Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

its off topic strawman red herrings, I am not going to argue your red herrings, stick to the topic please and answer the question: "God exists; True? False?"

 

Then you need to have a word with whoever keeps taking over your account and typing things you disagree with

 

I repeat: "God exists; True? False?"
so simple a child could answer

 

It's true or false. I don't know which. You claim in one breath to understand this concept, then you argue that you don't grasp this concept. Which is it today? But go ahead. You are already typing a response that proves you don't understand the concept and, when I confront you on this, you will once again change your mind and pretend you do understand it. Flip the coin and see which it will be today, Koko.

 

Yet you refuse to answer. Well, it really depends on the day. Some times you refuse to answer, some times you claim both answers are false . . . which violates the LNC, while other times you say that everyone believes in God.

 

yes

Professor Dodge, true to form, dodges the question again.

I dont know does not answer the question

 

Pop the champagne, folks! Koko finally understands bivalence! Drink up . . . until he changes his mind again.

So what was your answer again? As a reminder, today is Friday, and your answer changes with the day, so consult your calendar.

 

more fraud and mischaracterization, I have said its true or false from the beginning prior to your spamfest, its on the record.
What an assinine posting style.
My answer again is: "God exists; True? False?".
You just proved it is you that does not understand bivalence since you do not follow the rules with either a true or false response.
Massive fraud
I dont know is not a bivalent response!
game over!

 

No, you haven't. That would be bivalence and you have denied bivalence. Not to mention the fact that you have said that BOTH options are false.

You've agreed that it is either true false (at least for now, until you change your mind again). That IS bivalence, bud. Massive functional illiteracy.

 

YOur logic is nonfuncrional

I dont know is not a bivalent response professor dodge.
koko youve done it again!

 

Koko, you've gone and changed your mind again. Such a shame. You were starting to understand. Just a second ago you understand that the answer was either true or false, even if you don't know which. And now you say you don't understand that. You should go talk to whoever had control of your account when they did understand it. Maybe they can tutor you.

 

Too late, you outed yourself. you blew it pal, I dont know is not on the list of legitimate bivalent responses to "God exists; True? False?"

Oh koko youve done it again!

 

Maybe try reading your post. Decide whether you think it is true or false or not. You can't even decide which in the course of a single post. Are you willing to finally say it is true or false? I'm not asking you to pick which. I'm asking you to understand that one or the other must be the case. Once you comprehend that concept, you can engage rationally.

 

You just said (and I guess you've forgotten again) that it is either true or false. Why did you change your mind?

 

its not my question to answer it yours and you failed to give a bivalent response to a bivalent question. PLONK

Yardmeatism hits the bottom of the trash bin

 

You appear to be attempting to rig elections now. I didn't vote on anything.

 

Remember, this is the guy who denies he said something he knows full well he said, unless you quote it back at him. Then he just ignores you completely or calls you names, Dr. Dodge.

 

says the guy that posts this proven illiteracy:

good then prove it! remove all the likes!

 

What is it that you don't know? You don't know whether God exists? Sure, but that's not what we're asking about.

You don't know whether you believe? Like your own state of mind is unknown to you? As far as you know, there is a chance you're a devout theist? How can you claim to be an agnostic if you don't know whether you believe? This seems like an incorrect answer unless you're severely confused.

You can believe that, and it's probably true, it's just not the belief we're asking you about, it is not a direct answer to the question. Is "Kokomojojo believes God exists" true?

It is perfectly allowed not to know whether God exists, it just isn't a direct answer to "does Kokomojojo believe God exists?". If the direct answer to "does Kokomojojo believe God exists" is yes, then Kokomojojo is a theist.

When you evaluate definitions, you have to answer them directly. "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer, but it is not a direct answer, so it is not relevant information to whether someone is a theist for instance. You might not know how many wheels a vehicle has, that doesn't mean it's not a car, it just means you don't know whether it's a car.

