Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Kokomojojo, Nov 24, 2019.

  1. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    19,178
    Likes Received:
    1,157
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But as usual that is not what I said, that is some nonsense concoction you cooked up. Please stop blaming me for what you see in the mirror. Haha, if I wrote the lsat test at best only 1/10% of present day gomer pyle attorneys would pass, including judges. You certainly didnt and if you did, the crap you post is precisely why I do not hire an attorney, I like to win.
    False, you and swensson are the ones insisting your version works, I proved and even crayola'd it for you that it does not.

    Take note of my precise systematic logic!

    This is swenssons mess:
    [​IMG]
    0,0 atheist is 5000% unsupported in logic!

    I even made extensive efforts to show you how to set up flew
    This is how you do it right:
    [​IMG]

    Lack of belief (flew) works out the same way as my usage when set up properly.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2021
  2. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    7,886
    Likes Received:
    894
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope, I have continuously pointed out that you're not using the "dis" prefix consistently. Given that it's perfectly possible to talk about this topic without muddying the waters with such words, I have opted to not use those words. Therefore, any tables, rewordings etc. that includes those words are not faithful representations of what I've been saying, but another strawman.

    The truth table that comes from what I've written is:
    upload_2021-10-14_20-32-1.png

    A is the negation of X (as specified in the definition of atheist that you supplied), so they follow the LEM, i.e. whenever X is 0, A is 1 and vice versa. There are no "identities" or "conclusions" in the rows, which would be a violation of how truth tables work (of course, nothing is keeping us from making an extra column with notes or comments, but such columns would not labour under any rules like there having to be exactly one answer or anything like that).

    You have complained about the number of output columns, and I have provided valid examples showing that that's not a problem.
    You've complained about several output columns having 1s at the same time, and I have provided valid examples showing that that is not a problem.
    You've brought up references to LEM, but the cells you highlighted were not negations, so they are not governed by the LEM.
    You've brought up the Law of Non-contraction, but you haven't established that any of cells you've pointed to should be considered contradictions.
    You've complained about more than one "identity" to a row, but you have provided no justification why that should be a problem, and I have provided valid examples showing that you can indeed have more than one identity to a row.
    So far, none of your objections have held up, the table above is still the correct answer.

    I wasn't referring to those three choices in particular in my questions. Your entries all include some "and did not abstain" addition (or similar), which is not present in the definition of atheist, so these statements seem largely unrelated to the definition of atheism (at least when compared to the ones I suggest), which does not include such an addition.

    That's not what I'm asking about though. I'm asking you about each of the sentences. I expect us to drill down into exactly how you think the sentences break, but so far, you can't even seem to identify which ones you think are broken.
    1. If you did not vote yes, it does not mean that you voted no, you could have abstained, and that is 100% logical.
    2. If you did not believe God exists, it does not mean that you believe God does not exist, you could have been agnostic, and that is 100% logical.
    3. If you are an atheist, it does not mean you believe that God does not exist, you could have been agnostic, and that is 100% logical.
    The first line is taken verbatim from yourself (source). Do you disagree with yourself, or are you maintaining what you said in the first entry? I haven't modified anything in it, logic, grammar or otherwise so that shouldn't be a problem.

    I disagree that those errors are there. Of course, I am pretty confident in my logic, so I'm showing you the logic step by step, so that you can pin point exactly at what point you think an error is introduced. Although you don't seem to want to be very forthcoming.
     
    Jolly Penguin likes this.
  3. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    19,178
    Likes Received:
    1,157
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This stupidity again, I already addressed that and crayola'd it for you.
    Again that screwball mess gets you a true for both agnostic and atheist for 0,0.
    Agnostics reject the proposition "Not(believe God exists), atheists do not.
    Agnostics reject the proposition "believe God does not exist", atheists do not, therefore it goes without saying that agnostic is 100% incompatible with atheist and no amount of flim flam bam boozling will ever change that.
    Atheists are NOT defined as rejecting "Not(believe God exists)
    Atheists are NOT defined as rejecting "believe God does not exist.

    Your truth table proves agnostic + atheist is a contradiction ie false.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2021
  4. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    7,886
    Likes Received:
    894
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You didn't attack it well enough, it remains the idea presented.

    This does get you to both agnostics and atheist being true for 0,0, commonly known as agnostic atheist, yes. You not liking the conclusion is not a problem for the logic.

    It seems to me, agnostics are defined as rejecting "believe God exists" and rejecting "believe God does not exist", (i.e. having a 0 in both columns).

