Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

The minimum requirements for a conjunction is logically combining 2 (or more) simple sentences with AND, OR, BUT and so forth. Some logic teacher LOL

green and red are both colors when combined they form the color yellow,
yellow = green and red the combining of 2 simple sentences.

thats logic 101

citation please

 

In logic, those sentences have to be propositions. T/F statements. Yes, every logic teacher knows this. Every logic class covers it. Typically in chapter one. That's what those letter thingies represent. Claims. Propositions. True/false statements. Also, even by your own MINIMUM standards, you fail. "Blue" is not a simple sentence. "Yellow" is not a simple sentence. And conjunctions in logic are only AND. There is no "BUT" in formal logic, and "OR" is a disjunction, not a conjunction in logic. Here's a source you should try to read.

 

@Kokomojojo

Something you should try to read from the source I just gave you:

Conjunction elimination is another classically valid, simple argument form. Intuitively, it permits the inference from any conjunction of either element of that conjunction.

A and B.
Therefore, A.
...or alternatively,

A and B.
Therefore, B.

In logical operator notation:



...or alternatively,

 

Wow youre so confused.
sure they are if you comprehend english

So when you gonna stop running away and hiding out?
You responded to a proposition with "I dont know", you pretend illegal responses are legitimate and its turned into a case of the blind leading the blind.
Hows that "I dont know" working for ya?

 

you failed again lol

 

If yellow and blue cease to be when green is created then you no longer have yellow or blue. But so long as you have yellow and blue, you have blue. A + B, therefore B.

 

"I don't know" is working very well for him, and for others. You are the only one incapable of understanding such an honest answer. And you are the one projecting the idea that it is a "third option" to the truth value of a proposition. Nobody else has suggested that but you.

 

If he were right, he may be less likely to feel the need to resort to such insults and derogatory statements. It's a defence mechanism to save his pride, because he knows he is wrong. If he constantly declares victory then he can feel better about himself. But that's just a bird's theory.

 

...

Yes, Koko pretending Yardmeat said the Suns colors are the result of "pigment" is a great example of trolling.

 

You failed to respond again. A familiar pattern.

 

"Yellow" is not a sentence in English. Sentences have subjects and predicates. There's a reason why you couldn't actually respond to anything I've said, why you couldn't read any of the sources I've provided, why you couldn't provide any sources of your own, and why you couldn't respond to any of the sources I provided.

As for "I don't know," you still can't make up your mind about whether it is "illegal" (you've provided no source for this) or whether it is something you resort to yourself, as you've claimed for years. I look forward to your next attempt to run away and hide, refuse to address or provide any sources, and try to substitute emojis for real arguments. How's that working for ya?

 

if you understood english you would know my posts are valid.

Still no citation to validate that the minimum requirements for a logical conjunction must be propositions?

Why are you hiding?

You used "I dont know" in response to a T/F proposition, I strongly questioned the validity of YOUR USAGE, now you want to cheat and pretend I have to prove that stupid "I dont know" claim you made when the burden lies squarely on you!

You further claimed that there is no other way to be an agnostic, which I also challenge, and you keep running away from that one as well.

If your objective is to embarrass yourselves, I agree.
Swensson dropped it like a hot potato! lol

He was talking about you and the yaerdmeat LOL

You are really good at that.
You call yourself a logic teacher and you didnt even know that "but" in propositional logic is understood as "and". LOL

Since all the rules of logic are well known, until you or the bird posts a citation validating that "I dont know" is acceptable response for a T/F proposition, as you have used it, its proof no such rule exists.

Yes you dodge a lot, not very well though!

Citations please!

 

No, I gave the full definition

"Definition of atheist noun from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
atheist noun
a person who does not believe that God or gods exist"
(dictionary source, PF source)​

which matches exactly the bolded criteria below:

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

Your line 2 matches the definition exactly, so the word applies.

Not sure what you mean by reducible. The way I read it, an apple is not "reducible" to fruit, but an apple is still a fruit.

In the meantime, we've shown that you satisfy the entire and only criteria to be an atheist.

It works perfectly all the time, it is a rule of logic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_elimination

Your example is poorly chosen. It is for instance unclear whether you think there is a difference between "yellow and blue" and "green". Hat and coat seems to be a more well defined example.

 

but that does not prove my point.

Sure if you like the yardmeat believe you can pound square pegs in round holes.
yellow is red and green
yellow is not red neither is yellow green
now of course the yardmeat will scream that is not a proposition but we all know it is. lol

youve shown the criteria that koko is not an atheist.

as you can see you have shown that koko does not fit the criteria.
you already know your case is a composition fallacy.

Keep in mind stanford disposed of your lob theory as logical nonsense.

If I claimed to be an atheist this would lend some credence and proved that I believe there is no God, but I claim I am not an atheist.

Under no circumstances can you put a 'true' agnostic in the same boat with atheist, just like you cant put the "I dont know" BS in as logically agnostic because its not, I dont know answers a proposition not asked. Its a strawman, well unless one of you boys can find a citation stating otherwise, good luck with that! LMAO Thats why the yardmeat will forever continue to dodge his claim!