For our purposes, a proposition is any statement that has a truth value.

"God exists" is a perfectly good proposition, it might be true, it might not be. We might not know whether God exists, but it must be true or false.

"The pope believes that God exists" is another perfectly good proposition. It might be true, in fact, it is true (let's for now ignore the possibility that the pope lies during his credos). "The pope believes that God exists" is true even if "God exists" is in fact false.

Belief is a psychological state, "Kokomojojo believes God exists" is a proposition, a proposition about Kokomojojos psychological state. "Kokomojojo believes God exists" is true if (and only if) Kokomojojo has the psychological state of holding God's existence to be true.

I agree. I'm happy to agree that the understanding is unusual. However, I do not agree that Flew, or modern atheists today cannot use it in an unusual way. There are plenty of "unusual" things which nonetheless happen.

So we're back at the point where Flew's wording is good, you just didn't have a good enough grasp of grammar.

What response? You included my statements in a quote, but you didn't actually respond to it. I have pointed out that your conclusions don't follow from what the Stanford article says. I'm happy for you to clear that up, but until you do, I don't see a discrepancy between me and what the Stanford article says.

Given that I don't agree that there is a difference between what I'm saying and what the Stanford article is saying, most of my post from here goes back onto the pile of things that Kokomojojo hasn't been able to answer satisfactorily.

The difference is that you've been asked different questions. You asked whoeveritwas if God existed ("Dr Dodge provides no source to justify and validate his refusal to answer the "God Exists: T/F" question"), which is at best a difficult question to know. Not knowing is a good reason not to be able to give a clear answer.

You on the other hand, were asked about your psychological state, you were asked whether the "belief that God exists" is held in your mind. Given that you have good access to your mind, you should be able to give a good answer, unless you're lying to yourself.

And in particular, it is the psychological state that determines whether you are, for instance a theist. If God doesn't exist, and person A believes he exist, then person A is in fact a theist. It is the belief that makes him a theist, it is not directly linked to whether God actually exists.

That's why we're asking you about your psychological state, and why you look dishonest when you refuse to answer the important questions and counter with questions that are missing the point.

Well, being a theist or an atheist has to do with belief, and belief is a psychological state. If you're not focused on that, then you've been spending 135 pages talking about something that isn't atheism in a thread you say is about atheism.

 

I disagree with your belief that Logic 101 is the bottom of the trash bin. But it does explain, well, every conversation we've ever had.

 

Well, yeardmeat, you weren't able to answer a bivalent question that you don't know the answer to.... so you are at the bottom of the trash bin for being honest and reasonable. Koko demands that you answer a question you don't have any answer for, while he himself avoids the question by putting it on you. He could have simply stated that yes, its either one or the other, but he doesn't know which. But that threatens his pride too much, so he put the question on you, and demanded you answer it, even though you've told him you don't know what the correct answer is.

Nobody who ever reads this (except for Koko himself) will see him as doing anything but playing games, and I think even he knows that.

 

logic thrives, yardeatism, and the side kickism is in the bottom of the trash can. LOL

 

yes I remember, and you already agreed that is not a proposition so whats the deal?.

I did, I gave a perfectly honest answer "I dont know", I believe I dont know.

You kids made those rules now play by them.

Lying? What you have a crystal ball, or you just want to answer the question for me, thats it, you dont want my answer especially since I am applying the 3 amigos new rules.

game on!

 

You believe you don't know WHAT exactly?

The question wasn't if God exists. The question was if you believe God exists. If you are now telling us that you don't know if God exists, then you don't believe God exists. Or, are you telling us that you don't know if you believe that God exists? You seem to be having a very difficult time understanding that these are two different questions, and that is the core of all the issues you are having above I think, if you are corresponding in good faith, with I very much doubt.

Yes. This gives you away. You are playing games, not engaging in actual conversation. We see this.

 

No one but you is proposing these "rules."