Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

Yes that's my point. Koko is purposefully doing exactly that. It is a language trick he attempts. I have him on ignore now but I bet you he didn't respond to my pointing this out except by perhaps some unrelated side remark or personal attack.

Yes.

But no amount of explanation from you will get through to him because he doesn't want to understand you. He wants to misunderstand you, so he can convince himself he showed you up.

Oddest part of it is that if he did engage you in good faith conversation instead of playing his games he may be shocked to learn that you actually agree with him on many things, and he has imagined you think things he deplores that you don't actually think. That won't be everything of course, but I bet it's more than he imagines. He has generalized and projected on all of us multiple times thoughts and opinions I don't think any of us actually hold.

I am absolutely amazed at how patient you have been with him over the, now years on this thread.

 

He understands. If he admitted it then he would lose his childish insult towards you. You would stop looking like an idiot who thinks "I don't know" is a truth value (which of course you never said; but he needs to pretend you did, and that you still claim it to be so).

 

After Koko told me this of Flew, and after also reading how Koko mischaracterizes everyone and everything, I would still give Flew the benefit of the doubt. Also note how no quote of Flew (not even one taken out of context) was given.

Also let's keep in mind that this is Koko's claim and not Draper's. There is a risk here of Draper being misrepresented as well, even as Koko claims to side with him.

 

lol
your terms not mine.

The color yellow is the color green and the color red.
you admitted earlier I was using short hand now you seem to have forgotten it, there is the long hand.
100% valid statement/proposition.
Dont blame me you cant get it to work the way you want.

 

more like you dont understand how that can be considered correct LOL

 

otherwise a hammer can be defined as a cotton ball on the end of a toothpick LMAO
Id expect that reasoning from the bird!

 

Antony Flew, an academic philosopher who expounded atheism for most of his life but made a late conversion to belief in a creator, has died in England. He was 87. Flew died April 8 after a long illness, according to a notice his family placed in the Times of London.Apr 14, 2010
Antony Flew dies at 87; atheist philosopher who changed his mind ...
https://www.latimes.com › local › obituaries › la-me-anto...

 

as usual you will never post a citation that validates your claim SSDD

 

to be logically contextual however if atheist is the psychological state of not theist then theist has to be the psychological state of not atheist, if we want to maintain contextual symmetry. otherwise we are back to the cotton ball on the end of a toothpick = sledge hammer

 

again you mix contexts, metaphysical/psychological and grammar switchups, but no one tops the bird for that number

theres a big gap between disallowed and rational I work off of whats conventional and rational you seem to enjoy the extremist approach

I posted a perfectly logical statement, you dont like it cuz you cant rationally defeat it

 

as the nose grows!




thats what they do when all else fails folks!

 

Koko mischaracterizes?

I had to pull a quote from a 'published' philosopher before the bird would acknowledge his nonsense and mischaracterization!

I quoted flew many times, HOWEVER the argument regards swenssons portrayal of flews arguments. Seems you are sleeping at the helm again.

There are several things I agree with draper on as well as a couple that draper clearly have wrong.
With you the whole english language is at risk!
Exhibit A:

Exhibit B:

Language trick?
Exhibit C:

LMAO

 

Im bored lol

Its dishonest to argue based on anything other than convention and reasonable methodology and the purpose is for 'best fit' which argues on the basis of what is allowed, not some of the obscure extremist logic you have come up in here that are not even logically valid.

Koko symmetrically equivalent definition to "simply not go left", which in fact is true for those who stay motionless, and a perfectly symmetrical negation to flews definition.

Therefore everyone who did not go left is a subset of !atheist.

Yes and the negation of "go left" is "not go left". You can tell by the word "not".

Good luck with that, Im pretty good at grammar

You dont know that, for all you know all the people did not go right.
For all you 'know' all the people neither went left nor right.

Yes and people who remain motionless are a subset of those who did something other than going left. (And "did something other than going left" is equivalent to Kokos theist)

Which I am stating arguing in that fashion ONLY to expose the incredible nonsense in that position, it is not a rational position.

In common parlance people that remained motionless are equivalent to agnostic! LOL

Therefore agnostics are a subset of both atheist and theist according to flew logic.

If you want to define atheist as a negative then to remain on context you also have to define theist in the negative, unless of course you want to promote bird logic where we can define a sledge hammer and a cotton ball on the end of a toothpick.

 

I know. Mine follow the correct construction of a conjunction, yours don't.

