Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

It seems to me, the explanation that these Gonzales and Mikkelson give is exactly how I use the x (again, lower case to avoid mixing it up with "believe God exists").

The definition of atheist I'm using is:

Atheist: a person who does not believe God or gods exist.​

and X is defined as "believe God or gods exist", so Atheist becomes: 'a person who does not (X)'. As you can see, Y does not feed into the equation, so the logic level of that input does not matter, it can be high or low, and it will not affect the resulting output signal. X is required to be 0, but the value of Y does not matter, and can be denoted x (doesn't matter / don't care). This means atheist can be described as [0,x], as I have been writing all along.

(the x here of course is on the input side, rather than the output side, so the line about undefined is not found in my logic, despite you having marked it).

Similarly, you will find in the truth tables that I have provided, that X does affect the atheist output, but Y does not. This is also reflected in the circuitry I have provided, where no wire is attached from the Y input to the gates that feed into the atheist output, Y is not used.

Nope.

Look at the definition the dictionary gives:

A person who does not believe that God or gods exist​

And 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.

I use it the same way as the author of the text book where you got your examples, the same way as Mikkelson and Gonzales who you quoted, as well as many other electronics people. We all seem to agree, it's just you who have some idea about it not being useful/valid/whatnot.

The difference is that "atheist" is defined as a person not believing that God or gods exist, so my logic follows directly from the definitions. Your "negation" that theists would be defined as "not believing that God does not exist" is not found in dictionaries, in usage, or anywhere else in the English language. The fact that you can construct a reverse version of it does not mean that your reverse construction is now the definition.

 

Swenson sir, you have patience beyond compare.

 

Then it simply becomes NOT "not believe that God exists",
but you dont understand either semantics or the negation I just put up in the past I have no reason to believe your understanding has improved today from what I have seen so far.

Dictionaries do not deal in logic, they just quote every dumb ass that gets notoriety or popular stupidity which is fine until you try to prove it.

Hmm seems I used your precise verbiage after all

distinction without a difference fallacy.

So Mr Phelps, your mission is to take that last post and view the appropriate entries as NOT not.

Put your circuit up, PROVE IT, dont care about your verbiage, or how you want to think about it, or what you think it could be or should be.

All I give a damn about is HOW IT IS, so put up that circuit, show us your logic, mine is thus far unassailable.

 

I missed this, like I said you run off on so many redd herring tangents I hardly read your posts any more.

You have not produced a usable circuit or TT yet, for 101 2 input logic and you think you can stick an x in as an input! x is not an input, it is an erroneous useless 'result' of the circuit. Of course that fits Flews lackerism quite well!

But No its not,

There is NO LOGIC LEVEL 'X' or 'x', there is only 1 and 0!

this is hilarious! you have the link pretty please with sugar on top challenge them! Tell them what you just said here!

https://www.quora.com/What-do-Xs-mean-on-a-datasheet-truth-table

You are only a single click away from stardom!!!!!

Post the link to your challenge, if they agree with WHAT IT SEEMS to you then I concede the point LOLOLOLOLOL

.

 

Sure FULL STOP WORKS if you are ONLY evaluating a SINGLE input Atheist versus Theist.

at is z=!x and then t is z=x

It does not work if you are evaluating Atheist versus Theist versus agnostic which requires the use of both the affirmative and its negation.

Now Swensson wants to add flew to the equation but failed miserably, because outside the fact its impossible to accomplish, thus far he did not even create a USEABLE format.

Yeh perty much, I tend to dismiss things already debunked out of hand.

The equation for
ag is z=!x,!y,
ath is z=!x,y and
Th is z=x,!y

So you want to claim that you can simply throw the y out of the equation?

so if an equation states; z = x+y
you like swensson believe you can simply say to hell with y and throw y out of the equation such that, z=x?....and still have the same equation?
You dont see any problem with that either?

---------------------

Oh and Swensson, how come you didnt challenge these guys?
https://www.quora.com/What-do-Xs-mean-on-a-datasheet-truth-table
I dont see any additional posts with your claim.

 

Except of course that it isn’t. Your insisting it is doesn’t make it so. Atheism and Theism are about belief. Gnosticism and Agnosticism are about claiming knowledge. Everyone here knows this except for you.

 

Thank you for your contribution.

unfortunately its patently ridiculous.

I am not insisting on anything, logic dictates the facts not me.

I proved atheist versus theist versus agnostic,

EACH IDENTITY IS A RELIGIOUS POSITION,

no one in the land of reason and logic gives a **** if they think they know something.