    You seem to be confusing what it means to reject (or "not") something. If Agnostics answered false to not(believe God exists), then it would logically follow that:
    not(believe God exists) = False
    not(not(believe God exists)) = not(False)
    believe God exists = True​
    (where the only logical step is elimination of double negation).
    Clearly this conclusion is wrong for agnostics, so your assertion that "Agnostics reject the proposition Not(believe God exists)" is incorrect.

    It seems to me, agnostics reject "belief that God does not exist", and that you're incorrectly changing that for not(believe God exists), even though they are different things. So, your argument here shows that you're wrong, my table remains unfazed.

    Actually, the definition makes no reference to having to not reject "believe God does not exist". Again, this is not a problem with my table, but a problem that you can't understand the sentence "do not believe God exists", which is the only requirement in the definition of atheist. The table remains correct.

    (my colouration)

    Sure, so why are you making assertions that are not part of the definition? The definition of atheist includes no requirement on one's stance towards "believe God does not exist", so either is allowed.

    Nope, it exists merrily in the first row. No, it's just proves that you're making the same mistakes as before.

    Oh, and since you're dodging again, here is the deep dive I suggest but that you keep avoiding.

    All I'm asking for is "Agree" or "Disagree" for each of the three statements, and at whichever point you switch from "Agree" to "Disagree", explain what is different about the logic in the one before and the one after.
    1. If you did not vote yes, it does not mean that you voted no, you could have abstained, and that is 100% logical.
    2. If you did not believe God exists, it does not mean that you believe God does not exist, you could have been agnostic, and that is 100% logical.
    3. If you are an atheist, it does not mean you believe that God does not exist, you could have been agnostic, and that is 100% logical.
    The first statement was provided by you (please confirm whether you're backtracking on that).
    The second statement follows the exact same logic, any problem with this one should also invalidate the first one. I seem to recall at one point you agreed with this ("Thats right") and then you backtracked ("seriously flawed logic!"), although you weren't very clear about why, please confirm.
    The third statement is exactly the same as the second, where the "does not believe God exists" is identified as atheist, as per the definition provided by Oxford/Flew/"lackers"/etc.

    Which statements of the statements 1-3 do you agree/disagree with (I have inferred that you disagree with 3, but you haven't been clear about the other two). For the first statement you disagree with, why do you disagree with that and not the one preceding it?
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2021
  5. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    19,178
    Likes Received:
    1,157
    Trophy Points:
    113
    yep there you go again proving your grammar problems, "do not believe God exists" is not a sentence
    truth tables examine all input pairs, your truth table is not complete, therefore useless.

    yes you do label identities your claim is false.
    statement number 1 is correct.

    what makes you think the other 2 are correct?
    false you are as usual confusing logic with the content of the proposition.

    LOL

    because the stupidity in this is you are still trying to prove flews absence of belief can be substituted for believing something is not true.

    your whole set of premises are bunk. I went over this before. nothing I can do about people in denial.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2021
  6. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    19,178
    Likes Received:
    1,157
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Only if you falsify the definition of agnostic or commit fusion fraud, I already proved the point, I posted the references for all that already.
    what definition? and what does that nonsense mean?

    I am using dictionary definitions, I posted them how many times for you already.

    I told you dictionaries do not add logical analysis to definitions.

    Neither do dictionaries magically make you correctly interpret or understand how to use a word. Thats all on you.

    They only report usage regardless of how ignorant a word is being used.

    Philosophy sorts out 'proper' usage with logic.
    you can smoke the number '420' right? LMAO :roll: :roflol:
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2021
  7. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    2,347
    Likes Received:
    1,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Only in that your state of belief and voting what your state of belief is are not identical. And Theism, Atheism, and Agnosticism are states of belief, not votes.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2021
  8. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    2,347
    Likes Received:
    1,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And oddly enough, you posted a definition that disagrees with yourself, to the point that you felt the need to add notation to change what it says.

    And just as oddly, that dictionary definition before you alter it, is in agreement with how Flew used the word.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2021
  9. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    19,178
    Likes Received:
    1,157
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank you for once again proving you do not understand the english language and associated punctuation. :winner:

    Anyone who understands the english language even poorly as I have already explained this to you several times understands the purpose of brackets to mean [a clarification].

    Square brackets (also called brackets, especially in American English) are mainly used to enclose words added by someone other than the original writer or speaker, typically in order to clarify the situation:

    Example: He [the police officer] can't prove they did it.

