep-rooted. Indeed, our religious and political disappointments could turn out to be inextricable, for Critchley contends that politics per se is religious; and The Faith of the Faithless makes a compelling case for this claim.

Critchley begins the book by unpicking a typically knotty epigram from Oscar Wilde: "Everything to be true must become a religion." The author's first philosophical feat is to show us why we should take this bon mot seriously. If we're to appreciate religion's political power, we must understand how belief imbues ideas with truth, how faith lends weight to an argument. For Critchley, Wilde's riddle has something to tell us about why beliefs, even the secular sort, are so often wrapped up in a "framework of ritual." Even our most rational beliefs are brought about partly through faith; they're religious in structure. So, secular creeds must mimic religious ones if they're to be taken as true.

Putting Wilde's words to work on world politics, Critchley turns to the tradition known as "political theology," a subject best summed up by Carl Schmitt in his book of the same name.

In that work, Schmitt declares that "all significant concepts in the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts."

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article...-simon-critchleys-the-faith-of-the-faithless/

Lets have a nice friendly civil discussion!

 

They are not believers. You don't need any facts to not believe something.

You've shown no interest in civil discussion. Your entire purpose here is to attack people.

 

But I have, project much?

Looks like your constant personal attacks against me are patently false since you continue to attack me personally and have no other point to discuss.

You already admitted neoatheist beliefs are faith based, and we agree, so what makes neoatheist faith based beliefs any different than a christians faith based beliefs? Christians dont need any facts to not believe in atheism, yet atheists constantly attack christians and their beliefs, citing they the christian belief system is irrational, whats up with that?

In the minds of atheists how can the same structural framework of belief be considered ok for atheists and irrational for christians?

Doesnt that seem odd to you? How is that rational?

Do you have a point hidden in there somewhere that you would like to share with us? Whats your point, why do atheists display so much anger and hatred toward those who do not believe in atheism?

 

No. I didn't say anything at all about "neoatheists". And I didn't say atheism is faith based either. You tried to make a strawman and attach it to me. You have done that over and over within this thread. This is very rude and is why I have written you off as a troll.

It isn't the same structural framework. It is your repeated claim that it is, but that is a false claim.

Atheism isn't something anyone "believes in".

 

Of course you didnt, you proved it is faith based here:

It goes without saying if ATHEISM IS NOT BASED ON FACT ITS BASED ON FICTION!

Any US court hearing that would rule it is faith based.
I neither knuckle under or pamper to cognitive dissonant claims.
You can prove me wrong by POSTING FACTS proving that G/god does not exist, in which case I will concede.

Got any FACTS? Give me a factual reason to concede and I will!

Well your theories align with neoatheists, not old time atheists as argued by old time atheists themselves in other threads.

I posted a FACT, the fact atheism is FAITH BASED, no one to date as EVER FACTUALLY PROVEN G/god doe not exist, yet they believe that is the case, as the previous author stated that is irrational.

Sure it is, they believe without facts and atheists believe without facts, seems pretty much the same to me!

Thats what swensson is arguing, why dont you help him by proving the logic of that statement using gates. I have no interest in rhetoric only facts.

So whats your point anyway?

 

No. And stop yelling. Atheism isn't based on fact or fiction. It is a lack of a belief. You don't need any facts to lack a belief. I don't have any facts about if you were married or if your wife is still alive, and have no convincing evidence that you killed her, so I lack belief that you did. Same with atheism. I don't have any convincing evidence that God(s) exist, so I lack belief in them, so I'm atheist.

God(s) tend to be defined to be unfalsifiable.... so there can be no facts proving they don't exist. Same goes for invisible faeries in the garden.

That is not a fact. That is false. And you repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.

 

WRONG everything is based in fact or fiction! lol

lack of belief?

Oh?

Ok so I dont have any facts you murdered your wife?
and I dont have any convincing evidence G/gods exist.

and there are no facts proving G/god does not exist, got it.

