Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

Anyway that’s the last I will discuss it here. If you refuse to understand, I’m not going to try to force you. Good luck viewing the world through such a narrow lens.

 

see how you conflate, preferred is not the same as 'my definition'. You use words that pretend to purport I made the definition up, which I did not, yet you persist. Thank you for the correction.

You are trying to paste atheist over agnostic and severely muddying the waters and of course, blame me for your equivocation. You and swensson have everything in existence slated as atheist except hard core theists. Thats top shelf equivocation like it or not.

His preferred 'USAGE' is not logical, its not his definition. See you first need to understand grammatic structure and derive correct meaning before you can jump in and argue logic. you are 2 for 2 fail in one post alone.

No one including myself would think what I am arguing here makes me look smart, but I do have a thread about the limits and failures of einsteins mostly hijacked theory of relativity, if you prefer something with a little more meat and potatoes. Of course that has become a religion to the einee worshipers too LOL

 

incorrect conclusion, I will happily 'understand' by which Im sure you mean 'agree' with you, as soon as you 'prove' your hypothese stands up to the rigors of logic.

good luck viewing the world through illogical indefensible fallacies!

 

Yup, that's a more useful definition of the word agnostic. But its not the one Koko wants you to use.

 

No, I'm not. Why do you think this?

You either believe or you don't believe. If you don't believe, then you are a non believer, an atheist. It is quite simple.

It is perfectly logical. It just isn't what you demand.

Yes, we already knew you were a crank. But we thought maybe you'd at least be internally consistent and not demand that X=!X.

 

not true, you failed miserably to prove the point, cant even make a truth table ffs
you cant prove your position by simply ignoring the facts, repetition of your theories does not replace and is not a substitute for the ability to prove a point, sorry

ooopsie, more equivocation! NOPE the actual 'position' is described as believe and disbelieve, not knowledge. Ignoring the definition again!

The reasoning 'FOR THE POSITION' is knowledge. Seriously this requires a good understanding of grammar and context.

where are we at now, 12th or 13th time you have continued to ignore the definition?

 

Sure because you ignore counter arguments and have resorted to substituting rewind repeat for logical proofs.

You and swensson are equivocating the meaning of agnostic and demanding that agnostics are atheists based on a screwball theory put out by flew which every university that has written on the subject has rejected as not logical. In other words my position has university backing. No way in hell will you get me to accept the equivocation you 2 are pushing because like atheist and theist itself neither position stands up to logic.

The use of absence for the definition applied to a specific condition of antiquity that no longer exists. We live in an information highway today. Any claim of atheist (today) is by decision, not accident, not as an outlaw.

The definition of words change when their meaning is obsolete to the point they are irrelevant and equivocation of yesterday becomes more defined.

I explained there are other ways to describe DRI's position that is far more accurate.

Right now we dont know if DRI is an atheist or agnostic, and neither does DRI, but it works great as hedge in case he is wrong, and the use of agnostic with atheist gives him a window to jump out of if someone shows him he is wrong because he made no solid claim! He is this or that.

You would do much better if you took my explanations 'as stated' instead of strawmanning them into your own words and base your arguments with something that at least has an appearance of legitimate justification.

 

It isn't an argument. It is a definition. He can use whatever definition he wants. He isn't "Wrong" to do so, and he doesn't have to prove anything to do so.

Your obsession with truth tables continues to be amusing. You really do think that illustrating your definition in a truth table somehow makes it better don't you? Silly. And then your beloved truth table doesn't even match your text. Even more silly.

What position?

The only position I have taken is to point out you contradicting yoursef.

More equivocation from you indeed. His "position" (not a position but just a definition) isn't described as believe and disbelieve. It IS described about knowledge. YOUR "position" (again, not a position, just a definition) is that it is about believe and "disbelieve" (which is a term you keep using to equivocate further).

You have shown yourself competent in neither. All you do is contradict yourself.

 

Its not my problem you dont understand how to defend yourself
Its not my problem you dont understand context
Its not my problem you dont understand implications
Its not my problem you dont understand logic structure
Its not my problem you dont understand truth tables
Its not my problem you dont understand procedure
Its not my problem you dont understand grammar
Its not my problem you dont understand distinctions
Its not my problem you dont understand how to explain your theories
Its not my problem you dont understand how to prove your theories
Its not my problem you dont understand how you are conflating meanings
Its not my problem you dont quote me, and everyone understands
that no direct quote is the first sign of bullshit strawmen to follow
Its not my problem you dont understand the purpose or usage of dictionaries
Its not my problem you dont understand philosophical methodology.
Its not my problem you dont understand that your equivocation is based in several fallacies
Its not my problem you vascilate between distinction with no difference to no distinction at all!
Its not my problem you dont understand how language and definitions change over time to support clearer, less equivocal usage of terms.

Its not my problem you think the beer farts, belches and strawman rhetoric you post can replace logic and truth tables
Its not my problem you dont understand the meaning of equivocation

Equivocation is your futile attempts trying to reduce a more specific definition to vaguer by throwing everything in the same basket.

e·quiv·o·ca·tion

the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication.


anyone that is not a confirmed theist is an atheist is bunk on its face, as I said reductio ad absurdum, which means reduction of a hypothesis to the point of stupidity.

