Freedom From Atheism

agnostic is an indeterminate condition (unknowable/unknown) which is neither belief or !belief and carries absolutely no position on the matter whereas belief and !belief both establish a position.

{!belief ⊥ indeterminate}

I can carry it forward:

{belief ⊥ indeterminate}

⊥ = contradicts

Where do you see a contradiction? Not clear since I pointed out a contradiction in that post.

 

yeh,

one caveat, no one should deny medical services, or warmth if someone is freezing outside or any other emergency unless doing so would impose an immediate threat or danger.

What is such a travesty is commercial law stomping over our reserved rights, the rights that granted the gubmint authority to form the trust in the first place.

I agree people have the ultimate right to retain the ability and to exercise all rights we reserved before consenting to be governed. Which means that of our now 63million laws on the books, would be reduced to tens of thousands.

 

As an ordained Universal Life Church cleric, preacher and prophet holding all three titles and a doctor of the universe my take is religious people should have no say in secular politics unless your religious factions pay all taxes from institutional income and have complete financial disclosure to the public like any other business. But in this case gay marriage is fine, public schools are fine but need to have career training as an option again and refusal of services is silly just serve everyone fairly.

 

the gubmint has no business in peoples private affairs. I dont have a problem with public schools as long as we get to "elect" our teachers and parental control of all content. If people want to marry a rock let them why would I care, but why you would say nothing to do with secular makes not sense. You cant have a community with out secular interaction.

 

I think when can agree that agnostic = indeterminate != 0, ie agnostics, or indeterminates, exist. Am I right?

Then if

{!belief ⊥ indeterminate}
{belief ⊥ indeterminate}
then
{ (!belief || belief) ⊥ indeterminate}
but (!belief || belief) = 1 by the law of excluded middle, so
{ 1 ⊥ indeterminate}, ie agnosticism does not exist (agnosticism conflicts with identity) which strikes me as a contradiction (or at least untrue). I think the contradiction is introduced in the line {!belief ⊥ indeterminate} which I believe simply to be incorrect.

This conflict can be resolved by ignoring the argument that you've been claiming to make that "not believing a" is the same as "believing not a". It seems to me an agnostic does not believe a, but does not believe not a. If !belief is "not believing a", he has that, but if it is "believing not a" he doesn't have it. Since he can't hold contradictory positions yet his position is sound, it follows that !belief and indeterminate are not actually contradictions.

 

No thats not a correct setup.

its: !belief ^ belief → indeterminate

!belief || belief is not a compliment, 'or' does not compliment 'and'.

The compliment of: !belief ^ belief is !belief ↑ belief which is a nand

Also if you want to set this up using 1's and 0's as if it were electrical circuit you must use a tristate condition to properly display the logic, like -1 , 0 , 1 if you want to use that notation where 1 and -1 is an absolute value and 0 is a null for truth table purposes.

 

But we're not considering the compliment of "and". !belief is the compliment to belief and as such, it is not allowed to have something which is neither. "!belief ^ belief" isn't the set of beliefs and the set of !belief (which would be everything), it's the set in which both belief and !belief is true, which is impossible by the law of the excluded middle.

I don't think tristate is necessary. Belief would be 1, !belief would be any value that is not 1 which includes both 0 and -1. Unless 0 can be said to be a subset of belief, it is part of !belief. That's how "not"s work.

 

if you are saying what I think you are sayin then we agree, which is why a person cannot lack or be void belief [either in a positive or negative sense] because the only thing that is logically available is belief, !belief, and indeterminable.

Therefore logically it has to fall into one and only one of those slots to test true.

(People can of course be void belief-['in']-[some object of disbelief] which of course is also a different data set, so not apples and apples.)

That said people can say they are strong/weak, heavy/light and anywhere in between if they want to put it on a sliding scale for informal parlor talk, but when its gets formal rules apply.

 

That doesn't seem to me to be what I was saying.

The only thing available is belief and !belief. By the law of excluded middle, "indeterminate" cannot be a third choice which excludes both belief and !belief. This means indeterminate must have some overlap with belief or !belief (or indeterminate doesn't exist at all, but I think that option is inconsistent with reality).

Whether there is a possible overlap between belief and indeterminate is a discussion for another time, but the overlap between indeterminate and !belief seems obvious to me.

 

Well indeterminate is the 3rd option for !belief and belief which is expressed as agnostic when referencing theist/atheist.

Think of it like voting on a legislative proposition.
Substituting vote and belief, you can vote yes, !yes, or abstain. Voting likewise has 3 options and no middle turf between any of them.

Theist and atheist are logical compliments, the compliment for determinate is indeterminate. Like voting you vote yes, you vote no, or you dont vote. (dont vote=neither) You are a theist, or an atheist, or agnostic (agnostic=neither).

Law of the excluded middle doesnt mean other options are not available, just that you cant arbitrarily assign a different meaning to a binary compliment and come up with a middle where there is none, hence my objection to the incorrectly used 'lack of belief' [!belief] option that some of these people were using to illegitimately switch the burden of proof by attempting to do exactly that.

