Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

LIke all the **** you preached for the simple matter of pretended teaching, he elected to preach, just because he decided to was time to preach does not mean it was necessary. Apparently he was reading from the meathead bible of nonsense.

 

So you are saying that yellow is not read and green?
Looks like it is to me.

R | G |R^G
0 | 0 | F
0 | 1 | F
1 | 0 | F
1 | 1 | T

 

I am, wtf is that all about anyway?
I taught what it means to board neaotheists that to this day just sort of omit the conjunction from agnostic.\
you know the type intimately.

 

DUH it means not red, see above truth table.

How you doing on the pigment bullshit? Convince anyone but yourself and uneducated cheerleaders that cyan is not in the blue spectrum???

You made that prime color **** up, to as usual derail with a strawman, it was never part of my premise.

The first use of cyan blue as a color name was in 1879 ("cyan blue" being the name used for "cyan" in the 19th century). Maerz and Paul A Dictionary of Color New York:1930 McGraw-Hill page 194

additive and subtractive is 100% not relevant, except to someone trying to derail the thread with bullshit.


Colors overlap, color is a perception, your eyes have 3 color cones that detect the ratio of the of overlap and the amount of overlap is what determines the color you see.

As I shown on the previous page cyan(blue) and yellow is green.



as you can see if you comprehend a color spectrum chart green is where blue and yellow mix, LIGHT ONLY AS I SAID, NO PIGMENT REQUIRED as you demanded in your RED HERRING post!





Yup when the going gets tough the yardmeat jumps ship!

I fully expect he claims to teach gun safety too!

 

that is not a truth table for yellow

.......A...........B.............A..^..B


When GREEN is T and RED is T YELLOW is T, else YELLOW is F

1) not green, not red : x
2) not green, red : red
3) green, not red : green
4) green, red : yellow


Oh wait the meathead bible of logic says red and green cant be true and false. Hmm

 

Something going down and something not in motion are both not going up. They both fit the category of not going up. Adding more information doesn't take something out of a broad category it fits in already.

Agnostic is a subcategory of not-believing-gods-exist, and not-believing-gods-exist is a common definition of atheism, so agnosticism is a subcategory of that meaning of atheism.

Now go ahead and Kokopuff for yourself, pretending I wrote something other than what I just wrote and tell me how very wrong I am so you can massage your ego.

 

Sure thing!


"Something going down and something not in motion are both not going up. They both fit the category of not going up."

Therefore

Something going up and something not in motion are both not going down. They both fit the category of not going down.

Clearly your logic makes them a subset of 'both' categories

 

Correct.

Yes, being stationary fits both the not-going-up and not-going-down categories.

And being agnostic fits into both the not-believing-gods-exist and not-believing-gods-dont-exist categories. Why is that a problem for you?

Is it because of your word equivocation games? If so, that's entirely your own doing.

 

Well, it just points out that you haven't provided an argument why the three numbers you have provided would mean that "yellow is green and red". Do you average the red and green to make yellow? If so, what is the link between "AND" and an average?

I asked you to show your workings behind "λ600nm = λ665nm and λ550nm", oh but you dodged it.

I googled the picture, and found the source here. Here are some quotes:

"When it comes to mixing colors, it may not be as straightforward as what you see on the color wheel. Using different methods of color mixing, such as overlapping colored lights versus combining pigment, the resulting colors are extremely different."

"Looking at their placement on the RGB color wheel, when red and green are mixed together, they make the color yellow."

"In the CMYK model, red and green are presented as complementing colors. However, when you combine red and green, they can vary in shades of brown to gray depending on the particular shades you are using."​

The relationship between [green, red] and yellow is not "and", it's "mixing in a RGB colour model" (which is a perfectly respectable thing to do, it just isn't "and").

They also link to a youtube video, which shows light shining through a red and a green liquid, making yellow light, and when you mix the two liquids, the liquid becomes black/brown. The takeaway from that is that while there are things that you can do to red and green to make it yellow, it is not as simple as just "AND".

How did you even come to the idea of looking at pictures to figure out what is true? We should be making these from syllogisms.

1. Yellow is green
2. Yellow is red
3. Yellow is green and yellow is red
This would be the structure, and it would show you right away that you've run into issues because you're already agreed 1 and 2 are in fact false.

I agree, it is a truth table for "AND", which is the truth table that is relevant for conjunction elimination. If yellow doesn't match the "and" truth table, then it must not be a correct conjunction.

Which has been my point all along. The entire tirade into "Yellow is green and red" is a red herring (no pun intended), since you have yet to show that it is a conjunction of "yellow is red" and "yellow is green" (and spoilers, you won't be able to, since a conjunction is only true if the conjuncts are true, and the conjuncts aren't true).

All in all, you've made an example that is way too complicated for you, you have failed to prove anything at all, conjunction elimination remains unchallenged.

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

Conjunction elimination demands that whenever A AND B is true, then A must be true. Therefore, "Koko does not believe there is a God" is true (following the above two lines).

Also, if you had been consistent, and always applied neg-raising, then it would follow

1. Koko does not believe there is no God AND Koko does not believe there is a God
2. Koko believes there is not no God AND Koko believe there is no God
3. Koko believes there is a God AND Koko believe there is no God.​

This is obviously not the case, so you seem to be fully capable of suspending neg-raising.

Did you just make this up? What's the source of this table?

There are real truth tables that will show you red and green adding to yellow (such as the one here: https://www.instructables.com/RGB-LED-Tutorial-using-an-Arduino-RGBL/), but they will tell you that they're working on an RGB colour model, whereas logic includes no such models (of course, you can include them, but then you're no longer working just with "AND").

I have come to not trust what things look like to you.