The 'RELIGIOUS POSITION' OF AGNOSTIC IS EVALUATED BASED ON BELIEF same as theist and atheist, not knowledge.

Your team did their damnedest to prove flewism, and failed miserably, laughably actually, sad to say.

If you want to evaluate gnosticism versus agnosticism feel free to make your own thread and knock yourself out.

Swensson wanted to debate 'religious' positions, not how much someone thinks they know or how sure they are that they know it ffs

 

Kookoomojo, I'm not even going to try to decode this kooky math you're doing.

 

Yes, you are. You have not used logic even a little bit. Not at all. ALL you have done is demand people use your definitions of terms and pretend that proves some sort of point. It doesn't. And all this hand waving doesn't change that fact.

Koko Defs. Neoatheist Defs.

1. 0. Koko coherent
0. 1. Neoatheist coherent
0. 0. Religion not discussed
1. 1. Equivocation fallacy (Where Koko thinks he is making a point, but isn't)

 

Ah yes so now your team has degenerated into total mischaracterizations, does it make you feel better?

I used swenssons, if you are not happy with swenssons definitions for 'Flews lacker theory' then post whatever definition you want to replace his if you didnt like his.

Dont forget to show your truth table and circuit to PROVE your TT is not all bullshit like your last post.


Here is the link with swenssons definitions: https://www.falstad.com/circuit/cir...QBSvTwJAhAGFQeDKJwSFgLICFvOh9AEvAOGUHhPTgBwQA

Your mission Mr Phelps if you decide to accept is to post your definitions the 'Flew lacker theory', if you or any of your IM forces are caught the secretary will disavow any knowledge.


.

 

NO its not reflected in the circuitry you provided, you have no control gates with an enable disable control pin, its all in your imagination. When you do have an enable/disable control the outputs are invalid, likewise for an x on an input, neither a 1 or a 0 will CAUSE a change on the previous ouput state or it will toggle between 1 and 0 indiscrimately, again because something else is controlling the output, not that particular input






the 'x' in the data table you used is equivalent to the above '?' because it could be a legitimate logic state, NOT a steady state '1' or '0' required for logic because of a control gate not because you thought it was cool to stick an x there.

That is the correct meaning of:

What do Xs mean on a datasheet truth table?

Profile photo for Bob Mikkelson
Bob Mikkelson, BS Industrial Engineering & Electronics, California State University, Long Beach (1971)
Answered September 22, 2018

An “X” means that the logic level of that pin or signal does not matter. It can be ‘HIGH” (1) or “LOW” (0) and will not affect the resulting output pin/signal level.

The X’s mean that it doesn’t matter what those are as inputs, some other input is controlling the outputs at that time. For instance if a reset input is high, all the other inputs are irrelevant.

If the X’s are at an output, it might mean the output is undefined, or is an open-circuit with the sets of inputs.

[IOW DISCONNECTED AND USELESS TO THE OUTCOME!]

I just said that didnt I!

 

That was a mean thing to say, especially since the math z=x+y, is the same formula you would use for 2+2=4, I dont get it whats to decode?

We can express it in programming language, if x==2 and y==2--> then 4.

The only other difference, is you are dealing with conjunctions for instance where in the case of an 'and' if x is true and y is true, then the statement is true, and since its a conjunction 'and', if either x or y is not true then the statement is false because an and requires both to be true for the statement to be true.

 

This entry, I don't understand at all. What is "it" that becomes 'NOT "not believe that God exists"'?

The definition of atheist I'm using (supplied by you) is:

Atheist: a person who does not believe God or gods exist.​

and X is defined as "believe God or gods exist", so Atheist becomes: 'a person who does not (X)'. X (the first entry in our [X,Y] format) is required to be 0, but the definition doesn't include any requirement on the second entry (so, your assertion that atheist is [0,1] is not supported by the definition).

Dictionaries deal with the meanings of words, which dictate which logic is applicable, and my logic derives directly from that. True, dictionaries don't deal with logic per se, but I'm pretty sure they don't support you adding clauses without any justification.

I dunno, it seems to me you have added "believe that God or gods do not exist", that doesn't seem to be a part of the definition I have suggested.

Nope, there is a difference, otherwise you wouldn't have to shoehorn it in to construct your logic. If there was no difference between the two, then agnostics would be impossible (since they have one but not the other).

Well, in Flew's definition, an atheist is "A person who does not believe that God or gods exist". The fact that you want to add "believe that God or gods do not exist" is fully on you, and is not a problem with Flew.

