Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

Yes when you, dri and the meatball look in your mirrors

You people seem to think you can jump on wiki read the first sentence and presto your experts! More like FAKE.

yardmeats PIGMENT claim is garbage.

First the color blue is a wide range of wavelengths that runs from violet well into cyan, and they are all on the blue side of the spectum, they over lap.



as anyone who is not colorblind can see,

Just another one of his strawman BS posts

Next photons do not have PIGMENT, of course that doesnt stop him from inventing photonic pigment

With LEDS we can mix any 2 colors we like

I never claimed a prime color blue, and
I never claimed it would result in the prime color green

Again that all his strawman bullshit.




Above is an LED LIGHT SOURCE and I dont see any yardmeats PIGMENTS laying around!

We can blend any color we like using PHOTONS no pigment required!

Readers shouldnt buy yardmeats wooden nickels, they are worthless and he is unteachable like a few others even with citations, now his cheerleader squad well......goes without saying....

@yardmeat debunked again! Weve been here many time and he knows when its time to jump ship and put me on iggy!

For those of you that bought the yardmeats wooden nickels:

 

A little more background: the yardmeat also claimed that A and B each had to be propositions.

the yardmeat is again DEBUNKED

Section 1.1 Statements, Symbolic Representations and 2 Statement
Definition of a statement: A statement, also called a proposition, is a sentence that is either true or false, but not both.

Definitions for Logical Connectives
Connective # 1: Conjunction (symbol Λ)
„If A and B are statement variables, the conjunction of A and B is A Λ B, which is read “A and B”
the truth value of a statement is T (1) or F (0)

and of course these variables are called terms of the statement. That said yes they 'can' be propositions, they can be T and F, they can be 1 and 1, they (terms) do not have to be propositions as the meatball demanded.

Of course when the connective AND is used A and B are called conjuncts.

A truth table is a table which displays the truth values of a compound
statement that correspond to all different combinations of truth values
of the statement variables

Yellow is a truth 'value' represented by the variable 'A' blue is a truth 'value' represented by the variable 'B'



@yardmeat debunked again.

This thread would be much more productive if the cheerleading keyboard commandos wouldnt be buying all those wooden nickels he is selling by the metric ton!! LOL

 

Had enough yet?
Nah, there are several major @yardmeat blunders, but we will do one more for the moment since this is especially good after he came out here bragging about claiming he is a logic teacher complete with students.

(teaching them that I dont know is a legitimate response to a T/F proposition when there is no book or citation on the planet to to validate such nonsense)

Anyway the yardmeat claimed that there is no such connective as "but"!

Commonly used connectives include “but,” “and,” “or,” “if . . . then,” and “if and only if.” The various types of logical connectives include conjunction (“and”), disjunction (“or”), negation (“not”), conditional (“if . . . then”), and biconditional (“if and only if”).

connective | logic | Britannica
https://www.britannica.com › ... › Philosophical Issues

How about that koko debunks the @yardmeat again!

Koko's running 3 for 3, and theres several more but we stop there for now, I think people get the point.

@yardmeat debunked AGAIN!

 

So ladies and germatrons why do people demand citations?

To show your reader you've done proper research by listing sources you used to get your information.

Overview - Citing sources - LibGuides at MIT Libraries
https://libguides.mit.edu › citing

But there are certain people that have god complexes, and they refuse to use the quote function for historical quotes to validate the quote, or post validation for their suspect claims, and their fears have overwhelmed them to the point that they no longer try to explain ANYTHING they CLAIM, with the exception to the yardmeat who GASLIGHTS his strawmen in pretense of an explanation, (people do that when they are wrong and they know they are wrong, and that is the exact definition the bird gave us for trolling, what a shocking coincidence!), they only state wrong and I apologize to the readers for their assaults on your intelligence.

 

Also known as "Kokopuffery".

Kokopuffery:

Puffing out one's chest and strutting while one writes as vaguely and obtusely as possible, constantly contradicting oneself, and refusing to clarify, so they can not be tied to any position, so they can imagine they are never wrong, while at the same time demanding others take up easily attacked positions they don't hold, so others can be seen as always wrong.

Kokopuffery seems to be an ego defence mechanism, likely caused by low self esteem. Sadly it also prevents any learning by the practitioner of it.

