Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

Sorry if I dont have the luxury of simply throwing a label on anything without proving it out neither do you, nice attempt at trying to sneak your definition under the radar.

 

false, it takes a religious position and identifies the well understood source of your worldview.

 

well the bird just disagreed with you by saying atheists can believe in spirits and ghosts and the supernatural LOL

So you and the bird need to duke it out! Since you just contradicted each other!! LOL

 

denying the affirmative accepts the negation as true.

 

"Such secularists are not saying that God does not exist, exactly; they feel unclear about what it would mean to affirm His existence, and thus about the point of denying it. Nor do they have some special, funny, heretical view about God. They just doubt that the vocabulary of theology is one we ought to be using."
Richard Rorty

Or to put it a little differently, you can't do this.

 

Yeh durkhiem is right on target, he did not give a christian definition, nor apologize for christianity in any way, nice redd herring!, plonk

Calling out the nature of your failing is not an insult, nice try though, plonk

naked assertion, plonk

how insulting! LMAO
naked assertion, plonk

He countered your thinly sliced narrow definition, and drilled down to the core/substance of what religion actually is, functionally, you just gave it a lazy dictionary dictionary definition lip service proving you do not understand the real life characteristics of religion. plonk

all that gaslighting you posted? Sure no need to respond to trivials when the all I need do is wipe out your main thrust to clear them all off the table, plonk

naked assertion, plonk

Funny i was thinking the same about you, and it looks like I just proved it with my responses demonstrating you have posted virtually all fallacies, plonk.

Im not christian lol

lead the way!

Then why dont you better regulate what you post to avoid it?

 

Like I told you in an earlier post that there is a lot to be liked about rorty, however people say a lot of things that are not logical, x marks the spot here we are.

 

DIrect? Are you joking? "I dont know" is a 1000% nonresponsive answer for a true/false question!

Its skip the question and move on to the next, and what does a real teach do? They mark anything unanswered wrong lol

You cant rule out true any more than you can rule out that a requirement for green is the combination and blue and yellow, either one by themself is no longer green.

You are making unjustified claims.

Every question demands a direct response.
Any question that does not get a direct response is a dishonest evasion.
Not sure why you would leave your original position.

 

Definition (from your source)
A proposition is a declarative sentence to which we can assign a truth-value of either true or false, but not both. (source) Ah yes so @yardmeat with his "I dont know" attempt at a 3rd option is in fact wrong as earlier said!

 

"I don't know" is not a third truth value option. It doesn't deny the fact that the actual truth value is still either true or false. You sometimes pretend to understand this. I wish you would make up your mind about whether you can conceive of such a basic concept or not. The number of stars in the Milky Way is either even or odd. Not knowing which does not change the TRUTH VALUE. Is this one of the days where you understand that simple concept or one of the days in which you don't? Should I wait for tomorrow's Koko to be able to contemplate this or can today's Koko handle it?

 

you use it as a response to a true/false question, therefore you treat it as a 3rd option, no way for you to get around the slap in the face obvious. Problem is you cant handle facts.

A true/false question requires a true false response, not some BS statement that you know one or the other is true.

I dont know is NOT an option, plonk

 

It isn't a 3rd truth value option. It's an admission that, although the ultimate answer to the question IS STILL ****ING TRUE/FALSE that you don't know which. I've already proven that the inference you are demanding, and which you made up, is invalid. Problem is, you can't handle logic or facts.

 

Which everyone but you understands. It's possible for something to be true and yet for you to not know it. It is possible for something to be false and yet for you to not know it. Why is it that you are the only one who can't understand this?

 

ANother dodge!
I asked which one DUH!
We know its either true of false.
How hard is that for you to understand?

 

In Kokoland, it isn't. In reality, it is. Everyone but you understands this.

 

I'm not sure why you are so upset that you are projecting your own lack of understanding onto me. I understand that it is either true or false. I don't know which. I know that not knowing which doesn't change the fact that it is still either true or false. Everyone else on the forum gets that. You are the only one struggling with that elementary concept.

 

Im not the one screaming
No they dont get it, like you they fail to recognize that "I dont know" is not an optional response for a true false question.
Well the new kid on the block is starting to sound like he may know it, time will tell.
All you need to do is post a valid citation to your claim, (that I dont know) is valid response to a T/F question but we both know you wont find one.

 

They do all get it.

Everyone here (except you) understands that "T-Rexes laid blue eggs" is a proposition that has a true or false answer, even if we don't know what the right answer is.

You keep using the word "valid," but you don't understand that "validity" has an actual meaning in the world of logic. "I don't know" is valid in bivalence. "Just use the Koko inference and pick one even though you don't know which one is right" is invalid. If you'd like, I can provide tutoring on the concept of validity and logic to help you understand further.

 

first you claim there is a valid true false response then you dodge by answering you dont know.

its not a 3 part question.

It does not ask if the answer T,F,or dont know!

You made it up no one including you has been able to cite your "i dont know rule" as valid in a bivalent logic system that you are using because its nonsense and you know its nonsense.

 

Nor is it a 3rd truth value option.

Yes. And if you don't know, you can't logically answer which. you can know that there is a T/F answer without knowing which. You are the only one here who doesn't understand that, and you haven't even been consistent about whether you understand it or not.

It isn't some sort of special rule. It's a basic observation. Just because there is an answer doesn't mean you know it.

Did T-Rexes lay blue eggs or not? (Just kidding, I know you are just going to run away and hide from that question).

 

and you failed to respond to a bivalent question with a bivalent response.

ah yes now you leave logic and backpedal to replace it with a purely subjective psychological position, plonk!

Sorry excuses are not a 'logica'l response to a T,F question

Yet you insist on using as such
Very simple, one lil ole citation to prove your point from ANY university is all it takes. (Dont hold your breath or go on a hunger strike folks, no citation will ever happen)

 

depends on whose side you are on, if you are on their side this is not the case, and you might find defending them quite embarrassing, especially since you already contradicted them on a couple points they have been hammering on over the course of the last thousand posts.

 

Bivalence refers to the TRUTH VALUE. Learn that one day.

ah yes now you leave logic and backpedal to replace it with a purely subjective psychological position, plonk!
Sorry excuses are not a 'logica'l response to a T,F question[/quote]There is nothing logically invalid about not knowing whether a proposition is true or false. In fact, it is invalid to just guess.

Those who have read the thread know this is false.

You've given none yourself, and I've already proven that the Koko inference is logically invalid. You've invented something that is entirely your own, proposed by no one else, and you are demanding to know why there are no peer reviewed articles disproving something that anyone who has passed Logic 101 knows is bull ****.

 

You are the only one here suggesting that we abandon logic and just implement the logically invalid Koko inference.

 

you cant support your nonsense with a citation, sorry, PLONK!