Our [X,Y] format shows the inputs to the logic. For instance in this table:

We write the first line as [0,0], so the numbers in the brackets are clearly the inputs. Similarly, when I write [0,x], the x is an input to the logic, not an output. This is also the way it is used here:

and how it is described here:

An “X” means that the logic level of that pin or signal does not matter. It can be ‘HIGH” (1) or “LOW” (0) and will not affect the resulting output pin/signal level. (source)​

So the experts agree with me that it's a perfectly fine way to use an input to the logic.

I agree that there is no separate logic level x, but there are instances of logic which work regardless of whether the logic level is 0 or 1, and we denote that x (for instance, a French person is French, regardless of whether they are left-handed, when evaluating Frenchness, the input for left-handed is irrelevant, and can be denoted x). That's not a different logic level, it merely denotes that it would work for either 0 or 1. This is used by tons of people, including ones that you have quoted as authorities.

Why would I challenge them? I agree with them. Again, it is your interpretation of the words that are causing the problems, the people there have not written anything other than what I have written.

This seems overly complicated, and as it has the undefined entry as an output, rather than as an input as I suggested, it is not really relevant. You don't need to have gates to represent the fact that something doesn't matter, you can simply not connect it.

Nope, I use x as an input, I have not suggested it as an output. [0,x] denotes the first input X being 0 with no demand on the second input Y.

Yep, disconnected and useless to the outcome. I have disconnected Y from the evaluation of "Atheist" (since the definition requires only an evaluation using the input from X). As such, the logic level of Y does not matter, it can be high or low, and it will not affect the resulting output, just as Mikkelson says.

Luckily, as Flew, and even some definitions that you provided yourself, "A person who does not believe that God or gods exist", only the single input is needed.

Nope, it is the definition that dictates what the word means. The fact that you in your free time may be evaluating "agnostic" or anything else is not part of the definition, and therefore has no impact on whether the word applies.

Well, as you can see in the definition, the "y" was never a part of the equation. It is your arbitrary addition of this that breaks your logic.

Nope, you added "believe God or gods do not exist", that has never been a part of my or Flew's version, nor the Oxford one.

 

Yep there you have it!

I told you there is no 'x' in logic,
there is only 1 and 0, and
a negation is inseparable from its affirmation,
except of course 'what it seems' in your world,
thankfully the rest of the world is not in 'your' fantasy logic world.

I accept your concession.

Thanks for playing though.

 

btw, the definition koko used was 'believe and disbelieve', all definition changes from that point forward are on you moving the goal posts.

Fabricating posts another reason, you get the hand at this point.



Flew and the 'Lacker' theory stands debunked.

 

There is only 1 and 0. x represents an input that is either 1 or 0, but where it doesn't matter which one (so writing something as x does not violate the idea that there is only 0 and 1). The electricians and authors etc. that we have been quoting all use it, so it is clearly a perfectly usable notation.

Agreed, but the negation of X is not(X), and those I have not separated. Y is a completely different statement, which can be easily separated.

Yep, and all the flaws you found were flaws in that assertion. Flews logic doesn't use that definition, and no problems arise. The error is isolated to your pulling in several definitions.

Nope. Flew constructed his logic with one specific definition, the goal posts were already set. It is you who change the goal posts when you on top of that impose the definition "!x,y".

You are perfectly free to go on and construct your own arguments based on that definition, but if you do, it is no longer Flew's logic you're assessing, and the errors you find are (in this case) due to your addition.

 

ah so you think I am misrepresenting your ideology?
Ok then here is your chance to represent flew.

Lets find out:
Flew:

1) Everyone is presumed atheist until a God is proven. true? false?
2) Has empirical evidence of a God surfaced? Yes? No?

If you dodge or refuse to answer any questions necessary to lead to a conclusion will be considered admission of concession.
.

 

Not sure that I'd call it my ideology, and I don't know if you're misrepresenting it, or if you've simply misunderstood it. But yes, it seems most of your "debunking" attempts rely on introducing requirements to the logic which Flew hasn't actually suggested.

I don't think your question 1 is representative of the wikipedia quote.

The Flew quote suggests that a person should presume atheism (until there is evidence), whereas you ask whether a person is presumed to be atheist. Your version seems to be about what presumptions we make about other people, whereas Flew's quote is about what he thinks other people should presume about the existence of God.

But for the purpose of clarity, here are some answers.

1) Everyone is presumed atheist until a God is proven.​

False. For instance, I don't think evidence of God has surfaced, but that doesn't mean we presume that the Pope is atheist.