 

Does it bother him that at this point I don’t even read his posts anymore? They are all the same: arrogant statement followed by insult followed by opinion dressed up as fact. For someone who claims to be so intelligent and knowledgeable he sure is bad at communicating.

 

Communication isn't the goal of Kokopuffery. The goal is to convince himself (not anyone else) that he is always right, and others are always wrong, so he can feel good about himself. If clear communication gets in the way of that, and it does, then it is avoided at all costs.

 

We can understand and sympathize with you but your narratives are puffery not kokos academic citations. and the meats, well anyone can read above to see how he was totally destroyed LOL

dri hasnt contributed one single thing of value to this thread, claims he doesnt read my posts after quoting me!

All you peeps have is some seriously twisted ****.

 

A few months later, Huxley was to coin the word "agnostic" to describe his own position as neither a believer nor a disbeliever, but one who considered himself free to inquire rationally into the basis of knowledge, a philosopher of pure reason.

[Emphasis Added]

“Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe. Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not.” https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/85020-agnosticism-is-of-the-essence-of-science-whether-ancient-or


Oh lordy lordy run for the hills, more bonafide academic citations from koko,
Oh koko youve done it again!

 

All in your imagination. All you need to do is come up with valid arguments to get me to concede, possibly the funniest and saddest part of this thread is all the proven contradictions and errors the meat has made after bragging that he teaches logic.

Obviously my comprehension of english is far better than those here since I come up with philosophers, you know the peeps with doctorates in universities that validate me and PROVE YOU WRONG, and all you got for your defense is doubling down by throwing more **** at the wall narratives.

Convince? Thats laughable, there is no such thing is convincing trolls in denial of the facts, they are always right and invent the most shockingly frivolous outlandish arguments any rational person is incapable of dreaming of, especially when they are dead wrong. Seen it all here! No proof is enough proof for them. All that is needed is a quick glance at how trolls ignore or dismiss anything contrary to their personal narratives, thats how trolls operate, you should know thats how you defined it.

 

For a person having a good faith conversation that would be true. But that isn't how Kokopuffery works.

Instead what is written is taken by a
Kokopuffer and either intentionally misunderstood or ignored entirely and replaced by something the Kokopuffer wants you to have said, no matter how many times you try to clarify or correct them. This way you can always be seen by them as oh so very wrong PLONK.

Meanwhile they will always write as vaguely and cryptically and ambiguously as possible, and often contradict themself, so they can never be shown to be wrong.

That's not how language works.

Engaging in excessive Kokopuffery can lead one to believe that cited articles one doesn't read or understand must support the kokopuffer's side, even when they have not clearly stated a side without contradiction, and even when the imagined other side hasn't actually been taken in the thread.

 

Nothing to see folks, just more wound licking narrative!

 

[

 

Yeh we see that.
Wow!
What an unbeatable team you have!
Strawman inc, and the Joker.
and strawman inc is so hard up he's liking memes!

 

Like I said earlier:

Thats one of the evil universities filled with smart people that proves the nutterville nonsense these guys always pedal is bullshit. SSDD

 

Disagree, the pic you posted just shows yellow is between green and red again. The picture is a reference to (not a proof of) RGB colour models. While it is a good model for certain configurations of light and colour, it is not an accurate model of how "and" works.

Luckily, we have a tool that gives us the truth of logical statements, syllogisms.

1. "Yellow is green" is false.
2. A conjunction is true if and only if all of its operands are true. (source)
3. It follows from 2 that a conjunction is false if any of its conjuncts are false.
4. Any conjunction that includes "yellow is green" as a conjunct, is false.

(I don't think "yellow is green and red" is a true statement, but more importantly, I don't think it is the conjunction of "yellow is green" and "yellow is red", therefore it is beside the point when talking about conjunction elimination).

I seem to recall you liking truth tables, here is one of how "AND" works (source). A="yellow is red", B="yellow is green".


Since "yellow is red" and "yellow is green" are both false, we're interested in the bottom line. As you can see, a correctly constructed conjunction is false (my yellow highlight).

You can also see in the top line that it is impossible for AB to be true without A and B being true, which is where conjunction elimination comes from.

CE remains unchallenged. As mentioned in the wiki page, it is a valid immediate inferrence, and a rule of logic.