1. "Yellow is red" is A
2. "Yellow is green" is B
3. "Yellow is red AND yellow is green" is A AND B
4. "Yellow is green and red" is (for our purposes) an unrelated statement, does not follow from the above​

Line 3 shows a correctly made conjunction, which as such follows conjunction elimination. Line 4 is different from the correct conjunction, and so is not a counter example of conjunction elimination.

Line 3 can be used to test conjunction elimination, but you're trying to use line 4, which is not a correctly made conjunction.

I said "yellow" can denote short hand (source), I have made no statement about how you are using it.

Regardless, neither your long hand nor your short hand are correct conjunctions, so I don't care hugely which way.

I blame you for it not following the logical rules. A conjunction is true if and only if its conjuncts are true, you defy logic by arguing that it is true, when the conjuncts are false. You've violated the rules of logic, why wouldn't I blame you?

I certainly don't understand how true can be considered false.

Let's see:

Sledgehammer: a large, heavy hammer with a long handle, used for breaking stones or other heavy material, or for hitting posts into the ground, etc.​

(source)

I don't see anything linking sledgehammers to cotton balls. I see no mention of any "logical symmetry". Try again.

Flew gives a few examples that are defined in a similar way:

"Amoral": Even though "moral" has complex and complicated definitions, "amoral" is sufficiently defined as "lacking moral sense".
"Asymmetrical": Even though "symmetrical" has a rather complex definition, "asymmetrical" is sufficiently defined with "not symmetrical" or "lacking symmetry".​

Clearly, the a- prefix doesn't denote a demand for the "logically symmetrical negation" that you ascribe to it.

I don't think so, I use only the context Flew spelled out. If you think I use some other context, check your reading comprehension.

My approach is no more extreme than the fact that we can use orange to mean either a fruit or a colour.

I disagree, there is no merit to convention as long as you are clear. If it is convention that the sun moves around the earth, you are perfectly able to talk about a model in which the earth moves around the sun, as long as you make it clear.

The purpose for "best fit" is also dubious. If a particular writer has a particular point to make, then "best fit" is irrelevant, and instead we can pick whichever definition we want (as long as we're clear). A good example of this is "orange", nobody bothers figuring out which definition of orange is the "best fit", we use both, as long as it's clear which one we use in any particular sentence.

Neither of these are extreme, they're the way English (and most languages) work.

I agree that "simply not go left" is true for those who stay motionless. I.e. agnostics (the motionless) are a subset of people who did not go left.

Of course, "going left" is not what atheism is in Flew's setup, so none of this corresponds to !atheist.

"Therefore everyone who did not go left is a subset of !atheist" seems not to follow from Flew. If anything, Flew might say "!atheists (i.e. theists) are a subset of everyone who did not go left".

Agree.

Sure, but in our example, there are people in every category (there theists, atheists, strong atheists, agnostics, etc.) so we know that in fact not all people remained motionless.

People who remain motionless are indeed a subset of those who did something other than going left.

Of course, in Flew's, Draper's, Googles, Merriam-Webster's, and my definition, that's not what a theist is, so any problems you get from that derives from your assumptions, not ours. We would all say theist is equivalent to going right.

Nope, agnostics are a subset of atheists, but Flew didn't and wouldn't define theist as "not believing God does not exist". He and everyone but you define it as "someone who believes that God exists", which an agnostic would not fulfil. So, Flew's logic has agnostics as subsets of atheists, only Kokomojojo logic makes agnostics both theists and atheists.

Nope, Flew's definition space has theist roughly as "someone who believes that God(s) exist", and atheist as "someone who is simply not a theist".

As mentioned, we have many examples of words that work in the same way:

"Amoral": Even though "moral" has complex and complicated definitions, "amoral" is sufficiently defined as "lacking moral sense".
"Asymmetrical": Even though "symmetrical" has a rather complex definition, "asymmetrical" is sufficiently defined with "not symmetrical" or "lacking symmetry".
"Apolitical", "asexual", "asocial" etc.​

This shows that it is allowed, in fact standard, to define a- prefixes as negatives, without defining the root word as a negative.

Flew has never espoused any context in which you have to define theist negatively, to assert that "context" is a contextomy on your part.

Again, I'd attack your reasoning for demanding that the positive be defined in the same way as the negative, but you haven't given a reasoning, so I guess, walk over.

 

I think he was referring to when I told him that he can use whatever definition he likes, so long as he is clear on what he means by a word and so long as he doesn't equivocate it to another meaning.

If he wants to define a sledgehammer as a cotton ball on a toothpick, that's fine with me. Define your terms clearly and I can understand what you then go on to say. Any objection I raised to your chosen word definition wouldn't invalidate your point made. I would still have understood you and your point would still stand on its own merits.