WRONG I proved above that makes you an agnostic.



0 belief for and 0 belief against is agnostic not atheist
Truth tables take actual conditions and tell the TRUTH regardless how someone may with to 'paint' the picture.

I am merely repeating the facts of the case.

Feel free to help swensson prove otherwise.
and dont forget to put it in a TT or I will reject it as bullshit.

 

Correct. Why is that concept so hard for you?

Correct. No fact can falsify an unfalsifiable claim.

You didn't prove anything. You just made repeated assertions and demanded we use your personal definitions for terms. Your tables visualize your terminology. That's all your tables do.

You are demanding everyone use your semantics and most atheists simply don't. The words define themselves. Belief in God(s) is Theism, so lacking a belief in God(s) makes you an atheist. An atheist may or may not also have a positive belief that no Gods exist. Gnostic means having knowledge. An agnostic is one who lacks knowledge about God(s). "I don't believe" is atheist. "I don't know" is agnostic. Many agnostics are atheists. Some are theists.

I could make fancy tables like you to illustrate the above, but all it would do is visualize the terminology. And that isn't needed because the terms are self descriptive.

 

Believes. Claims to Know.
0. 0. Agnostic Atheist
0. 1. Atheist claiming God's don't/can't exist
1. 0. Agnostic Theist
1. 1. Theist who claims to know God

I was bored so I made a fancy completely redundant table. It proves nothing.

The vast majority of self described atheists (including the much maligned Dawkins) are agnostic atheists. A few atheists actually do claim to know God(s) don't/can't exist (Matt Dilahunty comes to mind). And depending on what "God" is defined to mean, people will move from one of these categories to the other. The more concrete self contradictory claims you put into the definition of God the less agnostic atheists will be.

Many, possibly most theists are agnostic theists, but there are many who insist that they know God, and many Christians claim to have a "personal relationship" with him, so they are not agnostic.

 

nice opinion, however anyone that understands 'LEGAL' logic is fully aware that what you posted is nonsense.

B,DB
0. 0. Agnostic Atheist LNC VIOLATION, 2 different output identities for a single input condition is ILLEGAL. Atheist is strictly 0,1, it cannot be combine with 0,0, Agnostic is strictly 0,0 you a have contradictory output.

0. 1. Atheist Correct, Atheist is a 0,1 added opinions not withstanding

1. 0. Agnostic Theist LNC VIOLATION, 2 different output identities for a single input condition is ILLEGAL. Theist is strictly 1,0, it cannot be combined with Agnostic which is strictly 0,0 you a have another contradictory output.

1. 1. Theist LNC VIOLATION, ILLEGAL input condition, no input can be itself and its negation at the same time, Theist is strictly 1,0, ie you cannot belief and disbelief at the same time, that is patently ridiculous, you a have another contradictory output.

Only an insane or schizophrenic person would be afflicted with that disorder.

Please correct your truth table by removing the dual outputs, you only get a single output for each input condition, you can add as many inputs as you like however to correct the errors.

adding an input state would look like this

N
e
w B,DB
000
001
010
011
100
101
110
111

However you cannot change the existing meanings of agnostic, atheist and theist. That is straight up ILLEGAL.

First you need to define the condition, then add a 3rd input column to add it to the logic map.

I believe all the logical conditions are already covered, but never know maybe you can come up with something no on the planet has thought of yet that will force me to concede!

Good luck.

 

Oh self-important one, you read it wrong. The categories I listed are not Believe and Don't Believe. They are Believe and Claims to Know.

You're not impressing anybody. And you didn't respond to anything I actually wrote. All I can do at this point is point at my last post.

 

Belief and claims to know are not negations of each other, so your whole premise is bogus on its face.

Valid inputs have to be a condition and the negation of the same condition. Sorry.

Feel free to fix and correct it to either believe/disbelieve or claims to know/claims not to know.
The condition and its negation.