1) (except how I think Flew meant it) Do I think people should presume/presuppose atheism until a God is proven true.​

Technically false. I disagree with Flew on some unrelated issues, which makes me not think the above. Flew on the other hand would likely answer "true".

2) Has empirical evidence of a God surfaced?​

In my opinion, no. Flew, I believe answered differently at different points of his life.

Needless to say, your continuing dodges of several of my points are regarded similarly. You haven't really addressed the glaring difference between the definition as given by me/Flew/dictionary and the definition you use in your logic. You haven't justified your "distinction without a difference" argument. You have not provided any support for these "standard definitions" of yours.

 

PROOF that its you who is misrepresenting flew.

"one should presuppose atheism until empirical evidence of a God surfaces."[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

Not a damn thing to do with belief

falsification!
its not a wiki quote, its an archived flew quote

therefore the pope is an atheist.

Not me, you falsified the meaning of the 2 engineers with the typical "I think" bullshit red herring because they confirmed what I said.

You can 'think' whatever you like, however there is no such thing as an 'x' in formal logic, oh there is? prove it, and in addition to your procedural violations, and trying to use an asynchronous jk flip flop for this is ****ing joke! Go ahead! Show it on falstad! We both know it aint never gonna happen.

I told you unless you can show your work in the form of gates and you chose falstad to do that, I wont spend any quality time watching you dance around in circles.

Where is your gate logic on flstad?

Until you show everyone out here that you know your stuff by gates on falstad, you are just posting trash. I backed up every one of my claims with gates, proving my position is impenetrable.

Presently there is no need to address any of crazy paths you tried to take this since you misrepresented flew in the first place, you lost the initiative.

 

Sure it has, this point follows from his definition, which relies on belief (although it is phrased in terms of "positively asserts" in the quote in the wiki page).

Don't care what you call it, your question was about a different statement than the one found in the quote.

Nope. He's saying the Pope should be atheist (of course, unless the Pope considers himself to have evidence, which he well might), not that we should presume that he is one.

They explained how an x can be used correctly, representing an input the value of which does not matter, which is exactly how I've used it. No falsification required, I have tended to quote it word for word.

In the circuit truth tables, x represents an input which can be either 0 or 1 without breaking the logic. This concept, being a reasonable one, can of course be written in formal logic, in this case as Y∨(!Y). This of course evaluates to 1, so we can write out a full definition of atheist:

Atheist = (!X) ∧ (Y∨(!Y)) = (!X) ∧ (1) = !X

The concept that I have denoted as x exists in formal logic (as well as electronics, computation or any other well-behaved logic). It is not necessarily denoted with an x in formal logic, though.

Nothing has changed about my set up, the circuit diagram is still the one found here:
link
resulting in the following truth table:

(with the caveat that the 1,1 case is not treated particularly well, since I'm not really sure what it would mean for someone to hold that position.)

None of your objections have held up, there are counterexamples from experts to all the "rules" you have made up.

It seems to me you have misrepresented Flew, and that you use it to divert from the fact that you don't have answers to the questions. You can dodge all you want, but central to our disagreement is the fact that the dictionaries, Flew, I, etc. all agree on the definition of atheism as "not believing that God exists", (i.e. "!X") and that you're the one who's moving the goalposts by without justification introducing a separate statement "!X, Y".

 

fine show your expert sources that proves your nonsense lol

you are just jerking us around and youve been busted.

sure they have, you havent figured it out yet thats all.

I have never seen such blatant TT abuse in my entire life.

 

That you did, your understanding of it however is total bullshit, you did not go on quora and challenge or ask thm the meaning of what they said and we both know why!

 

source that nonsense

 

****ing DUH already!

That is what I said umpteen ****ing times, that you (flew) thinks anyone not a theist is an atheist, which is absurd and false on its face. The whole world disagrees with that. Your formula is dead wrong for reasons given in previous posts but thanks for agreeing me however, proof I did not misrepresent flew after all according to you! so how long will it be before you catch up to me? 10 years enough time?

!x only works if you are comparing 'strictly' atheist to theist since they are negations of each other with absolutely NO other consideration.

Full circle! total waste of everyones time. bravo!

 

False

He is saying the pope should be regarded as an atheist until the pope can provide 'empirical' evidence, that is hard evidence that would force an atheist to believe in God. Again you distort the meaning and I am sure will blame it on to me to take the heat off you.

For much of his career Flew was known as a strong advocate of atheism, arguing that one should presuppose atheism until empirical evidence of a God surfaces.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew