Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

Because the man who CREATED THE DEFINITION SAID SO

 

Lol, buddy, those were two different conversations. There's 1) the fact that it is possible to not know the truth value of a proposition and 2) the fact that the conjunction elimination is a thing. You have yet to provide any source against these basic truths.

 

So you have abandoned your argument that "any dictionary" agrees with you. Most seem to disagree with you. So now you claim that dictionaries don't matter, that only Huxley matters. Is that correct?

 

LMAO
Its possible the sun the will go dark too, doesnt mean you can use it to respond to a proposition. This is all about your fake rules

 

You've cited no rule that contradicts what I've said.

 

back to your contextonomy fallacy! LMAO

agnostic

broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

 

Still no link.

 

I knew it wouldnt take you long to go back to the bullshit circular argument

WEBSTER if you finish reading the definition you tried to fake us out with, you didnt post any link I see no need to if you dont.


Folks all this has been beat to death over the last hundred pages, I posted academic citations, compared to no academic evidence was posted for "I dont know"

Anyone who claims I provided no on point academic citations, responses to questions or arguments, including any claims I admitted my opponents are right, (laughable), or that they provided ANY citations to support "I dont know" is lying through their teeth, DEMAND THEY QUOTE IT, they cant supply them.

The "I dont know" junk narratives are debunked and summarily dismissed as made up junk theory that cannot be used in a 2 value system.

Talk to the hand,

I wont engage you until you validate your claim

Until then PLONK

and he had his moment in the sun with false accusations AGAIN, back to the corner for him!

 

Yeah, you always hide your sources when you know they contradict your claims. According to WEBSTER:

Agnosticism: 1a) the view that any ultimate reality (such as a deity) is unknown and probably unknowable : a philosophical or religious position characterized by uncertainty about the existence of a god or any gods

Agnostic: 1) a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable

 

frivolous, kettle logic fallacy.


There you go folks, another red herring, it has nothing to do with validating the use of "I dont know" in a 2 value logic system.

PLONK

 

1) I used your preferred dictionary, so no, it can't be "frivolous" to provide a definition from your preferred dictionary. And you refuse to provide any links of your own.

2) No one (aside from you) said "I don't know" is a third value. It is just an admission that you don't know which of the two possible values holds. An admission YOU YOUR ****ING SELF HAVE MADE.

There you go, folks. Koko has no sources or arguments to provide, and he can not address any of those provided by others, so all he has is the word "PLONK" and some emojis.

 

It was used as an answer to a proposition and you agreed with the yard meats usage.

Now you claim its not an answer to a proposition, therefore to use it to answer a proposition and its justification is completely your made up narrative, you cant have it both ways so make up your mind.

 

Most atheists I know don't actively disbelieve in a god/gods, but rather reject the current evidence for one. How is that a religion?

 

How about we start with the idiots at grammarly, they have no clue about the english language, unlike you of course.



Then Google! Do you know how to comprehend a dictionary?




Then Oxford! Do you know how to comprehend a dictionary?




Then your dictionary! Do you know how to comprehend a dictionary?



Finally the people at stanford that you claimed were low class school only to later eat those words and back track.



There is a BIG difference between neither theism nor atheism is known and you using you dont know for a proposition.

In order to call yourself an agnostic you you have to claim nuetrality, not plead stupidity.

 

If he ever allowed himself to realize that, it would end his current game, and he is clearly having too much fun for that. PLONK.

 

Its a religious position. That is classified as a worldview. If they are in the middle as you can see from my above post most people are not atheist but in fact agnostic but dont know the nuances attached to the word as you can see from the foolishness of the birds and yardmeat posts. If you did not vote yes and you did not vote no, you abstained. (neutral) ie neither

 

Yardmeat lost the initiative a long time ago, so there you go ignore all the citations close your eyes and go into to full out denial! LMAO
(its all you got left!)

 

I'd say this is red and green but it is not yellow:

Therefore, red and green is not the same as yellow. As you say further down, you need to start from the beginning, and in this example, you've already introduced a bunch of steps, steps which I consider to be incorrect.

My main issue here isn't that you've done something that I consider to be incorrect, my gripe is that you did it without noticing or declaring it.

Conjunction elimination remains unchallenged (untested even) by your example.

While I agree that Mary's hat and coat is the same as Mary's hat and Mary's coat, even that is more logic than we need to test conjunction elimination.

1. Mary has a hat and a coat
2. Mary has a hat, and Mary has a coat
3. Therefore, Mary has a coat.

Conjunction elimination is accurately and fully shown in the step between 2 and 3. Your colour example is a failure in the step from 1 to 2:

1. Yellow is green and red
2. Yellow is green and yellow is red
3. Therefore yellow is green

The step from 2 to 3 is valid (although it is not sound). The step from 1 to 2 is not only incorrect, but you introduced it for no good reason, and without noticing/declaring that you did.

(for instance, the flag above, I'd say "the flag is red and green", but I don't think I'd say "the flag is red and the flag is green".)

I agree (I did it here, for anyone who is reading along).

You're missing out a bunch of steps. I'd say this:

1. Kokomojojo is agnostic.
2. Because of 1., Kokomojojo does not believe that God exists.
3. An atheist is a person who does not believe that God exists.
4. It follows from 2. and 3. that Kokomojojo is an atheist.

At the same time:

1. Kokomojojo is an agnostic.
2. Because of 1., Kokomojojo does not believe that God does not exist.
3. A theist is a person who does believe that God exist.
4. So far, we haven't seen anything concluded from 2. and 3. The statements do not match.

You'd have to introduce further steps to equate the two bolded bits in the second set, steps which we challenged the last time around, and you failed to defend:

"I peddle them down or up to their actual meaning. For instance, most of the examples in here are examples of things that do happen, rather than impossible or disallowed things. The "disallowed" interpretation seems incorrect." (source)​

You haven't shown that Flew's interpretation is disallowed.

It seems that you have a contradiction. The logic that we are able to anchor in actual logic rules don't come up with your conclusions.

 

look again

lets blow up your checkerboard.



clearly yellow is red and green as you can see on the borders

Its conjunction elimination yardmeat style, it proves he did not do it correctly, and I proved it is a fallible concept, but that is where reason comes in in logic.

I also fulfill the exact condition that 'declares' I am not an atheist.

A theist is ALSO a person who does not believe that God does not exist.
Therefore koko cant be an atheist.

stanford did

 

It isn't "yardmeat style." I provided multiple sources. You refused to address any of them. You even provided a source yourself (though you tried to hide the source) that agrees with me. You've provided no source and no argument that contradicts "A and B, therefore B," which appears in literally every intro to logic text. All of them. Without exception.

 

You should have thought this through before posting this. It's complete nonsense.

 

seems it dont work too well for yellow LOL

Oh? so then you are claiming theists believe God does not exist, thats brilliant.

Roll your pants legs up here come another flood of nonsense from our favorite logic professor dr strawman dodge!

He may be unteachable

 

That's because you don't understand that, in logic, letters stand for propositions. A stands for a proposition. B stands for a proposition. All intro texts cover this within the first couple of chapters. I've provided references.

No, I just know what the word ALSO means.

I'm sorry that you think understanding such basics requires a doctorate. It doesn't.

 

haha, I see you lack the deductive skills to comprehend what I said. Thats ok may you should let swensson handle his own arguments, he does a helluva better job than a fake logic teacher, and Im sure he knows what I said.

 

You've shown no deduction. You are literally contradicting every intro to logic text. As you've already proven, even your own sources disagree with you. You are unwilling to provide sources or reasoning and you are unwilling to address the same. But go ahead, keep dodging.