There is nothing self important about my post. I just know this stuff like the back of my hand, do you fault me for that? Apparently!

Good luck!

 

Correct. So what?

It isn't a premise. It is a definition. So is yours. You think you are engaged in logic. You are not.

 

A definition is a premise, and a properly argued premise creates a definition.
The garbage you posted falls flat on its face. I told you everything that was wrong with it and what to correct. You did get one of them correct, thats a test score of 25%.

Im sorry to say that its perfectly clearly you have zero education in logical TT analysis and if you even bothered to review the lessons that I posted to give you people a fighting chance to argue your positions with me you just proved you learned nothing from that either.

You can lead a horse to water but you cant make them drink.

Anyway thats all fine with me but dont expect me to be silent if you want to continue to post that nonsense, especially in my thread.

 

Your tables prove nothing. All they do is illustrate the definitions you demand we use. They are mental masturbation on your part and nothing more. And you know it.

 

FALSE, they prove nothing to you any more than nuclear physics proves anything to a janitor. TT's are designed exactly for that reason, as proofs, they hold up in a court of law in the US, now the UK with their usually twisted upside down logic probably not. Thanks for playing though you did manage to prove a few of my points that I can use to illustrate what not to do in a debate, so it was beneficial for the readers after all.

You had the opportunity to use any definition you want, and you did not. Just make sure you use the definition and the negation of the SAME DEFINITION, or your logic is pure bunk.

Maybe ask swensson to explain it to you if you dont believe me.

As I keep saying, if you have any cards you think are trump cards to play, by all means play them, if you can prove me incorrect, I will joyfully concede.

 

Your tables don't make any point about faith or about atheism being a religion. They don't even address these claims. Again, all you have done is illustrate definitions you insist on everyone using. You're accomplishing nothing, and you know it. You are attempting to sound smarter than you are, and it is failing. And no, what you've done above isn't anything any court anywhere would accept as proof of anything but that you hold the definitions that you hold.

 

I'd agree that the gates don't lie, and they're not having any problems with the logic that I have presented.

There is a single gate in the diagram, and it represents A = not(X). The fact that Y isn't supplied into the not gate is represented by the fact that there is no line between the Y and and the not gate. There is no other logic I'm trying to convey. The behaviour of the not gate is reflected in the truth table, in that whenever X is 1, A is 0 and vice versa (which is consistent with what the one-input not gate shows, and what the Law of the Excluded middle demands).

Not really, I expected you to read my responses until you understood my point. If you did, you'd know ages ago that phrasing it as truth tables or circuits doesn't avoid my point.

Sure thing, it is the one that I have been supplying all along:



All the outputs follow the logic described (A=not(X), i.e., whenever X is 1, then A is one and vice versa). This is what the not gate demands (as per the Law of the Excluded Middle), and is what is reflected in the truth table. If you're having a problem with it, point out which data points you think disagree with one another, and what logical point you have to base that disagreement on.

You tried to bring up the Law of the Excluded Middle yourself, but the two top lines are not negations of one another, so the LEM doesn't say anything about the relationship between them.

You could do with reading my posts a little more carefully, and you would have saved some of your time. I already agree that your truth table describes agnostics just fine. It is your assertion that "not believing something is the same as believing the opposite of something" that is at odds with agnostics existing. Your example here does not examine the statements I was commenting on.

But this bit was useful in the sense that it finally gives us an indication of what you would consider proof that something can exist. Here is the same setup, except is shows Flew's definition of atheists:

link.

I have added a (cosmetic, dashed) box, which shows the part that is exactly the same as the diagram in the truth table I have supplied above. As you can see, my setup produces no problems (just as yours didn't). If you compare it to the truth table, you will find that the LED is on in exactly the setups where I have a 1 in my truth table (i.e. when X is 0). If your example was proof that agnostics could exist and weren't illogical, I guess this is proof that Flew's atheists are not illogical.