 

I understand that sentences have subjects and predicates. You have admitted that you do not. You are literally claiming that, in order to understand English, we must abandon the most basic, elementary intro to English. You kick and scream and cry that I understand this and you do not. Also, the letters in logic represent PROPOSITIONS. That's the whole ****ing point of having these letters.

I've already provided citations . . . while you have provided none. A familiar pattern. I will provide another in a moment. You will continue to fail to provide any. You will continue to fail to read or address any of the citations you've requested. The familiar pattern continues.

You have repeatedly replied "I don't know" to T/F questions. You are only now pretending that this is "illegal," while you continue to do so yourself. Your contradictions know no bounds.

I will gift you with yet another citation that you will fail to read. I will provide you with no more free gifts until you either address the sources I've provided or start providing some of your own. I'm done with the dishonesty.

http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e10a.htm

Now, produce a citation that says that the letters in logic refer to anything other than propositions, that the existence of propositions makes it "illegal" to not know the truth value, and that the conjunction elimination is invalid. Go for it. I accept your white flag in advance.

 

You are contradicting yourself . . . again. You tried claiming that "Yellow" is a proposition. It isn't. You've tried claiming that "red and green" is a proposition. It isn't. "Yellow is red and green" IS a proposition . . . but one that is only true when we are talking about light/additive mixing and not pigment/subtractive mixing. Something I recently educated you about and that you've proven you didn't know about before. Regardless, THE WHOLE SENTENCE is a proposition. The individual elements are not. So "Yellow is red and green" is, as a whole, a proposition, though a flawed one. It can be represented as a letter in logic.

Bringing you back to the actual discussion, which I know you will kick and scream and flail to hide from, we were discussing: A and B, therefore B. Where is your citation that this is false? I've provided several showing it is true. Keep in mind that the "A" and the "B" represent ****ING PROPOSITIONS LIKE ANYONE WHO HAS LASTED MORE THAN A WEEK IN INTRO TO LOGIC UNDERSTANDS.

 

Make up your mind. Is "I don't know" illegal or are you claiming "I don't know"? You can't have it both ways, no matter how much you kick and scream and cry.

 

aw look mom, no citation too bad!
Cool now I have no need to read it, since its all made up nonsense anyway!

Wow how odd, it says statement NOT proposition!
Thanks for proving me correct again!
I love your free citations!
Keep em coming!

Yes your nonsense "I dont know" is illegal unless you have an academic citation, but you dont, you will forever dodge the challenge, you will forever fail to prove your point and you will forever claim your nonsense is valid.

 

I've provided the citations. And directly quoted them. And, yes, it says propositions, not just statements. Which you'd know if you'd read it . . . which you've proven you are incapable of doing. You have proven that you are incapable of addressing the citations you've asked for. What's more, you've provided no citations for your own claims. Too bad! PLONK!

 

I did, I thanked you for proving me correct again! any more gifts? I love freebees!

 

You haven't read the citations you've asked for, as you've proven, and you've provided none of your own. But no more gifts for you. I've already had to teach you intro to sentence construction (sentences have subjects and predicates), intro to logic (letters symbolize propositions) and intro to color theory (mixing colors of pigment and colors of light produce different results), all of which you've admitted you didn't know before today. I'm kind of done with the free tutoring gifts.

If you one day produce a citation that supports your claims, which you've failed to do so far, then maybe we can talk again.

 

It said proposition. I directly quoted it. Try reading. I know you can't read a whole article, but at least try reading the part I quoted for you.

 

there is no quote cited in your post, nice try.

 

more of your off topic made up srtawmen LOL
your on another roll!
It does prove my point that you dont comprehend english very well.

 

Yes, there is. Here it is again.

And since you refuse to read, here it is a few more times:

The propositional calculus is not concerned with any features within a simple proposition. Its most basic units are whole propositions or statements, each of which is either true or false (though, of course, we don't always know which).
The propositional calculus is not concerned with any features within a simple proposition. Its most basic units are whole propositions or statements, each of which is either true or false (though, of course, we don't always know which).
The propositional calculus is not concerned with any features within a simple proposition. Its most basic units are whole propositions or statements, each of which is either true or false (though, of course, we don't always know which).
The propositional calculus is not concerned with any features within a simple proposition. Its most basic units are whole propositions or statements, each of which is either true or false (though, of course, we don't always know which).
The propositional calculus is not concerned with any features within a simple proposition. Its most basic units are whole propositions or statements, each of which is either true or false (though, of course, we don't always know which).
The propositional calculus is not concerned with any features within a simple proposition. Its most basic units are whole propositions or statements, each of which is either true or false (though, of course, we don't always know which).
The propositional calculus is not concerned with any features within a simple proposition. Its most basic units are whole propositions or statements, each of which is either true or false (though, of course, we don't always know which).
The propositional calculus is not concerned with any features within a simple proposition. Its most basic units are whole propositions or statements, each of which is either true or false (though, of course, we don't always know which).