Normally I do not bother to go into this kind of depth on these matters but I dont read you as trolling, and you progressed the argument where most out here simply troll their agenda damn the torpedoes, their mouths writing checks their butts cant cash, and I typically dont give them the time of day.

I suppose that still leaves atheism is a religion and how to get that religion out of american politics [freedom from atheism]

 

No what it leaves is atheism is not a religion since the only thing that all atheists have in common is a lack of belief in gods, it leaves the burden of proof with those who make exceptional claims(ie gods).

Still you resort to ridicule and flaimbait, it was interesting watching another poster prove your logic wrong.

Any evidence for these god things of yours yet?

 

Well, law of excluded middle says that cannot be. If belief is complement to !belief, there cannot be a third option.

This is a good example that might shed some light on our disagreement. I think this is not the same example as the one we're discussing. Belief is analogous to vote, yes is analogous to theism, vote yes is analogous to believing theism. Not believing theism is then equivalent to not voting yes. If you abstained, then you did not vote yes. If you voted no, then you did not vote yes. Both of these are subsets of "did not vote yes".

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me you are still implying "belief !a" is the same as "![belief a]". You claimed at some point to have shown this, and I disagreed. It seems to me this needs to be resolved in order to resolve the real issue.

I think the tree example, the vote example and the very existence of agnostics all highlight the difference between the two. You seem to be describing the relation between "belief a" and "belief !a". Indeed, they are not complements, since it is possible to be for instance an agnostic and do neither. However, !belief means "![belief a]" which is a logical complement to "belief a" (being by the ! defined to be the simple logical negation), and being agnostic doesn't make you neither.

Well, if theist and atheist are logical complements (which I for these purposes agree they are) then you have to be one or the other. The fact that you are indeterminate or agnostic about it doesn't mean you cannot be an atheist at the same time.

Wait, no, that is exactly what the law of the excluded middle means. "For any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true" -wikipedia. Once you have defined a set and its negation, everything must fall in one category or the other. Things can at the same time fall into other categories, but that doesn't stop it from having to chose to be in the initial set or not be.

The relation to the burden of proof is not accidental. Many who consider themselves atheist start by observing everyone's failure to meet any burden of proof, sees where that lands them, and concludes that that position is atheism.

I appreciate it. I am not trolling, and I don't think you are either.

 

What's the atheist agenda? Why have I not been informed? Did I miss the memo?

 

The error is that you are switching objects, the object being God (affirmation or denial of) to belief the (affirmation or denial of belief). I assume you know that is a logic error and I have already proved this, and I thought you agreed?

Second your vote example allows for many conclusions and you cant have more than one conclusion per premise.

atheist, theist, agnostic have no overlap what so ever.

vote yes, vote no, abstain (no vote), no overlap there either.

no violation of the middle in any one of them.

In a word you are illegally combining propositions, literally each word is an individual proposition.

lack belief like that other guy was saying is ridiculous on its face, I proved that first thing, its impossible for the human mind to draw any conclusion without belief.

So if you tell me that you !vote yes for theism
That is again a logical error.

!vote yes for theism can also mean you !vote at all now you have 2 possible conclusions for one premise and that is illogical.

your vote not vote example was a bit difficult to follow. It would be far better to change the words to believe=yes !believe=no

Then set your arguments up using yes God, no God, no belief and yes belief and for agnostic neither yes nor no God.

yG,nG and yb,nb for belief I think the error will become readily apparent.

incidentally I have to correct my own error,
I inadvertantly grabbed the wrong operator when I used,
!belief ^ belief → indeterminate
Its a second operation and should be
!belief ⊕ belief → indeterminate
Likewise
!vote ⊕ vote → abstain

 

Yes you did.

Roughly, it was: run amok due to lack of 'objective morality', killing and raping as you see fit. eat kittens and babies, where possible and when convenient, and have sex with anything that moves. for the hardliner, that last can be altered to 'anything'. also, overthrow the government and replace it with communist transgendered feminists.

edited to say I forgot the addendum:

get married and divorced often, and raise kids who get into drugs and have babies at age 16. and don't forget to be gay while doing all the above.

 

Can I settle for a cup of tea, the occasional Hitchens video and some mild discourse on religion. Clearly there is nothing stopping an atheist without objective morals from doing that, its just I figured out along time ago that hurting others was not a good idea, all on my own without gods telling me.

Ps the kittens taste nice though!

 

Phewwww,, all in one breath!

 

I do not think I have agreed to that being a logic error, although, I'm not sure exactly which argument you're referring to. Could you restate it or link to it please?

Similarly the argument about lack of belief (it might even be the very same argument). You keep saying it's illogical or ridiculous, but I have yet to come to agree that it is so, so an argument would be better than a reiteration of the supposed conclusion.

I don't see why one premise has to single out one conclusion. I could have three cars, one yellow, one light blue and one dark blue and say "I will take a blue car today" (or, closer to our example, "I will not take the yellow car"). The fact that there isn't one unique conclusion doesn't make the statement wrong or illogical.