As before, I don't agree with the idea of introducing "disbelief" here, because you use the word to mean two different things, only one of which is represented by the Y column.

That being said, nothing is keeping me from putting Flew's logic on the same format:

or, given that agnostic and positive atheists are just different kinds of atheists:


It's not really a matter of "room" (a person can have more than one descriptor to them), it is a matter of whether they fulfil the definition, and the two first rows fulfil Flew's definition of atheism.

Seems to me there are two inputs (X, Y) and one output (A). What is it you're counting?

I could have told you (and did tell you) that truth tables and circuit diagrams would be a waste of time, but you said you wouldn't respond unless I added the stuff which in hindsight was a waste of time.

Yes, I have a problem with the fallacy of equivocation. If you don't, I guess that explains why you're at odds with reality a lot.

And yet, all my examples work just fine, with truth tables, with circuits, etc.. You say there are requirements, yet I haven't seen you back up any requirements that are actually at odds with my logic. I've shown you my truth tables, what data points in it do you think disagree with what "requirements" (and where do you get those requirements from)? I've shown you my circuitry, what gates do you think are violated?

I think I understand what it is you're doing, and my point is that it is the definitions that govern which inputs/outputs you should look at. If you look at the outputs I think you're looking at, then you're not really examining Flew's logic at all.

Seems to me it's doing just fine. You say "seriously" and "plonk" a lot, but I'm not seeing a lot of explanation of your arguments.

 

The LNC violation you just committed should be keeping you from putting Flew's logic in THAT format, in THAT format stand alone Agnostic no longer exists.

You cant simply wipe out a 'condition'/word FFS.

Thats what I like about logic tables, I dont have to read any of the rhetoric, I found this error in less than 5 seconds after scrolling through.

There is no such thing as agnostic-atheist, LNC violation.
you cant have someone who does not take a position 0,1 combined with someone who does take a position 0,1.

You can have:
Agnostic
Flew
Atheist
Theist
Insane

1 Output for each condition, NOT 2, 2 IS ILLEGAL, I just went through that with the other guy.

What’s The Difference Between Atheism And Agnosticism?

Atheist vs. agnostic

There is a key distinction. An atheist doesn’t believe in a god or divine being. [0,1] The word originates with the Greek atheos, which is built from the roots a- (“without”) and theos (“a god”). Atheism is the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

However, an agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in a god or religious doctrine. [0,0] Agnostics assert that it’s impossible for human beings to know anything about how the universe was created and whether or not divine beings exist. https://www.dictionary.com/e/atheism-agnosticism/

Yep until you stop with the logic violations you will continue to get the PLONK

Flew changed agnostic to a compount word [0,1], that is a LNC violation for [0,0].

Flew can have his own definition, that is fine but its illegal to compound and overwrite a standing definition. All you have done is hijacked agnostic! LOL

Feel free to correct your errors and try again.

Back to the drawing board. Good luck with that!

 

typo correction:

*you cant have someone who does not take a position [0,1] 0,0 combined with someone who does take a position 0,1. (on the same output)

Very simply because one output cannot be 0,0 and 0,1 at the same time.

Single output = single identity, per row.

Add as many as you want at the bottom:

Agnostic
Atheist
Theist
Insane
Flew
Green
Orange

Whatever, but its illegal to compound on the same line because it creates a LNC.

Agnostic-atheist would not be 0,0
Agnostic-atheist would be 0,0-0,1 at the same time. Totally illegal construction, hence the LNC violation.

Hope that helps.

Like I said, if you or anyone else is capable of coming up with legitimate logic, I will happily concede, even buy the beer!

 

You can be both agnostic and atheist at the same time because agnostic is about not claiming to know and atheist is about lacking belief. The two are not mutually exclusive, regardless of how much you may wish that they were.

A dog can be brown. A ladder can be tall. An atheist can be agnostic, and most are.