Yep, I would say something like "yellow is made by combining red and green at equal intensity in some additive colour mixing examples, such as the RGB color model". I have yet to see a reason to boil down that relationship to "AND" (in fact, we have seen examples of "AND" which specifically does not boil down to that relationship).

A conjunction is true if and only if all conjuncts are true. If "yellow is green" is false, then any conjunction that includes "yellow is green" must also be false. Whether you confuse yourself by creating a third statement that isn't quite a conjunction isn't really my problem.

What is it you're claiming is a strawman? "yellow is red and green" isn't a strawman, it is your exact words.

 

Nope I am claiming what you think is a strawman.

I even explained, not sure what your problem is?

prime colors. Not too hard to code lol.

you mean I made an example that is too complicated for you

koko rejects the premise there is no God.
koko rejects the premise there is a God.

I did

 

Oh, so you are arguing about what the 'dictionary' says instead of philosophy and logic, roger wilco! I thought this was about philosophy/logic, my mistake.

 

Green is Yellow and Blue as I said, NO PIGMENT REQUIRED AS YOU DEMANDED
It can also BE ADDITIVE AS I SAID

Looks like THEY DO!

Imagine that koko is RIGHT AGAIN, and another one of your titanic theories is NUKED!


LEDS EMIT LIGHT NOT PIGMENT

Therefore Green is yellow and blue IS ALSO ADDITIVE, YOUR CLAIM FAILS AGAIN it is PATENTLY FALSE as proven.

Thanks for teaching me that you are as uneducated about physics as you are about logic.

Nah, as PROVEN above

Yep folks 2 more yardmeat self proclaim 'logic' teacher, and superstrawman blunders!

 

No. But that's another great example of Kokopuffery.

 

Even more Kokopuffery. He didn't say it has to be pigment. He said it could be.

Yes. We understand that you imagine that. Or that you pretend to.

 

It's actually pure logic.

A includes B
A equals C
Therefore C includes B

...and of course, he did.

 

I had to teach Koko the difference between light and pigment. Now he claims I'm the one who doesn't understand the very same thing I taught him. He didn't understand the difference between additive and subtractive color mixing, he finally earned, then he attributed his previous ignorance to the person who tutored him.

And now he can't tell the difference between a color and a T/F proposition. He never will. It's a lost cause. Some people are just unwilling to learn. There's no helping them. He was able to learn the basics of color theory (eventually), but he'll never understand the difference between a color and a T/F proposition. And he'll never learn something as elementary as the conjunction elimination. The truth challenges his dogma, so he will reject the truth.

 

Yep from gaslighting to blatant denial!
Thanks for teaching me how WRONG you are and proving to the readers you will make up and say any damn thing if you think it sounds plausible enough to sell to those who dont know any better.



The agony of yet ANOTHER defeat!



Oh koko youve done it again!

koko 4 yardmeat 0!

 

Here you go folks another laughable yardmeat post with more claims of his superstrawman superiority. I am so happy he put me on iggy so you peeps dont have to deal with the constant assault on intellect from his posts.

 

you first need to demonstrate A = C, and so sowy no can do by quoting dictionary definitions. You need more depth to even scratch the surface.

 

Thats delusional, try arguing a point is true then telling the judge well I didnt say it! They will throw the book at you as the door hits you in the ass on the way out of the court room!

Its difficult to imagine anyone could post such absurdity seriously? Are you?



What that means in english, what he is saying is: that "green is yellow and blue" ONLY WORKS with subtractive (PIGMENT) NOT LIGHT.

Its hilarious because I have know this for easily over 40 years, but we are in the age of LED lighting, that no longer holds true.

He hung himself, nothing you are going to do to save it.

I proved it works with additive light, WHICH MEANS ADDITIVE COLOR MODELS.

Now yardmeat is desperately trying to HIDE the fact he had no idea it is also LIGHT ADDITIVE!

Seriously how difficult is this for anyone paying attention? You can defend him if you like but it will only change your residence next door to his titanic.

 

No. It is a well known meaning people use for the word. People are often explicitly using this definition, outright defining the word as they use it. We have seen that in this thread numerous times. That you refuse to acknowledge that and pretend they mean something else so you can misconstrue what they say and argue against strawmen instead is your Kokopuffery.

 

I don't agree that he can't learn these things. I am pretty confident he already knows them but refuses to admit it to anyone and that later on he will say it is the others who didn't understand. Whatever it takes for him to feel he is always right, and they always wrong, even when that isn't even coherent.

He is trying to force positions onto others that he can smugly feel he "defeats" so he can gloat. He likewise refuses to take any clear and consistent position on anything for fear of being wrong.

He clearly has very low self esteem and is desperate to feel intellectually superior to strangers on the internet, even to the point of consistently showing us all the opposite. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. It only matters that Koko convinces himself, and he is struggling to do even that.

At least that's my theory. I could be wrong, but I really doubt it. This is all pure Kokopuffery.

 

If somebody defines a "car" as a chicken sandwich, they wouldn't be speaking commonly accepted English, but we would know what they mean, and it would be disingenuous for us to claim that they believe they eat automobiles.

That would be similar to Koko's game, except that person-who-lacks-belief-gods-exist actually is a common meaning for the word "atheist".

 

Define "commonly accepted english", and "by whom" is this "common english" accepted

except that person-who-lacks-belief-gods-do-not-exist actually is a common object for the word "theist".

 

I have never heard anybody but you define "theist" that way. But ok. So that's the entirety of what you mean when you say "theist"? You don't also include that the person believes one or more Gods exist?

Odd. But ok. If that's so, then it would make "agnostic" fit under both "atheist" and "theist", and "atheist" and "theist" wouldn't be mutually exclusive.

That isn't a problem so long as you don't then equivocate with other definitions of the words. That's where you play your games...