The entire point of our argument is that you've failed to see what the "complete character" of atheism is. Your complete character is at odds with the rules of logic.

Flew's atheism follows directly from the definition of agnostic that you have provided and logical rules. You have not shown that the same is true for theism.

I remember you saying it over and over, I don't remember the actual Stanford article saying anything other than certainly legitimate. I remember it not being an umbrella term, but I don't really care about it being an umbrella term.

You kept restating it, you never provided anything to actually support it. The only support you could find was neg-raising, but you weren't able to show that it applied in Flew's context.

"Argument from ignorance is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false" (source)​

So no, the assertion that something is a fact unless I have proven otherwise is a fallacy.

We need both definitions and logic to make our arguments. In this particular case, it is your failure to produce the relevant definition that shows your error.

The Stanford article says nothing about 420, the vast majority of this argument is not supported by me or the Stanford article, nor have you been able to show how you're supporting it.

I don't read your posts with yardmeat.

I agree. Nothing about yellow in there.

I imagine it is the same argument. We know that on an RGB screen (or in similar setups, like lights on a white wall), green and red can make yellow, but that argument makes a bunch of assumptions about what colour setup we're talking about, how colours are shone, etc., assumptions that are not covered in the word "and".

And I'm saying you're wrong about that. The only problem you can point to is you making an unrelated problem for yourself, standing next to a conjunction elimination. Conjunction elimination follows directly from the definition of "and", if you run into problems with it, then you've failed check it correctly. In this case, your failure is that you haven't made a correct conjunction.

I disagree:

"the and of a set of operands is true if and only if all of its operands are true."(source)​

If "yellow is green" is false (which I agree it is), then no conjunction of "yellow is green" can be true.

So I guess your original statement "yellow is green and red" remains unproven, feel free to prove it in a syllogism. And make sure that you make it a direct conjunction, otherwise it doesn't test conjunction elimination.

Until then, conjunction elimination remains unchallenged (untested even) by your example.

 

Yellow is Red and Green
λ600nm = λ665nm and λ550nm
λ600nm is yellow
λ665nm is red
λ550nm is green
here we are arguing over some off point meatheaded strawman
a strawman proposition already demonstrated to be BS by yours truly.

 

Yellow = red + green
Therefore yellow is red

In the same way that
2 + 2 = 4
Therefore 4 is 2

The argument really is that dumb, unfortunately

What Koko doesn't comprehend is that the letters represent propositions, T/F statements. Otherwise it would his beloved truth tables wouldn't exist.

What would it even mean to say that "Red" is false on a truth table?

If you had a T/F test and one of the questions was nothing more than "Red?" how the **** are you supposed to answer? And if your teacher swore that the question was intentional, you'd have to assume he was having a stroke, was stoned, or was just dumber than a sack of hammers.

 

I am not and have never been a member of the Communist party.

 

Is everyone else also amazed that Swensson had to explain to Koko what "and" means?

 

Disagree. Could you show your workings on this line of math please? "And" is not the same as an imprecise average.

Seems like another lovely example of yellow being between red and green, rather than it being red and green.

I mean, I pointed out that "Yellow is red and green" isn't the relevant conjunction anyway, but you chickened out on that question, so here we are.

The conjunction "Yellow is green and yellow is red" is true if and only if the conjuncts "Yellow is green" and "Yellow is red" are both true.
"Yellow is green" is false.
Therefore the conjunction is false.

Your inability to show that "Yellow is green and red" is true pales in comparison to the fact that it's not even the right conjunction to be talking about. No conjunction can be true whose conjuncts aren't true.

How is it a strawman, when it's word for word copied from your text?

 

TYPO: λ600nm = λ665nm and λ550nm

λ600nm IS λ665nm and λ550nm
4 IS the 2 on the left and the 2 on the right.

Koko did not say 4 = 2 or 2

You brilliantly found a 'typo'!

What some people dont get is there is a difference between their personal truth and a logical truth.

He still doesnt know, unteachable and obsessed with me! lol

 

and that changes the proposition yellow is red and green how?



I used a chart, looks like the primes were off, yellow is 580nm anyway the point is valid.

 

I honestly can't say I would find that all that surprising, unfortunately

 

What it are you talking about?

How does that have a bearing on the proposition?