Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

If thats the case then you realize your post is known as a poisoning the well fallacy. Have you published on the subject? After listening to our 'fake' logic teacher foam at the mouth for the last 500 posts, well you understand Im sure.

 

An amoeba is a living entity that as far as we know has nothing that can be considered a brain and it lacks belief. This places neoatheists on the same intellectual level as an amoeba. No thought process is required to lack belief in anything. Likewise with the absence and without variants. They are trying to shoehorn lack of belief into the atheist/theist/agnostic camp, it doesnt hold water.

 

What is religion.

Religion is best characterized as the non-empirical homologue of ideological beliefs, by contrast with science or philosophy the cognitive interest is no longer primary, but gives way to the evaluative interest.

Acceptance of a religious belief is then commitment to its implementation in action in a sense in which acceptance of a philosophical belief is not.

Or, to put it more accurately a philosophical belief becomes a religious belief insofar as it is made the basis of a commitment in action.

Religious ideas may be speculative in philosophical sense, but the attitude toward them is not speculative in the sense that well "I wonder if it would make sense to look at it this way?"

Religious ideas then may be conceived as answers to the 'problems of meaning' in both senses discussed above.

On the one hand they concern the cognitive definition of the situation for action as a whole, including the cathetic and evaluative levels of interest in the situation.

This they share with ideological beliefs.

On the other hand, however, they also must include the problems of 'meaning' in the larger philosophical sense of the meaning of the objects of empirical cognition, of nature, human nature, so the vicissitudes of human life etc from the point of view. durkhiem

 

Lol, I still believe in the fellow with the long white bear that can break into houses to leave gifts for his believers if the are good or nothing or coal if they aren’t. A whole other can of worms but the.gift I would like is a container of true nothing which would be be the most valuable thing man could have since it has never been made or found (no, a vacuumed is not a true nothing, neither would it be found in interstellar spce). Hmmm, Maybe true nothing is God.

 

Sure you can do that, be my guest, however I will not accept your position as valid until I see more than a naked statement. There is a process to claiming you do not believe, there is no process to simply lack it without any thought, its a short step to the amphiboly quick sand tour that we already beat to death in this thread.

The bird is still crying over that one but has not been able to make a reasonable argument except his little saying with semantic meaning that he pretends is not even though I posted a published counter, he simply claims nothing means what it means adnauseum.

 

Kool something from nothing! Sounds like our money supply!

 

Well, there is certainly physics basis for something from nothing; that we are he is evidence that supports it.

 

yep theoretical physics, another 'religion' lol

 

You have yet to say what you mean by "legitimate". It is not taboo nor illegal to admit when you don't know something. It is just plain honesty.

 

Your claim, your burden of proof.

 

True. As far as we know it lacks all thought and has no beliefs.

This is a stellar failure of logic.

People think, have some beliefs, and lack other beliefs. Atheists are humans who lack a particular belief. They lack the belief that any Gods exist. They have a wide variety of other beliefs. They have brains. They can think.

This is easy to understand if you don't have an agenda not to.

 

Hitchens Razor
It implies that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.

Yardmeats and the birds "I dont know" claim is prima facia bullshit folks.

Hitchens Razor
It implies that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.

Yardmeats "I dont know" claim is prima facia bullshit folks.

Professor Dodge made the claim "I dont know" as claiming its a legitimate response to a proposition, you confirmed. Confirmed means agreed. I am what is known as an opponent to your claim. Opponent means someone who rejects your claim. Legitimate means correct reasoning per the well known rules of logic. "I dont know" means your claim. Response means True or False in reference to the proposition. If you need further crayola let me know

Hitchens Razor
It implies that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.

Yardmeats and the birds "I dont know" claim is prima facia bullshit folks.

Yes a stellar lacker

Hitchens Razor
It implies that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.

Yardmeats and the birds "I dont know" claim is prima facia bullshit folks.

 

No. That is your straw man. I have repeatedly told you that "I don't know" is NOT an answer to a true/false question, and is not a possible truth value to a proposition. You just can't bring yourself to comprehend what I did write.

Are you asking me to prove that I don't know something? Do you think I am lying and think I do know? Or do you think I wouldn't know what I know?

Again, you are being pointlessly cryptic. Will you clarify for once, or can we expect your usual word games and evasion?

 

Nonsense, naked claim.

Yes you talk a lot, I agree.
The yardmeat should not have used it as an answer to a proposition, but he did and you continue to defend it.

Therefore:
Hitchens Razor
It implies that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.

You cant pretend not to comprehend facts of the event.

Its logically unsound.

I know you know what you 'think' you know!

Back to being ridiculously evasive pretending I am required to write a novel when one sentence states it clearly. (at least to reasonable people)

Your argument is that its Aok to claim you dont know is a legtimate response/answer to a proposition simply because its your personal truth, both you and the yard meat made that perfectly clear.

