Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

the first 'assumes' the proposition has a true false answer, the second lists all possible options which includes demonstrating the proposition has a defect and cannot be used. typically it is discussed in terms of True/false

 

My screen is color corrected and its a near perfect yellow.

Nope you created a red herring, since it was clear in my volley with yardmeat that we are talking about the color
yellow is red and green.

the flag has red and green checkers.
therefore green checkers
therefore red checkers

thats why yardmeat tried to insert pigment, to shift the argument away from the point I am making, it appears you are using a different method to achieve the same ends

Im not saying conjunction elimination is wrong, Im saying there are situations where it runs into problems.
Yardmeat used the format a and b 'therefore' b
For instance the propositon the color yellow is the color red and the color green is a sound proposition.
The color yellow therefore green
yellow is not green

 

They were quite clear it has more than one usage by the public. The public defines pot as 420, so defining atheism as an amoeba is only a different usage, and its not useful in a philosophical debate on the best definition for atheism.

 

stanford rejected flews definition, remember?

Contextonomy fallacy, I showed you the negation of belief several times now.

You are trying to shift from debating logic to debating dictionaries now.
My statement is a logical fact unless you can prove otherwise.

I have in the case of the birds, klima stated the semantic using identical grammar to the birds, the birds great distinction is no distinction at all.

 

we can see with our eyes in the pic I posted that yellow is green and red and that is an absolutely true statement.
CE failed, therefore its fallible, therefore you cant simply parse out 1 piece of agnostic and claim atheist since now you change its complete character, same as the opposite claiming agnostic is theist because agnostics do not disbelieve in God. (which is keeping the argument in a logic context, dictionary definitions notwithstanding)
If its all about dictionary definitions then you flush everything stanford did down the toilet. There is a big difference arguing dictionary definitions and logic.

mary is wearing a coat and hat
mary is wearing a coat
mary is wearing a hat
does not change the character or meaning of what mary is wearing.

 

which takes us to the next argument;
agnostic rejects theism, therefore agnostic is not a theist
agnostic rejects atheism, therefore agnostic is not an atheist
therefore agnostic is neither.

Again your basis for claiming agnostics are atheists fails.

 

Some background here, if it helps:

This all started when I and others pointed out the conjunction elimination inference. A and B, therefore B. Or A and B, therefore A. I'm wearing a hat and I'm wearing a scarf, therefore I'm wearing a hat.

Of course, every logic text covers this, and everyone except Koko understands it. This was important because Koko finally admitted that "Koko does not believe that god does not exist and Koko does not believe that god exists." Which is fine. It's neutrality in regards to said existence. He doesn't believe or affirm either.

But when we pointed out this means, through conjunction elimination, that "Koko does not believe god exists," he freaked out. This contradicts years of his previous posts and threads. For years he's said there is no difference between "I don't believe that god exists" and "I believe god doesn't exists." It's absolutely central to all of his semantic arguments regarding atheism.

Anyway, Koko did not understand that the letters mentioned above represent propositions (A is a T/F statement and B is a T/F statement), so he tried providing a counterexample involving color mixing. So he tried saying something to the effect of "But yellow and blue equals green. You can't say yellow and blue equals yellow." This showed he didn't understand the basic concept of how propositions work, but he kept going with it.

I then pointed out that even "yellow and blue equals green" is only true for PIGMENT. For subtractive color mixing. He mocked me for this observation and demanded I prove it. So I provided resources so that he could learn the difference between pigment/subtractive color mixing and light/additive color mixing. With pigments, yellow and blue make green. With light, yellow and blue make white and cyan and yellow make green instead.

I also gave him the example the, with light, green and red make yellow, but that this isn't true for pigment. That's when he tried claiming that I thought that the sun's light was made of a pigment, something I never claimed and which was particularly ironic since it involved him claiming that I didn't understand the distinction between light and pigment when I, in fact, was the one who taught him that distinction.

Anyway, just wanted to go through the history 1) in case it ends up being useful if you do keep engaging with Koko and 2) in case knowing the convoluted and contradictory nature of his arguments gives you pause about whether you should keep engaging. And my apologies if you were already part of all of this and I just didn't recall. It's been a hell of a ride.

If he gives you a hard time about any of this and you need links to further destroy his arguments, I can provide them, just let me know.

 

I explain myself on these points very clearly in my responses to swensson, I suggest people read those instead reading the endless supply of made up fictitious BS that spews when a self imagined god experiences extreme pain from the agony of defeat that results from being busted and debunked down to their ankles. lol

Please dont quote me and respect his desire not to see what I say!

I knew he was obsessed with me!

Didnt even make it 24 hours LMAO

 

Is that stupid look the way you look when you dont comprehend something? Please explain what that means?

Yardmeat certainly seems to think so since he felt the need to try and refloat his debunked torpedoed battleship from babysitting the titanic.

Apparently any reservation you may have does not hold enough water to present a rational argument, how about giving us a clue? Just a little hint what you think the problem is?

 

All except the link demonstrating the use of "I dont know" which he used and doubled down claiming it is a valid answer to a proposition.

It was both his and the birds undoing.

We all know the only valid answers to a proposition is true false or prove its not valid.

In 500 posts all he has done is prove his dirty debate strategies, that are a constant assault on intellectual minds with strawmen, contextonomy, and fabricated false claims attributed to me ad nauseum, after bragging that he is a logic teacher while failing logic 101.

.

 

1) True
2) False
3) False

 

WTF?
proving the proposition is not valid provides no true or false, it throws it in the garbage as dismissed, off the table for debate.

 

Its green on my screen using blue and yellow.

Light blue and light yellow mixed, I posted this over 100 posts ago and he still pretends it cant be done additive. More bullshit and false attribution, I mocked the stupid I dont know argument, since the yardmeat is long proven to be incapable of producing a validating CITATION.

claims made without validation are dismissed as nonsense without validation.

He floods the thread with garbage dodging and false accusations thinking he can slide his nonsense theories that I debunked under my radar.

 

FALSE

TRUE, I refused to repeat what I previously validated because you think you can sneak **** under the radar 200 posts after the fact.

Proving I dont know is valid is on you not me.

FFS dont even know that its your claim you own it, you prove it, NOT ME.

Nothing worse than a failing god complex eh?

 

typo:
"You've refused to validate anything, even after being repeatedly asked."

TRUE as shown above only applies to the highlighted, I was interrupted.

 

3.

 

17.2

 

17.2 and a half

 

17.2 and a half to the tenth power squared.

 

I would just like to interject that Koko is wrong, yardmeat is correct, JollyPenguin is accurate and Swensson is patient. Oh and Koko is wrong.

 

CITATIONS?

I would just like to inject that Koko posted citations from Berkley, you know thats a university with smart people to back kokos ass up.

University of California, Berkeley


Former names
University of California (1868–195





Oh, thats right!

I forgot, the yardeat, bird, and DRI all have Keyboard Commando 'Citation Exemption'.

I always academic post citations, how do I apply for commando exemption so I dont have to post any citations or forum quotes?

Koko has an academic citation on the table thats unrefuted, clearly koko is correct!

 

Wrong.

 

So very wrong. Indeed the word PLONK seems appropriate.

 

In philosophy theres 'arguments in ignorance', however credits have to go to the posting strategy of a few of my opponents we, have a new one to add to the list, 'arguments in obtuse stupidity'. Reaching new lows in reasoning!