With yours and swenssons logic, you dont know if someone is atheist or agnostic under your equivocated definition. The definition I use there is no doubt.

Futhermore you have continually equivocated hence misrepresenting issues I made inserting strawmen so you can shift the argument to your strawmen. At this point because its getting more frequent and expanding, I am forced to believe this is being done on purpose.

Unless you can cough up some kind of logic in the form of a TT to prove your hypothesis, its hand time for you, sorry, the nonsense you are trying to drag this thread through is getting completely out of hand.

Go ahead, have the last word, unless there is a truth table PROVING your point, or if you can come up with a valid counter I will not be responding. Thanks for your participation.

 

It is not my fault that you have your head stuck so far up your own ass that you won't let yourself understand what other people write. And it is not my fault that you are so invested in your agenda that you wind up contradicting yourself repeatedly and speaking gibberish.

 

I guess until you answer the points in Post 1571, I can respond to this.

As a summary of points from there which you have failed to address:

• Your statement of Y=!X (when combined with our agreed statement that agnostics are !X and !Y) leads to a contradiction, X=!X.
• The definition of atheist uses a negation, which by the LEM demands exactly two possible states ("belief" and "not belief"). If you try to shoehorn in a three-state logic, then you are investigating something other than whether someone is an atheist as per the definition.
• Your entire tirade about the order of the columns is a red herring, and only a failure to understand the point I was actually making.

I'm not sure which statements of yours you're comparing these to. This bit even specifically points to the area where you and the definition use different statements:

Look at the definition the dictionary gives:
A person who does not believe that God or gods existAnd the definition you use:
Z=!x,y = atheist
x=0 = NOT believe that God or gods exist
y=1 = believe that God or gods do not exist(my formatting in both cases)
Note how you agree with the definition on your first point, but the second point you make is not actually supported by the dictionary. Instead, the dictionary definition recognises no requirement on "believing that God or gods do not exist". That's a bit that you added, and which neither Flew, the dictionary or I have suggested. (source)​

Having both X and !X as false is impossible (as per the LEM), but having X and Y as false is possible (as exemplified by agnostics). Therefore, there is most certainly a difference between Y and !X (and asserting that they are the same s the source of your equivocation). You keep saying it's a distinction without a difference, but you can't show it is so, and it keeps leading to contradictions, showing that in fact it is not correct.

That's not a direct answer to the question. The answer to whether you believe there is a god is true if you believe it, and false otherwise. Statements about whether you instead believe a different statement or in fact remain unconvinced altogether are not part of a direct answer to whether you believe there is a god.

 

You have used every possible variant of the definition as you moved your goal posts around each time you were trapped.

You continually commit a 'semantic fusion fallacy'

agnostic is 'no knowledge', no knowledge is 'complete' absence of belief regarding G/gods, ie "lack of belief", absence of belief takes neither position.

You need to respond to and sort out your previous errors and contradictions sited in 1572 that I rebutted and you never responded to.

 

atheist
[ ey-thee-ist ]
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheist

 

I like this example, I will use the same colour formatting as I have elsewhere, anywhere you see green/red, they will be the equivalents to the green/red statements I have elsewhere. We have three options:

casting a yes vote
casting a no vote
abstain from casting a vote

I agree that "casting a yes vote" is equivalent to being a theist. However, read the definition of atheist carefully, it is along the lines of "a person who does not believe God exists". When we translate this into the senator example, that becomes equivalent to "did not cast a yes vote".

"Did not cast a yes vote" is true for both no-voters and abstainers, so both are covered in the logic that defines atheists (although it is not the same as saying that they are the same thing, just that they have the same answer to one specific direct question). A failure to cast a yes vote is not the same as casting a no vote (i.e. it isn't true that !X=Y).

It is completely possible to abstain and at the same time not cast a yes vote, in the same way as it is possible to be simultaneously agnostic and atheist.

As with atheist/theist, there are only two options between casting a yes vote and not casting a yes vote. There are three options between yes/no/abstain, but there are only two choices for the "not yes vote" decision.

No, they're just different ways of saying the same thing.

No, you have failed to show why it would be a fallacy. There is nothing fallacious about labelling a group that has sub groups (it is possible to talk about fruit without indicating that no distinction exists between oranges and apples). A quick googling doesn't find any "fusion fallacies" (except for some equity-law thing that doesn't seem related).

Absence of "belief regarding Gods", agreed. The definition of atheist that is often brought up is typically phrased in terms of "absence of belief that a God exists", without any requirement on whether you have a belief that God doesn't exist" or any other beliefs that merely pertain to gods.

I don't see in what way any of them are contradictions. You'd have to write that out (of course, you often have, but not in any way that stands up to scrutiny).

A lot of it just sort of vaguely suggests logical errors, what am I going to do with that, write "nuh-huh"?