We may not be speaking English at some point, but who says we have to speak English? If we understand one another, we understand one another. The point is still made.

You made a similar point here:

Koko has repeatedly taken what somebody said, having clearly defined their terms, and then pretended they said what they didn't, by using a different definition of a word that they used.

He seems to think that what they communicate changes based on his word preferences, regardless of how clear they define their terms.

Using the cotton ball example, if I said "By sledgehammer I mean cotton ball on a toothpick; I smacked a sledgehammer against his head" Koko would declare that I just admitted I tried to murder someone, whereas you and everyone else would know otherwise.

 

Dream on!
nonsense
Prove it!

Wait, instead Ill prove how wrong you are, how about that?

The hat is BIG and green!
therefore the hat is BIG -true

Look how well that worked!

Still not convinced?

The hat is BIGand green!
therefore the hat is green -true

Zippo, Nada, Nothing wrong with my construction.

If my construction was faulty CE could not work for the example just given.

So.......prove it, my grammar is 500% correct, how do you know?

Because I just proved the grammar works.

Prove it, make it WORK for yellow is green and red.

 

It's no different than trying to debate algebra with someone who doesn't understand that the letter variables represent numerical values. He doesn't understand that the variables in logic represent propositions: true/false statements. I provided him with a source for this somewhere around 100 pages ago (the same source also clarifying that it is possible to not know the truth value), and he was never able to respond.​

 

How about that no citation super strawman strikes again!
The source that he supplied was for his strawman not this, it showed no such thing.
I dont know is not a truth value therefore is not an answer to a proposition as you argued and appear to continue to argue.

I have tried to teach you this simple concept countless times now, logic teacher superstrawman extraordinaire.





There is no logic book or academic on the planet foolish enough to agree that your "I dont know" is a valid answer for a proposition. "I dont know" is NOT a truth value therefore NOT a valid answer to a proposition! Please do some homework and refrain from position such ridiculous nonsense in the thread.

 

I am surprised such a source felt it necessarily to say that. It's like saying fire is hot. Koko won't believe you unless you quote a source, and then of course he won't read the source.

Doubly funny was when he repeatedly dodged answering the same question and realized admitting he also doesn't know would smack himself.

He desperately needs to pretend you said " I don't know" is a truth value, something so daft that I bet you never even thought he could imagine that when you said you don't know.

 

Yeh I remember when you did that to the point I gave up with the foolishness below!

Your grammar is so poor and you are so stubborn that instead of you proving it true I had to prove it was false by quoting a published philospher ffs! and you still argued that same crazy ****.
AND:

which is why you are out of your element in a thread attempting to find a best fit definition.
you are not ignoring me if you are responding to me by proxy

you and superstrawman are obsessed with me

you are speaking english, its just incomprehensible english.

Correcting your equivocations and incorrectly used words to demonstrate a point is using what someone said in a correct context.

Your preferred words create contextonomy fallacies and you try to push that off as good and logical grammar.

Again you are talking about swensson and yourself who foolishly attempted to argue water is not wet and I had to pull up citations to again prove how foolish the whacky doodle claims you make actually are!

God is a 'Holy Ghost' !


Definition of Atheist:
atheist n
1. theist
source: www.birdbrain.com

Face it you and superstrawman extraordinaire are obsessed with me! LOL

Claiming to ignore someone then continuing to argue against them is so hypocritical it rises to the level of a lie, of course in your dictionary it probably means picking at your toe jam.

 

Take note I really dont give a damn what statement you come up with or how you re-write it to prove yellow is green and red.

Just prove it.

the roof is green and flat
∴ the roof is green -true

the ball is round and soft
∴ the ball is soft -true

the lamp is tipped and lit
∴ the lamp is lit -true

the frog is wet and cold
∴ the frog is wet -true

The color yellow is the color green and the color red
∴ the color yellow is green -false

 

Agnostic is NOT a belief.
Agnostic is a position on whether or not you have knowledge of God.
Gnostic claims to know whether or not a God exists
Agnostic claims they do not know whether or not a God exists.

 

Agnostic is a belief that you can’t know whether gods exist.

 

Catholic means addiction to cats.
Protestant is an offended insect.
Atheist means present at a robbery.
Islam means I am a pro wrestler.
Buddhist is one who cries out for Bud Light.
What does a Hindu?
Isreal isfake?

Ok I kinda had to cheat at the spellings of the last two. And yes, hist is a word. It means calling for attention.

 

you are a lexical grammatic genius! I highly suggest you write your own dictionary signing in your real name so you get full credits!