    [Reference Link]: How to use parentheses and [square] brackets (... | Lexico



    It is an entirely a falsified claim that I changed the meaning any more than the dictionary did.

    False again: Flew does not match the dictionary, again the world you portray here is upside down and backwards. 242!

    The dictionary merely quoted Flews usage, nothing more, dictionaries do not validate word usage, only quote usage by various sources.

    I sincerely hope that helps in your quest to learn the english language.

    ps: FYI, Just in case you are not aware, emphasis and bolded or underlined words do not change the meaning either ok?

    Like brackets, emphasis also clarifies what is written for handicapped readers, it can also be crayola'd for those who are dense as lead or the font size can be increased for those who have defective vision.

    Please be sure to let me know if you need this crayola'd or if you need a 7 font.

    Otherwise thanks for your concession.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2021
  10. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    2,347
    Likes Received:
    1,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You think you were "clarifying" something. But you were not. You were adding something that disagreed with what was actually written in the text.

    The dictionary used one meaning. You wrote in brackets to add to it, to state a different meaning. You didn't fool anybody but yourself by doing this.

    The dictionary uses the word with the same meaning as Flew does.

    Yes. It used the word in the same way that Flew did. YOU wrote in to change it to a different meaning, not meant by either. Especially odd, since you could have cited a different dictionary definition that does agree with you, since there are different commonly used and cited definitions of the term.

    Thank you for your condescension.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2021
  11. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    19,178
    Likes Received:
    1,157
    Trophy Points:
    113
    false, I posted a definition that absolutely agrees with what I said, and in addition I posted the definitions of the words that prove it means what I said. Again you are making **** up.
    No kidding! you arent a logician on any level.
    To funny!
    I never bracketed [Flew] with clarification, you are making it all up, nothing new there!
    If you are going to accuse me of wrong doing at least get the facts straight before you do.

    Talk about blow your positions to hell in one clean sweep, WTG! :winner:

    Here: more [condensation] for you :roflol::roll:
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2021
  12. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    2,347
    Likes Received:
    1,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You never bracketed anyone with clarification. You used brackets to pretend to clarify a dictionary definition you posted that didn't mean what you pretended it meant. And then you tried to tell us that you weren't trying to change what it meant.

    Yes, keep evaporating like the airhead you are.
     
  13. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    19,178
    Likes Received:
    1,157
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FALSE, Bullshit is the best you got eh, I didnt clarify 'the' dictionary definition.
    Seriously its perfectly clear you have no clue what you are talking about.
    You couldnt quote it if you read every post in the thread! LMAO

    You really should learn english before you let your keyboard get ahead of you.

    Condensation is the opposite of evaporation, its me raining a flood of corrections on your head! :lol:

    Nice concession that you dont understand the most elementary english grammar.

    Condensation is the change from a vapor to a condensed state (solid or liquid).
    Evaporation is the change of a liquid to a gas.


    Condensation and Evaporation

    I await your quote.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2021
  14. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    2,347
    Likes Received:
    1,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You didn't clarify anything.

    You put your own added stipulations on what you say the word means in square brackets, which were NOT what the text said that you put those brackets beside.

    And now all you are doing is grandstanding your own arrogance.

    So congratulations I suppose.

    PS - You'll never speak a foreign language as well as I speak English, so your talking down to me for my "poor English" is just laughable.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2021
  15. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    19,178
    Likes Received:
    1,157
    Trophy Points:
    113
    False, you didnt even get the quote right, you simply dont know what you are talking about and no amount of squirming is going to refloat your long sunk titanic at this point, sorry.
    Why thank you.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2021
  16. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    7,886
    Likes Received:
    894
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Seems to me we have two inputs, and my table shows all 4 possible combinations. Which combination of the two inputs do you think is missing?

    Excellent, thank you.
    1. If you did not vote yes, it does not mean that you voted no, you could have abstained, and that is 100% logical.
    2. If you did not believe God exists, it does not mean that you believe God does not exist, you could have been agnostic, and that is 100% logical.
    Let's do line 2 first. So, line 2 is an exact copy of the logic and grammar of line 1, word for word. The only difference is that the subject matter is translated from the voting example to the belief example. "Vote yes" corresponds to "believe God exists" and "vote no" corresponds to "believe God does not exist" (indeed, this is sort of the reason I started colouring them in). At the same time, we have avoided any terms that cause equivocation (like all the dis- words that tend to crop up). If there are no problems with the first line (which I agree there aren't), then there are also none with the second line.