It looks like you've grabbed the wrong operator in "→" too. The current last line seems to say that voting is a subset of abstaining.

 

Boolean algebra
A form of symbolic logic, in which variables, which stand for propositions, have only the values "true" and "false". Relationships between these values are expressed by the Boolean operators AND, OR, and NOT. For example, "a + b" means "a OR b", and its value is true as long as either a is true or b is true (or both). "a ^ b" means "a AND b", and its value is true as long as both a and b are true, Boolean logic can be used to solve logical problems, and provides the mathematical tools fundamental to the design of digital computers. It is named after the mathematician George Boole. Also called Boolean logic. See also logic gate.

yes = y
no = n
0 = lack

Applying logic

For Lack (0)
if 0 then nothing
if 0 or 0 then nothing
if 0 and 0 then nothing
if 0 plus 0 then nothing
if 0 times 0 then nothing
if 0 divided 0 then error

For vote (v)
Choices: vote yes, vote no, did not vote
if yv then voted yes
if nv then voted no
if no choice (abstain)
if 0y then nothing
if 0n then nothing

For diety (d)
Choices: believe in, not believe in, neither
if yd then deity
if nd then nodeity
if no choice (agnostic)
if 0y then nothing
if 0n then nothing

For even (e) [leaves]
Choices: even, odd, no way to know
if ye then even
if ne then odd
if no choice (indeterminate)
if 0y then nothing
if 0n then nothing

The first 2 define the choice, the third is defines no choice made.

However, !belief means "![belief a]" which is a logical complement to "belief a" (being by the ! defined to be the simple logical negation), and being agnostic doesn't make you neither.

For believe
Choices: believe in, not believe in, neither
if yb then believe
if nb then nobelieve
if no choice [in reference to a deity] (agnostic)
if 0believe then nothing
if 0nobelieve then nothing

I don't see why one premise has to single out one conclusion.
Each argument (variable) can 'only' be true or false.

That said, (like you) I have combined logic systems fully aware that is unconventional 'only' to prove a point however the manner in which I used it is 100% functionally correct. I did that to clarify the matter using your same terms. All I can do is explain it. Unless someone can point out an 'error' (and I see none), from this point forward I consider this matter disposed. if you guys have a beef with logicians and their creation and use of formal logic throughout the ages then there is nothing I can do, you have to invent new theorems and convince the world you are correct. But remember, you also have to prove them.

 

I forgot this:

Formal logic

Classical or traditional system of determining the validity or invalidity of a conclusion (inference) deduced from two or more statements (premises). Based on the theory of syllogism of the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC) systematized in his book 'Organon,' its focus is not on what is stated (the content) but on the structure (form) of the argument and the validity of the inference drawn from the premises of the argument-if the premises are true then the inference (also called logical consequence) must also be true. The basic principles of formal logic are (1) Principle of identity: if a statement is true then it is true. (2) Principle of excluded middle: a statement is either true or false. (3) Principle of contradiction: no statement can be both true and false at the same time.

 

I have no beef with boolean logic as a whole, I am just not convinced you apply it correctly. The theorem I've been referring to mostly is not new, it is first referenced by Aristotle.

In the tables above, you seem merely to have stated your opinion, not provided any particular reason to believe it is so. For instance, in the table labelled (d), you list the choices "believe in, not believe in, neither" without justification even though that's where we seem to disagree.

Yes, every variable can only be true or false, but that does not mean that every state of a variable can correspond to only one situation.

 

I made statements, you have the option to prove the logic is incorrect, if you cannot show an error in logic then they must be correct, that is logical.

Irrelevant it none the less has a connected premises in which further logic can be applied.

If you are not convinced that I apply it correctly then you need to either find someone to validate it for you or learn to validate it yourself.

In so far as I am concerned I have proven this every which way but sunday, which is why I am washing my hands of it at this point unless someone can prove the logic I used invalid. Otherwise we can chase ghosts forever.

 

No, I can also show that there is an error in the premises, and I have done so by pointing out that the middle between belief and !belief is excluded per the law of the excluded middle and that agnosticism would have to be non-existent (which it is not) in order to be a third option.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. You said the following:

It seems to me it is quite possible to have two possible conclusions (and that premise is not able to differentiate between them). The example with the cars is an example of this.

 

agnostic is not the middle. never said it was, you did. Just because you have a 3rd option does not mean its the middle. read the definition I posted about the middle.

If you believe its the middle and you want to convince me at this point you need to show the math. neither is not a middle. I cant even think of an example of what might be a middle frankly, 'sort of believe' maybe? I dont recall the car example.

That is the reason I changed the terms to eliminate any discrepancies between usage and meaning by simplification so we could concentrate on the logic in which I said the same things, so dont use !belief from old renditions any more because just get confusing, use exactly the terms I used in the last post so its clear.

I do not recall saying that, quote it please since retaining 'precise' context is imperative.