Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

I made a typo in the above in the second to last paragraph, erroneously making it a double negative when it should read does instead of does not in the final sentence. Board won't let edit and correct it.

 

In the above are you saying agnostics are irrational?

If disbelieve means "not Believe", and you are answering no to both believe and not believe, then you are saying X and !X, which you and Swensson have both correctly observed is a contradiction, and thus irrational.

On the other hand, one could both not believe there is a God and not believe there is no God. Note again that "not believe in God" does not equal "believe there is no God". And that is why agnostic can exist as rational.

 

false, you are not reading the tt correctly.

each title row is an independent input pair not tied in to the others.

It proves the semantic stupidity of the neoatheist/flew argument, the results are always the same no matter where the goal posts are moved and no matter which semantic is used.

neoatheist theory is clearly proven to be masturbationism.

 

Im waiting! See underlined

 

Your two columns are then just negations of each other, having agnostic reply no to both X and !X. Meaning Agnostics would always be irrational.

This doesn't address what Swensson was saying at all. His X and Y are not opposites or lists of opposites.

 

every dirty debate trick in the book eh....
now quote mining to change the meaning of the definition and intended meaning for this debate to some bullshit strawman you want to argue.

Dis- is a negative prefix. It means not or none.
When we add dis- to the beginning of a word, we give it the opposite meaning.May 15, 2014
https://www.ecenglish.com › learnenglish › lessons › dis-p...

a rational person claiming to an atheist by answering no to believe is forced to answer yes to disbelieve. Answering no to both is agnostic.


Antonym

1. a word opposite in meaning to another (e.g. bad and good ).
Definitions from Oxford Languages


Negation

Opposite
1. the contradiction or denial of something.
From Oxford Languages

 

hence invalid propositions for comparative analysis of the issues under consideration, thanks for that admission of his logic failure!

false, it proves your semantics and composition errors in spades!
LOL

 

I was not arguing anything. I was asking you for clarification. And your response gave none. Are you on are you not saying that agnostics say no to both "Believe in God" and "Not Believe in God"?

Ok, since you like to teach us English (and it is my second language btw), what to you mean by "person claiming to an atheist"? Claiming what to an atheist? Why does it matter who they are talking to? Or did you mean "claiming to be an atheist"?

And are you saying that a person "claiming to an atheist" can not be rational saying both X and !X, but somehow an agnostic can be rational saying both X and !X?

 

It proves nothing except that you like to make tables misrepresenting what others say. That isn't a table by Flew or Swensson that you are rightly pointing out is self contradictory. That's a table by you.

 

I cant respond to your questions because you ignored and failed to respond to my questions in post numbers 1499, and 1506.

 

no one has posted a table made by flew, why dont you be the first!

swenssons table is a disaster, again despite your blind denialism the table I posted proves out the BS equivocation and semantics used throughout the thread so far by you and swensson. (and of course its my fault, the scapegoat for your failures in logic.)

Nope my table is flawless, and unassailable.

My logic and TT match perfectly, there is one truth statement (identity) per each pair of input conditions, correctly taking into account the connectives!

There is nothing invalid presented as being 'true' in mine, swensson on the hand things theists both believe and disbelieve at the same time, which even you admitted is not a possible condition.

The gates and table functions agree perfectly

I have one identity per condition and no errors, nothing hidden or left out like the swensson example:





feel free to look at the semantics table if the verbiage alludes you.

Nonsense, I cant even get you nor mister equivocation to answer the question in post 1504: How is anyone supposed to know which side of the 'or' you or flew is using?

It not possible to misrepresent what you knowingly and purposely leave undefined for the purposes of equivocation. no other possible reason exists for your refusal to answer the question in 1504.

Further more, Swensson deceptively left out the part that shows the error a theist as 1,1, (which is not only illogical but top shelf over the top ridiculous!), so he knew his truth table was wrong up front, I exposed the errors, he refuses to change it, and you argue in support of the errors he made! Bravo!



there is no 1,1 in his posted illustration.

I posted the real results, and made a truth table illustrating the errors and nonsense and he blamed me for making an incorrect TT to distract from the fact it matches his logic precisely.



I show the real results and I generously took the time to mark up and demonstrate the results of his TT.

Not only is neoatheism irrational if what we see here from neoastheists trying to prove their position is representative sample its a comedy of errors.

Hell you guys cant even tell me which side of the 'or' is being used in your lacker atheology, that I am still waiting for as shown in post 1504.

 

Your table could only represent sound logic if Y doesn't equal !X, and yet you keep saying it does. If it does then you have agnostic set at 0 for both X and !X, which you correctly pointed out is a contradiction.

This can be saved by using a different common meaning for "disbelieve", being "believe there is no", which despite what you seem to think, is not the same as "doesn't believe there is".

 

You are expected to figure out what is meant by the context of what is being said.

For Flew, you either believe or you don't. If you do, you are theist. If you don't, you are atheist. Full stop. Nothing more to it.

