Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

I'm sure you think you do. And it doesn't matter what anyone actually writes. You are going to tell them what they really think, eh?

 

see forward backward, 3 options.

I didnt ask for your approval, you are not qualified to approve anything respecting logic, sorry. I proved your semantic merry go round here:

in a conversation with the bird.

It is in the case of only 2 choices.

but it is in the case of atheist versus theist.

Unfortunately thats what happens when people are unreasonable and wrong.

forward

Opposite

backward

Forward is Opposite of Backward

Case: 3 choices:
option 1: are you going forward? NO
option 2: are you going backward? NO
option 3: Is the switch off? YES

Case: 2 choices:
option 1: are you going forward? NO
option 2: are you going backward? YES
or
option 1: are you going forward? YES
option 2: are you going backward? NO

Case 3 choices both forward and backward must be examined to determine the condition.
Case 2 choices only one proposition must be examined to determine the condition.

believe and disbelieve are opposites, same as forward and backward are opposites.
In both cases we are comparing opposites.
So if we work according to your logic, in the case of 3 choices its not legal to say NO to forward and to say NO to backward because the correct condition is its not moving at all due to no power?

It most certainly IS legal to say no to opposite conditionals when a 3rd option expresses the correct condition.

 

Its a FACT



Go ahead, cant wait to see what kind of nonsense you will invent to try and disprove the above TT!

See the TT for facts

You have nothing to support your claim that I cant.

Nothing illogical about it.

but as you can (or should be able to) see in the forward backward example which operates on precisely identical logic as believe/disbelieve that its 'perfectly' legal.

 

It is not rational to say no to "forward" and no to "not forward". It is rational to say no to "forward" and no to "backwards". "Backwards" does not mean the same thing as "not forward".

It is not rational to say no to "believe there is God" and no to "not believe there is God". it is rational to say no to "believe" and no to "believe there is no God". "Not believe there is God" is not the same thing as "believe there is no God".

It is also irrational to say yes to both forward and to backwards, because forward and backwards are mutually exclusive. But their absence is not mutually exclusive.

It is also irrational to say yes to both "believe there is God" and "believe there is no God", because these are mutually exclusive. But their absence is not mutually exclusive.*

The atheist says no to "believe there is God". Full stop. This is the definition I give, Swensson gives, and your cited dictionary definition gives. If you don't like that definition, then it is very odd that you cited a that dictionary definition. Under this definition, an atheist then may or may not say yes "believe there is no God". Either way, yes or no to that second question, they remain an atheist, so long as they say no to "believe there is God".

If a particular atheist (meaning a person who says no to "believe there is God"), then also says no to "beleive there is no God" then they are agnostic, by Swensson's definition, and even by your own stated definition.

You can spin in circles and spout out how everyone but you is "Wrong", and how regardless of what they actually write, you know what they "really mean", but you're not changing any of the above by doing so.

 

they are just 'opposites' as I have shown, your use of mutually exclusive adds no new information, ie states the obvious.

full stop is your invention, there is nothing of the sort expressed or implied in the definition I posted.

sure it is.

You believe there is a God? False
You do not believe there is a God? False

Oh I bet you are one of those cwazy agnostic people!

 

No. You can't both X and !X. You must either X or !X. You must either believe or not believe. One is the negation of the other. You must either go forward or not go forward.

That's not a problem for agnostics, because agnostics don't say no to "believe there is God" and "not believe there is God". They say no to "believe there is God" and "believe there is no God".

In your analogy that would not be saying no to both "Forward" and "not Forward". That would be saying no to "Forward" and "Backward". "Not Forward" is not the same as "Backward". "Not Believe in God" is not the same as "Believe there is no God".

 

again we are not talking about x and !x

the proposition

semantics
agnostics believe there is a God. FALSE
agnostics do not believe there is a God. FALSE
agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve there is a God.
as soon as its stated as legitimate propositions, your position vaporizes.

 

You are if you say "believe" and "not believe". X = Believe. !X = Not Believe

"Disbelieve" and "believe" can both be said no to rationally if and only if "Disbelieve" isn't held to mean "not believe", but instead "believe there is no".

I don't now why you can't grasp that.

You are failing at very basic logic now.

 

Oh I totally grasp that you are changing what was said to your strawman and pretending its my argument.

both above are 100% legitimate propositions with no LEM or LNC violations. I agree english is your second language!

