Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Kokomojojo, Nov 24, 2019.

  1. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,224
    Likes Received:
    3,847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you really think any reader of what you've written in this thread reads it as consistent, non-contradictory, and coherent, I don't know what leads you to think that.

    That's a good thing, because what you go on your rants about "teaching" has so far been things everybody already knows.
     
  2. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you forgot this part in your past post
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2021
  3. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "Believing that God exists" and "Believing God does not exist" are two propositions, each of which can be true or false independently (except that they can't both be true). "Not believing that God exists" is what you seem to refer to as a "result" (since by the LEM, it is fully determined by your answer to "believe that God exists").

    Well, you use it as shorthand for two different things, causing an equivocation. I've been asking you several times for you to write it out.

    It would have been quicker if you had wrote it out than it ended up being having to unpick what you mean. Arguably, if you hadn't been introducing inconsistent shorthands, this issue would have been resolved even before I started posting.
     
    Jolly Penguin likes this.
  4. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    After that, I want to dot all my "i"s, and cross my "t"s: I had specified a, "singular," uniting force, to add to my differentiation of it from merely physical forces, but that was not, strictly, true. Polytheists, for example, don't necessarily believe in One, Uniting God, but often times there is something similar to this. Hinduism, for example, has the Creator, Brahma, or the Trinity of Brahma, Shiva, & Vishnu (Creator-Destroyer-Sustainer). Santeria has a panoply of deities, but there are certain relations between them, with one sitting at the top, similar to the Greek & Roman Pantheons. And the brilliant scientist & polymath, Gottfried Leibnitz, arrived at his very own theology, which he called, Monadology (not to be confused with Monadism, which was popular in the day).

    From what I understand of it, Leibnitz believed in different, metaphysical energy centers, each with their own jurisdiction, and with greater Monad energies above those. So it was somewhat like vassalage, or a hierarchical corporate structure, but in which all the managers had pretty free range, and I'm thinking not overly-punctilious scrutiny, either. It actually reminds me of the Tree of Emanations, from the esoteric Judaic Kabbala.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2021
    Jolly Penguin likes this.
  5. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,224
    Likes Received:
    3,847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I still take issue with these truth tables Koko loves so much displaying any logic or reason, other than the definition of words. I see frequent self-contradictions in his posts, but I still see no actual argument made.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2021
  6. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well I take issue with your crystal ball, Im sure you see a lot of things that arent there. Pretty typical for results for crystal balls.
    Y is the negation of X,
    if you claim 0, or no to X, you are forced to claim 1 for Y.
    this isnt rocket science ffs
    but you said: Atheist: a person who does not believe God or gods exist
    What kind of nonsense you trying to pull here
    Flew said everyone is an atheist that is not a theist.
    I am not a theist, and by definition neither am I atheist.
    That is why he is laughed out of philosophy departments throughout the US, purely irrational.
    your lacker theory has been thoroughly debunked.
    and !X = Y, and X = !Y, being incontrovertible negations of each other yields 'If x then !y' and 'if y then !x'. You cant answer one of them true, and false to the other, or refuse to answer its negation, which is what you are trying to do, and of course blame all YOUR problems associated with pedaling nonsense on me in the process!, LNC.

    [​IMG]
    False, again, !x = y and x = !y
    well your logic shows them both true, that is your contradiction that I fully expect you and the bird will blame on to me.
    I can see that! :roll:
    I dont know what I would do if I didnt have your continuing help and support! :lol:
    ok
    but agnostics reject both premises, belief, and !belief.
    Yes both premises can be unacceptable, therefore false, that is neither LEM, nor LNC violation, or any other logic violation. See the NOR function.

    [​IMG]
    See how easy it is to prove that wrong.
    Neither premise is correct, because there is a 3rd choice that you and the bird are both in denial.
    actually is does in the case one is claimed to be 'true', sorry
    But you just said we cant choose 0,0 to propositions that negate each other, wtf?
    Oh wait I know its another contradiction the bird saw in his crystal ball!
    That anyone not a theist is atheist, which is as false as its negation, anyone not and atheist is a theist.