That said a rule exists if your claims are true, and I am waiting for your citation, no citation means your claims are not true, in which case you are then admitting to dodging the proposition.

Hitchens Razor
It implies that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.

No matter how you want to sing the tune the yardmeat answered with "I dont know" and argued its validity and how he complements and expects the same from his students when presented with a proposition, yet cant even tell us what school books he used to prepare the lessons so we can evaluate the claim. PLONK

Prove by citing an academic source that "I dont know" is a valid response/answer as applied to a proposition, either as a substitute to T/F or that is permitted because its your 'personal' truth or do the right thing and admit your failure.

 

Hiding again, I see. You are getting better at scurrying away and hiding. Meanwhile, 1) Hitches' Razor is a meme. It isn't a part of formal logic. 2) It is an argument in favor of atheism 3) You've made multiple claims here, in this thread alone, where you have satisfied no burden of proof. I look forward to your next attempt to scurry and hide.

Meanwhile, you have admitted previously that there are T/F propositions that you don't know the answer to.

You will hide. You will try to substitute real arguments with emojis in the word "PLONK," but you'd die before actually ever discussing any of this.

 

Its standard due process in every court in america, still hiding under a pile of bull why dont you simply concede instead of digging your hole deeper LOL

 

You have mirrored Koko's style almost perfectly here.

 

It's logically unsound not to know something? No it isn't. Again, admitting you don't know something isn't claiming a truth value regarding that something.

You have yet to state anything clearly. And no, it isn't the length of your posts that are the problem with them. It is the cryptic nature of them and that they don't address what people write to you, pretend people wrote what they did not, fail to clarify apparent contradictions you make, etc.

I opt instead not to adopt this straw man of yours. I have attempted to correct your straw man numerous times now and you insist on arguing against it despite it never being my claim, but your own.

 

Why are you changing the subject from logic to epistemology to jurisprudence? I'm sorry, but you have repeatedly admitted that there are T/F propositions that you don't know the answer to. Now you are claiming this is not allowed, but you have provided no justification. You've provided no sources and you've addressed none of the sources the rest of us have provided. Hell, you are still trying to maintain that the conjunction elimination is invalid . . . something literally every intro to logic text contradicts you on. As predicted, you were unwilling to appeal to logic and tried emojis instead.

 

The yardmeat should not have used "I dont know" as an answer to a proposition, but he did then he defended it with the reason he was a logic teacher extraordinaire and it is his personal truth.

Well I reject his [IL] Logic unless he can provide a citation to academically validate the rules allow for it to prove his attempted narrative, until then I wont respond to any of his antics for the following reason:

Hitchens Razor
It implies that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.

Talk to the hand,

I wont engage you until you validate your claim

 

works fine for parlor chitty chat over tea

It is when you use it to answer a proposition duh!

good luck, I posted academic citations, you posted an armchair commando narrative

My statements are fine, whats wrong is you work to misrepresent what I say any way you can, which fits your troll definition, have you called yourself a troll for doing that yet?

If you had a better grasp of the english language you wouldnt need me to include a dictionary with every post.

 

Hitchens' Razor does not appear in any logic textbook. It's from his opinion book . . . in favor of atheism. You should try reading it. I have. But, once again, you appeal to emojis instead of reason. And you can't even be consistent.

1) No logic text says it that it is illegal to not know the truth value of a proposition. You can't address this fact. 2) You've admitted that there are propositions you don't now the truth value of. You can't address this fact. 3) Based on Hichens' Razor, we must reject your claim here. Meanwhile, I've already provided sources of my claims, none of which you've been willing to address. You've provided none. You fail at your own standards.

 

The yardmeat should not have used "I dont know" as an answer to a proposition, but he did then he defended it with the reason he was a logic teacher extraordinaire and it is his 'personal truth'.

Well I reject his [IL] Logic unless he can provide a citation to academically validate the rules allow for it to prove his attempted narrative, until then I wont respond to any of his antics for the following reason:

Hitchens Razor
It implies that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.

Talk to the hand,

I wont engage you until you validate your claim

 

There you go making up definitions. If it is so, then it’s far more useful than yours, which I equate to Both’s hands.Lol

 

It isn't an answer to a proposition. I never said it was. I said it is not. But it IS a response to being asked about a proposition, just as saying you don't know how to play chess is a response to being asked to make a chess move. It isn't a chess move. It is a response other than a chess move. Talking about it being a "valid" move or not would be nonsensical.

So is your talking about "I don't know" being "invalid". It doesn't claim to be the truth value of the proposition.

Academic citations do not excuse a straw man non-argument. You never addressed what I wrote. You rarely address what anybody actually writes. Only if you and the citations actually addressed what I did write would it mean anything.

No. Anybody who reads this can actually see I have done the opposite of that. I have repeatedly asked you to clarify, and even corrected others when they said you said something you didn't actually say.