None of what you are saying or trying to say remotely validates flew however. In another thread someone just claimed a newborn was an atheist, in the broadest sense newborns do not know, therefore the closest they can get to atheist is agnostic. Just another popular fad case of atheists trying to tell people what they are/believe.

 

This is what never ceases to amaze me, when you guys come in here blazing guns ready to argue logic and totally screw everything up, only to ask questions that if you knew what you are doing you would already know.



very simple, since atheists are the opposite of theists, and lack belief, then:
theists lack disbelief.

Now if you want to claim atheists lack belief in God, its a fact that theists lack disbelief in God, the atheist claim that one only lack belief in God to be an atheist fails LEM, due to the overlap it causes when the logic is applied to theists.

swensson tried to claim thats not how theists are defined which is not relevant since these are truth tables because they determine what is truth and could give a **** about fadish fleeting popular beliefs advertised by one man in this case, and shunned by the rest of academia.

As I told swensson it is a fact that theists lack disbelief in God, the dictionary does not bother with logical proofs, and swenssons demand for them to be in a dictionary is nothing more than another red herring as are most of his demands not that his back and yours is against the wall.

as you can see agnostics lack belief and disbelief in God.

 

A newborn is an atheist because they do not believe in God. They have no concept of God.

 

A -->!B
Therefore B -->!A

Yes. That works.

And given the above you can't have both A and B in any set following that rule.

I still suspect you use the word "disbelieve" instead of "not believe" as an attempt to obfuscate btw.

 

The above logic is what entices you right?

A --> !B
Therefore B --> !A, meaning you can't be both
But doesn't mean you can't have neither A or B.

Is that the trap you are falling into? If so, that is sound logic, but you are misapplying it to theists and atheists.

You explained why, ironically, yourself just a few posts ago. When you referred to forward and backward.

You are either going forward or not going forward. But just because you are lacking forward movement does not mean you are going backwards.

In this analogy forward movement is theist, not forward movement is atheist, and not forward movement + not backwards movement is agnostic.

 

Just because you lack forward movement (just because you lack belief in God) doesn't mean you have backward movement (doesn't mean you believe their is no God).

"Not believe in God" is not identical to "Believe there is no God", even though the word "disbelieve" is used to describe both. It often leads to an equivocation fallacy, as it has here in Kokomojo.

 

Well let's examine that, shall we?

Swensson, do you deny that theists lack "not belief" in God? They by definition have belief in God. That's what defines them as Theists. I don't think Swensson will disagree.

Swensson, do you deny that theists lack "belief there is no God"? Clearly they do lack that. And clearly lacking that isn't in itself what defines them as Theists. I again don't think Swensson will disagree.

That's because Swensson sees the difference between "no belief in A" and "believes there is no A". Kokomojo fails to.

Kokomojo appears very confused, attributing arguments and demands to others that they didn't make, equivocating meanings of words, etc.

If anyone reading this falls into the same traps Koko falls into, I suggest not using the word "disbelieve" if you mean "not believe" by it. Just use "not believe" and things will likely clear up as you avoid equivocating the word "disbelieve", which can also mean "believe there is no".

 

false, when you have fwd and backward you have ONLY 2 choices, if you are not going forward then you have to be going backward, there are no other choices.

same with atheist and theist, if you are not a theist, then you are an atheist, and if you are not an atheist then you are a theist, only 2 choices.

When there are only 2 choices and you claim you are not atheist then you have to be a theist. Its not a case of x,!x it becomes atheist,theist...fwd,backward.

one of the 2 choices has to be true.

Now......when you add agnostic, and for fwd bckwrd add neutral, now you have 3 choices, 1 of the 3 choices 'has' to be true.

You are confused, and a bit of an extremist if you claim you newborn is an atheist just becayse they exist. The stupidity in that logic is you do not know what that child is and have no way to prove it, yet you want to proclaim for them they are atheist. Well in this society children do not have much to say until they are 18yo and become of age, then you can ask them what they are.

 

No. You can stand still. You can also go left or right.

That's true. Because you either believe or you don't. You can't both believe and not believe. You are either a Theist or an Atheist. You can't be both and you can't be neither (to be rational).

Sure. That's true. But again, then you're just saying If you don't believe, then you can't also believe. Again, you can't both believe and not believe. You can't be Theist and Atheist, and you must be one or the other (to be rational).