    Please correct your logic, I spelled out and explained your errors for you, then we can talk.
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2021
  7. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,224
    Likes Received:
    3,847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Koko's confusion comes down this:

    Lack of belief of X existing is not the same as believing X doesn't exist.

    You can't both lack belief X exists, and believe it exists.

    But you can both lack belief X exists, and lack belief it doesn't.

    The word "atheism" is used by Flew to mean lack of belief God(s) exists. Sometimes Koko accepts that definition (he quoted it once from a dictionary).

    Other times Koko insists that "atheism" instead means Belief that God(s) don't exist (he added that to the dictionary definition he provided, through notation, while not realizing he was changing the definition, or pretending not to realize).

    /thread
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2021
  8. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Disagree. Remember that:
    I have agreed that 0,0 is agnostic, where the first entry is the answer to "believe God exists" and the second entry is "believe God does not exist". (quote from myself, source here)​
    That is, an agnostic has X=0 and Y=0.

    However, you're claiming that "Y=!X", which for an agnostic would evaluate to 0=!0, i.e. 0=1, which is a contradiction. Agnostics are not exempt from logic. It seems to me we agree that agnostics are 0,0, so the statement that introduces the logical error is "Y=!X", that statement of yours is erroneous. Y and !X are different statements.

    Perhaps it is your sloppy shorthand that got you confused.

    Yes (except I did not mark the words "does not" in green in post 1151).

    As you can see, the atheist definition wording is exactly the same as X, but with a not in front of it (thereby being !X). However, as argued above, !X and Y are not the same statement, and the dictionary definition recognises no requirement on Y. I even colour coded the two kinds of statements to make it clear which one is which.

    Y is the belief that God does not exist (which agnostics reject). !X is true whenever X is false, and X is the belief that God exists. Agnostics reject the belief that God exists, so they reject X, and since !X has to be the opposite of X, for agnostics, !X has to be true. This should not be misconstrued to mean that agnostics believe that god does not exist.

    By what definition? By Flew's definition, you became an atheist by the statement I have marked in blue above. If you're using some other definition (while at the same time considering Flew's logic), then you have committed the fallacy of equivocation.

    Yep, when you introduced the process controller in post 1126, (or arguably the last line in your first truth table in post 991) you introduced the idea of including the 1,1 case. It is those inputs that suggest 1,1, my logic merely shows that it is able to cope with labelling people, even if they have contradictory opinions.

    Nope, as mentioned above, agnostics reject both X and Y, which is different from "rejecting both X and !X" (which is logically impossible). Again, you seem to have confused yourself by introducing "!belief" for a concept that isn't actually the negation for belief.

    Well, the trick is of course that there are two different statements that you are mixing up. Y and !X are different. X and Y are not negations, so we can choose 0,0 out of those. However, X and !X are negations, so we are not able to choose 0,0 between those.
     
  9. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ran out of gas? False try this: [thread]
    Care to fix your grammar in all that so someone can make sense out of it
    there is no x and !x in any truth table I wrote.
    looks like a red herring to me!
    and I proved to you how laughable that was. I switched them around. Feel free to look up the truth table I posted proving it, that you glossed right on past! lol I cant believe you are back to arguing this crazy ****.

    Round and round you go!

    false, not when both propositions are wrong, and sufice to say both propositions are wrong for agnostic, agnostic is a 3rd choice.

    a joke, insanity, I did the upsidedown reversed version TT just to prove to you how wacked out these theories are that you continue claim are valid, they arent.

    1,1 is not a legitimate condition since it says the person both believes and disbelieves at the same time, which is closer to instanity if you just need a lanel for it.

    your truth table is wrong, 1,1 does not exist as a real world identity, and atheist is not 0,0, that is agnostic. My original falstad has it all done correctly feel free to copy it if you like, but at least correct yours.
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2021
  10. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you are still dodging the connectives, its not possible for someone to understand how to build logic functions if they do not first understand the rules of grammar.