Agnostic for Flew requires answering another different question and obtaining more information. You misrepresent both Flew and Swensson when you fail to grasp this.

 

Yeh I did that one already clearly I grasp it far better than you do since here is the truth table and circuit



easy peasy!



link
As we can see the only person qualified to be a TRUE lacker is agnostics because they lack belief and disbelief!

you fail to grasp flewism does not stand up to logical review.

 

false I have agnostic as rejecting both believes and disbelieves.

 

Which is a contradiction if by "disbelieve" you mean "not believe", as you kept saying you do. If Y = !X, then saying 0 to both X and Y (!X) is a contradiction.

If instead you define "disbeleive" as meaning "believes there is no" then that's not a contradiction and would be what Flew and Swensson describe as Agnostic, leaving other atheists answering 0 to believe and 1 to disbelieve.

This isn't complicated at all.

What is amazing is that you think you've made some sort of point and proven something somebody else said wrong. You've done neither so far.

 

No. That's not what you get from merely stating that to believe is theist and not to is atheist.

Such a table would only have one column, and would be entirely pointless.

Here you add "Do You Disbelieve" as separate column. If it means "believes there is no" then that's new information and another question being asked of the person. And if it simply means "doesn't believe", then the second column is redundant. You already have that information from the first column, and you can't be (0,0) or (1,1) and be rational. Both are direct contradictions.

 

You quoted the idea that you can swap X and Y around, but you derived no facts, you just showed that you can you are able to break logical arguments by adding illogical rules.

Nope.
You use the word negation erroneously to describe things where there is a third state, I have not approved that.
You use "not believe in God" to mean "believe God does not exist", I have not approved that.
All of your uses of disbelief and related words invite equivocation, I have not approved that.

The LEM states:

In logic, the law of excluded middle states that for every proposition, either this proposition or its negation is true. (source)​

It makes no special rules for if there are third or further options. Logic dictates that there are only two options when it comes to negations. If you have three options, then they are not negations of one another.

Flew's definition uses a negation. If you find room for a third option, then you have failed to read the definition correctly, and failed to identify the right negation.

Nah, it's just the non-sequitur you seem to go to when you don't understand what's being said to you.

There is no such caveat in the logical rules. Both propositions cannot be false. You can't add garbage exceptions to your logic rules for no reason.

There is a "believe god does not exist" proposition that gets rejected by agnostics, but it is a different proposition than the "not believe God exists" proposition that is generated by using a negation, and which is used to identify an atheist.

 

Not when you want to prove the semantic BS you two pedaling!



One input, answer yes or true to any variant = atheist, answer no or false to any variant = theist

Remember I did wish you the best of luck Mr Phelps

 

These tables and circuits of yours are completely superfluous illustrations.

All you show in the one above is that one single isolated binary variable operates under the same logic as another single isolated binary variable.

So what?

It still remains that not believing something isn't identical to believing something doesn't exist. I am sorry if you are unable to grasp that simple distinction, and if you can't, then that explains why you can't understand what Swensson has been saying to you.

And it still remains that X and !X cant both be true or both be false, and that if Y = !X, then X and Y cant both be true or both be false.

And which "Mr Phelps" are you referring to in your attempt to insult me?

 

A metaphor by impossible missions force tv series, it refers to Mr Phelps who was tasked with supposedly impossible missions, that is what I picture anyone trying to prove out flew. Believe me if I wanted to insult you, youd know it

Swensson already tried overwriting agnostic, then he tried denying the conjunction, then he tried arbitraily sticking an 'x' in an input claiming the conjunction did not matter, then he tried constructing several crazy truth tables that were not even legible much less usable, and the beat goes on, and on, and on. Then you decided the party, so far 50/50 in so far as making the same mistakes swensson has made.

We are not talking about X and !X, we are talking about 2 propositions not 2 logic conditions.

Are you going to attempt to claim I cannot say: No to left: I am not moving left and also say No to: I am not moving right? Hence I am not moving. LOL

only if you insist on ignoring that every swensson variant is semantic, so dont forget to blame me now.

 

Are we? You just got done saying that "disbelief" means not "belief". That's X and !X. Then you say agnostic can be no to both. If that's not what you want to communicate, then you are doing a very poor job in your attempt to communicate.

I've tried to be charitable to you and I've asked multiple times if you can see a difference between not "belief there is X" and "belief there is no X", and every time I have you've suggested you see no difference.

If you see no difference, and think its "just semantic", then that explains why you can not understand what Swensson has told you or what I have told you.

No. Why would you think that I would claim that? Saying no to left is not the same as saying yes to right. Saying no to "believe there is A" is not the same as saying yes to "believes there is no A"

 

because that is what you have both been doing!

and its not the same as saying yes to stationary or yes or no to right either and there is the rub, logically it fails, and fails, and fails. It doesnt even qualify for logic yet you 2 keep assailing me with that nonsense`.

 

No, it is not. This further displays that you don't understand what either of us have been writing.

 

oh but I understand it far better than you understand yourselves, and see even after telling you what is wrong you dont bother to correct it!