The "distinction without difference" bit I have responded to repeatedly. I have shown that there is a difference (and that assuming that there is no difference leads to contradiction). I have also pointed out that you have been lacking in explaining why you think there is no difference.

That being said, I have complained about your Y=!X leading to contradiction X=!X for agnostics for far longer, you have still failed to address it.

 

logic conflation

believe is a verb

this is false, the most obvious proof of your error is the commonly accepted and, nand, or, nor, xor, xnor functions.

 

Not the way it works.

If you did not cast a no vote and you did not cast a yes vote, then you chose to abstain.

If you did not abstain and:
a) you did not cast a yes vote then you chose a no vote.

If you did not abstain and:
b) you did not cast a no vote then you chose a yes vote.

Sorry, there is no 'other' way to play those cards without some kind of violation.

 

2+2=4

 

yep

 

You're going to have to be a bit more specific. It sounds a lot like you're whining without actually having any good arguments.

I don't see your point.

How so?
NAND is the negation of AND, NOR is the negation of OR. As you can see in your own table, for each negation and each row, exactly one in each set of negations is false:

For any proposition, either it is true, or its negation is true. None of the negations have a 0,0 combination. There is nothing about the logic gates that contradicts the LEM. The agnostic 0,0 set up is only possible because the two entries are not negations of one another.

You're avoiding the question that is actually equivalent to the definition of atheist:

A person who does not believe God exists
A person who did not cast a yes vote​

The definition of atheist does not include any "if you did not abstain and" clause. It doesn't include any language that excludes abstainers (agnostics). That's a bit that you've dreamt up, and which isn't actually supported by the definition you agreed to.

 

I still say you don't need the fancy tables or circuit diagrams etc. This isn't complicated and those are just pointless window dressing.

 

the voting example I posted is a hard physical reality easily provable as one and only answer for each condition.

if you did not cast a yes vote [1, which forces casting a no vote to be ,0], ie: [1,0], and you did not abstain from voting [0,did not cast a yes vote, did not cast a no vote ,0], ie: [0,0] then no other possibility exists, you cast a no vote.

Anything else defies logic and reason.

this is so easy that no logic education is necessary.

the definition of atheist does exclude abstainers, [0,0], which is someone who rejects, abstains from BOTH atheism and theism, which is identical to someone who rejects voting yes and rejects voting no.

Proof flew is nuts, flewism defies reason as the TT has proven countless times now.

 

now if you think you know of a legitimate way you can prove out flew without contradictive logic, by all means be my guest, and please spare us the nonsense you posted last time:



oddly enough enough agnostic is the only one you got right, (you properly used 'both' inputs for agnostic, and improperly used a single input for the rest) which of course produced garbage.

getting flew into the mix is your problem not mine, I told you in the begining you would be pounding a square peg in a round hole.

 

correction:

if you did not cast a yes vote [1, which forces casting a no vote to be ,0], ie: [1,0], and you did not abstain from voting [0,did not cast a yes vote, did not cast a no vote ,0], ie: [0,0] then no other true possibility exists, you cast a yes vote.

also

if you did not cast a yes vote [0, which forces casting a no vote to be ,1], ie: [0,1], and you did not abstain from voting [0,did not cast a yes vote, did not cast a no vote ,0], ie: [0,0] then no other 'true' possibility exists, the TRUTH is you cast a no vote.

If you dont like it you need to invent a tt that does what you claim and simultaneously does 'not' violate the proven existing true conditions, (or logic, or procedure) thus far you have failed to do so on all counts.

 

Do you see how you're having to add "and you did not abstain from voting"? The definition of atheist that you provided and agreed to is "a person who does not believe God exists", it does not include any "and you did not abstain" wording.

Nope, the definition of atheist is "a person who does not believe God exists", which only corresponds to not casting a yes vote.

Abstainers are people who reject casting a yes vote and rejects casting a no vote. However, since atheist corresponds to "not casting a yes vote" (rather than "casting a no vote"), the second rejection (the one that I underlined above) is not a rejection of atheism in Flew's definition, but of another statement.

Yeah, and if the definition of atheist was "a person who neither believes God exists, NOR is undecided about whether God exists", then that would be interesting, but the definition as we have agreed upon it (and is supplied by dictionaries and Flew) is only "a person who does not believe God exists". Thus, NOR is not the appropriate gate to use.

The NOR gate is a negation of the OR state (between believe God exists and abstaining), but the definition specifies the negation of believe in God only, not the combined state.

If you did not cast a yes vote, you are not forced to have cast a no vote, you can cast neither vote, thereby abstaining. Again, you add "and you did not abstain from voting", which is an addition that Flew, the dictionary, I, or anyone else has asked for. That addition makes your logic (and all the failures coming out of it) yours, not Flews.

It'll be the same ones as before. The thing you're getting stuck on is still you inventing "and you did not abstain from voting" into a definition where it doesn't exist. If we don't allow Kokomojojo to add unrelated stuff to the logic for no reason, there are no problems with the truth tables I have already supplied.

 

you may want to reread my post that is not why that table was made. nice try at a redd herring though!