     
  11. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're confusing the premises.

    Premises must be stated in the same sense to make sense.

    Swensson lectures on orange versus orange in every other post, then commits the same fallacy, and worse he has claimed 1,1 is a valid truth.

    When you start stating your premises correctly koko wont take issue with them and it will be less confusing for you.

    Did you mean: Lack of belief of the existence of X is not the same as belief that X doesn't exist

    Koko replies to the properly stated conditions with: Belief that X does not exist most certainly is lack of belief that X exists.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2021
  12. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,224
    Likes Received:
    3,847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Belief that X does not exist requires lack of belief that X exists in order to be consistent and rational (but humans aren't always rational in their beliefs). But belief that X does not exist is not the same as lack of belief that X exists, and that's the equivocating you keep doing.

    If you think that lack of belief that X exists is the same as belief that X does not exist, you are wrong.

    You can both lack belief X exists and lack belief X does not exist. That is what Flew and Swensson call agnostic when it comes to God. They call atheist simply lack of belief that God exists, including those who lack belief God doesn't exist (agnostics) and those who have belief God doesn't exist.

    You keep demanding on separating agnostic out of the category of atheist by redefining atheist to require belief there is no God. But that's you. That's not Flew or Swensson. What they say is internally consistent, and your attempt to show otherwise is pure equivocation.

    You even cited a dictionary definition that agrees with their definition of atheist, and then added notation changing it to your definition of atheist and claimed your notation didn't change the definition. That showed your equivocation and that you are unaware of your equivocation.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2021
  13. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Huh?

    By definition, someone who maintains belief that God does not exist in fact lacks belief that God exists, if you disagree feel free to put up your TT proving your claim has standing. (I assure you it does not, but take your best shot)
     
  14. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,224
    Likes Received:
    3,847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All dogs are mammals, but not all mammals are dogs.

    If you think that being a dog is the same as being a mammal, you are wrong.

    All who believe there is no God lack belief in God, but not all who lack belief in God believe there is no God.

    If you think that lack of belief in God is the same as belief there is no God, you are wrong.

    I don't need one of your fancy truth tables to show this to be true.

    Do you now see the equivocation you embarked on when you added notation to the dictionary definition you cited and claimed you weren't changing its meaning?
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2021
  15. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Like an agnostic for instance, all agnostics lack belief in God, so then lack of belief in God is agnostic?
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2021
  16. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,224
    Likes Received:
    3,847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, like an agnostic, as you've defined it. Other atheists do believe there is no God. Both lack belief in God, so both are atheists, if atheist is defined, as your dictionary defined it, as just the lack of belief in God(s). Agnostic (as you've defined it) is therefore a subcategory of atheist (as Flew and Swensson define it).
     
  17. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You did not quote how I defined it?
    No dictionary on the planet defines agnostic as a subset of atheists, how about a citation in support of your claim.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2021
  18. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,224
    Likes Received:
    3,847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You defined it as somebody who lacks belief there is God, and who also lacks belief there is no God.

    The dictionary definition that you brought to the thread does by implication. It defines atheist as one who lacks belief in God, saying nothing about believing or not believing there is no God. So, that makes agnostic (as you define it) a subcategory of atheist (as your dictionary definition before your added notation defines it).

    I think you see this as well as we all do. I'm not sure why you are pretending not to.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2021
  19. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I dont see a quote, where is it?
    Pretenders never quote, seems thats you projecting again.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2021
  20. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,224
    Likes Received:
    3,847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you saying I am incorrect in how you define agnostic? That's what your treasured Truth Table with agnostic at (0,0) was saying, wasn't it?

    If so, why are you demanding to be quoted when you know what your wrote?

    If not, then what is your definition of agnostic? Are you going to equivocate yet again?
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2021
  21. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Still projecting....
    Still no quote.
    Why do you insist on misrepresenting me?
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2021
  22. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, Flew's definition of atheism is exactly a person with not X (where X is the belief that God exists), so if that's not covered in your truth table, then your tables are not fit for the purpose of determining whether one is an atheist, or whether Flew's logic works.