And this is where you confuse yourself. And clearer terminology less prone to equivocation would help you. You won't change reality and you don't need to change the meaning of the words you are using just because we start talking about agnostics.

Atheist still means doesn't believe in God. You still must be either Theist or Atheist, and you still can't be both at the same time (to be rational). .

A particular Atheist may or may not believe there is no God. Either way, they are still an Atheist so long as they don't believe there is a God. Agnostic is the type of Atheist who doesn't believe there is no God. There are also atheists who do believe there is no God.

I'm not confused at all. You are. This not complicated at all. You're just not realizing the difference between "no belief" and "belief there is no". They are not identical, and that keeps tripping you up.

And yes, as far as we can tell, people are not born believing in Gods, which means they are born atheists. They are born looking towards a higher power, but that's Mom.

Have you never met a child? Most of them have quite a lot to say long before they are 18 years old.

 

Your image did not load. Or did you load that on purpose as a way to say say Koko is saying nothing?

 

No

 

No, I agree with this table, but I don't see why you think this allows you to violate the logical absolutes. The table shows no LEM violations, so I don't see how you can use this to get to a point where you violate LEM by saying that both X and !X are false.

If it results in you breaking the LEM or the other logical absolutes, it is illogical.

I don't see what conclusions you're drawing from it, but either way, if you end up with a conclusion that violates the LEM, you should notice that you've done something wrong. A proposition X and its negation !X cannot both be false.

Belief is represented by a 1 in the belief column (I guess we can use the a column in your example, but it's the same as the X column in the previous tables). Not belief is represented by a 0 in the belief column (and the LEM is represented by the fact that you must choose exactly one out of 0 and 1 for each cell). The order in which you write the columns seems like a red herring.

Yes we are talking about X and !X, because that's the wording that is present in the definition of atheist. Not X is the logical condition that is true when X is false and vice versa. There is no mention of the proposition "believe God does not exist" in the definition of atheist, it is phrased purely in terms of your stance with respect to the proposition "believe God exists".

If you're looking at something else, you're guilty of equivocation.

Correct, I say theists have belief, which is the same as having not not belief, which is the same as lack of "not belief".

Correct, theists lack the belief that there is no God, but that is not what defines them as theists, since people other than theists (such as agnostics) also lack the belief that there is no God.

 

logic deals in truth statements based in logic and reason and has absolutely no requirement to sustain popular usage found in the dictionary beyond acknowledgement its a fad the dictionary reported to people can understand each other.

People also ask
Do dictionaries define words?
It's the dictionary's job to describe all words the way they are used in the real world, so dictionaries contain standard words, slang words, dialect words, nonstandard words, and more. ... The work of a dictionary is to document the meaning of words as they are actually used.
How To Get A Word Into The Dictionary

IOW, if swensson or the bird defines atheist as a turnip, the dictionary may report;
atheist
1) a turnip
(Brassica rapa subsp. rapa) is a root vegetable commonly grown in temperate climates worldwide for its white, fleshy taproot.

Hence your claim of theist not being defined that way has no standing to the FACTS of the case.

Its a FACT, its a TRUTH statement: 'theists lack the belief that there is no God' you agree!

Legitimately derived 'definitions' follow the fact, not the fad. Usage follows fad.

therefore "theists lack the belief that there is no God" is 100% a valid argument in opposition to 'lack of belief that there is a God'

One of the purposes of philosophy and logic is to sort out the fallacies of popular usage quoted by the dictionary, since dictionaries tend to be highly political and posted the opinion of one man, flew simply because he said it. If you stand by that you have been reduced to denying the facts of the proposition.

 

Do you even read the posts you respond to and quote? Nobody said theists don't lack the belief there is no God. And nothing in your above post relates to anything anyone said or anything you quoted.

It's not shameful to admit you don't understand us or to admit that you now do but were confused before.

 

Dogs have four legs is a fact. But since lots of other animals also have four legs, dogs having four legs isn't the definition of dogs. Being a dog does not equate to having four legs, even though dogs have four legs.

Similarly:

 

Meanwhile you dodged my post to you about how the definition of atheist need not change just because we talk about agnostics.

Whether considering agnostics or not, you still must either believe or not believe in God. You still must either be theist or not. You still must be theist or atheist.