    That being said, your truth tables do include X (although it is spelled out as a "believe God exists" or similar) and !X (which is simply where X is 0).

    No, you just laughed at it, you didn't prove anything. You switched them around, but you provided no reason to believe that you can arbitrarily switch definitions around and expect it to mean anything.

    At the end of the day, Flew's definition, which is a pretty common one (usage, dictionaries, etc), phrases atheist in terms of rejecting "believe in God", whereas neither dictionaries, philosophers or common usage would even consider "not believe God does not exist" as the definition for theist. Baselessly swapping them around proves very little.

    Nope, between the Law of the Excluded Middle and the Law of Non-Contradiction, exactly one of X and !X must be true. Agnostics are not exempt from the laws of logic. If you think both propositions are wrong, then you have misunderstood one of the propositions (in this case, !X).

    The negation of belief that exists in the definition of atheism is, by the LEM, 1 whenever X is 0. If you're using !X as anything else, then you haven't addressed Flew's position, you've made up a straw man.

    Your Falstad diagram includes 1,1 too (and did so before I had it):
    [​IMG]
    And really, I only included it so as to stick as close to the input setup that you had defined as possible.
     
  23. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    this is logic, the dictionary does not prove anything, I quoted a fact
    because so much of the aleged reasoning you posted is pure bunk on so many levels and the errors have already been explained.
    I used swensson approved definitions.
    Again not when there is a 3rd choice, denying the connectives again.

    If the short hand variants are too difficult feel free to us " I " or " I do " in front of the condition titles.
    [​IMG]

    Dis- is a negative prefix. It means not or none.
    When we add dis- to the beginning of a word, we give it the opposite meaning.May 15, 2014
    https://www.ecenglish.com › learnenglish › lessons › dis-p...

    a rational person claiming to an atheist by answering no to believe is forced to answer yes to disbelieve. Answering no to both is agnostic.



    Antonym

    1. a word opposite in meaning to another (e.g. bad and good ).
    Definitions from Oxford Languages


    Negation

    Opposite
    1. the contradiction or denial of something.
    From Oxford Languages

    [​IMG]





    This thread has been reduced to teaching my oponents the english language! :wall:

    not when both propositions are false and another option exists.

    Please educate yourse4lf.



    The bulk of what you and the bird are repetitiously posting is nothing more than composition fallacies and you are in denial. I have never in my life seen such craziness as I have seen here in your attempts to justify flews nonsense theories.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2021
  24. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113

    LACK | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

    to not have or not have enough of something that is needed or wanted: He just lacks a little confidence. 5 days ago

    https://dictionary.cambridge.org › dictionary › lack


    How is anyone supposed to know which side of the 'or' you or flew is using? Not to mention it does not answer the question of believe or disbelieve with a yes or no, it skirts anwering the question, and now you are left with claiming 'Hey its todays fad, and the dictionary reported todays fad expression, therefore its logical' NOT true, another among another long line of fails.

    So if we use your logic 420 = pot

    People also ask

    What is the meaning behind 420?
    4/20 is, in short, a holiday celebrating marijuana. ...
    The ritual spread, and soon 420 became code for smoking marijuana.

    What is 4/20? The marijuana holiday, explained. - Vox



    You and the bird are selling neoatheist equivocation.

    :evileye:
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2021
  25. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,224
    Likes Received:
    3,847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This new table makes Koko's error perfectly clear now. In this new table he has actually used the labels "not believe in God" and "Believe God does not exist" in the same column thinking they mean the same thing. They don't.

    This is a common trap people fall into when writing the LSAT.

    If A then B
    Is not the same as A = B
    It also does not mean that if B then A
    (But it does mean that if !B then !A)

    He is correct that if "Believe God does not exist" is true, then "Not Believe in God" must be true, but he doesn't see that this doesn't mean that if "Not Believe in God " is true, does not require that "Believe God does not exist" must be true.

    Next maybe he will tell us that mammal has the same meaning as dog, and that all food is pizza.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2021

Share This Page