    I'm picking out the proposition/position/logic that corresponds to the definition (which is how we determine whether a word applies). The definition of atheism does not demand that atheism is a proposition (not clear if that's what you're implying). (Although we should be careful, since it can be a proposition to call someone an atheist, without atheism itself being a proposition).
     
    Jolly Penguin likes this.
  17. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    19,178
    Likes Received:
    1,157
    Trophy Points:
    113
    False you removed "voted"
    I told you that you need to understand this in full sentences to examine content.

    "I believe God exists"
    "I believe God does not exist"

    if you did not vote that you believe God exists, b=1=T, it does not mean that you voted I believe God does not exist, db=1=T, you could have been agnostic 0,0, b=0=F,and db=0=F.

    agnostic = nor function, how many more times are we going to do this?
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2021
  18. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    19,178
    Likes Received:
    1,157
    Trophy Points:
    113
    oops missed the edit window:

    if you did not vote I believe God exists, b=1=T, it does not mean that you voted I believe God does not exist, db=1=T, you could have been agnostic 0,0, both b=0=F, AND db=0=F.

    Atheists believe the proposition God does not exist is true
    Theists believe the proposition God does exist is true
    Agnostics do not believe either proposition is true

    If you label yourself an atheist you believe the proposition God does not exist is true.

    If you label yourself a theist you believe the proposition God does exist is true.

    If you label yourself agnostic you believe neither proposition is true.

    If you want to be an irrational neoatheist you label yourself an agnostic-atheist in which case you believe the proposition that God does not exist is true and at the same time you believe the proposition that God does not exist is false.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2021
  19. Dirty Rotten Imbecile

    Dirty Rotten Imbecile Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2016
    Messages:
    728
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    63
    And if you are Kokomojojo you misrepresent other people’s position in a vainglorious attempt to feel superior.
     
    Jolly Penguin likes this.
  20. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    2,347
    Likes Received:
    1,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Theism is about belief, not voting you believe. "Voting" talk is yet another Komomojo attempt to obscure the actual logic to this.

    And believing but not voting that you do is deception.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2021
    Dirty Rotten Imbecile likes this.
  21. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    2,347
    Likes Received:
    1,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And there he is yet again trying to pretend people mean what they explicitly tell him they do not mean.

    I don't think he is capable and/or willing to understand that words can have multiple meanings.

    I think the only way to reach him would be by using his own preferred terminology, and even then, it isn't likely if this is mostly about his ego and agenda, which I suspect it is.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2021
    Dirty Rotten Imbecile likes this.
  22. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    2,347
    Likes Received:
    1,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Vainglorious is a new word for me. It perfectly describes the subject.
     
    Dirty Rotten Imbecile likes this.
  23. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    19,178
    Likes Received:
    1,157
    Trophy Points:
    113
    when people say such **** after they admit they do not know anything about logic vainglorious and all the other pejoratives I am accused of are not only moot but laughably foolish nonsense exemplifying Mike Judges theory of the world today and in the future.

    No, the way to reach me is to get a minimal education in grammar and logic.

    I have already explained to everyone here several reasons why flews absence of belief in God cannot be used as a valid position against theist and agnostic.

    Simply put for the most simple minds on the planet and those in denial, the 'atheist' must hold the 'belief' no G/gods exist for it to qualify as a negation to the theist that holds the 'belief' that G/gods do exist.

    Flews nonsense when discussing the matter in the context of theist and agnostic is nonsense premise on its face.

    Of course this is what I would expect from posters that lack grammar and logic skills since grammar is after all built on some semblance of logic, or at least it used to be.

    Before making pejorative claims you would need to come out here and show you have the knowledge base to back up your assertions which requires an understanding of counter evidence when its presented. Sadly this is not the case here.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2021
  24. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    2,347
    Likes Received:
    1,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is simply not true, as you yourself tell us when we talk about agnostics.

    You confuse negation with opposite.

    The negation of going up is not going down.
    The negation of going forward is not going backward.
    The negation of both is standing still.

    And the negation of Theist is not what you keep insisting "atheist" means.

    The negation of being theist is not being theist, and that is included (but not fully descriptive) of both what you mean by "agnostic" and what you mean by "atheist". To be what you mean by "atheist", you need more than mere negation of being theist.

    What you fail to allow for is that other people mean something else by "atheist". They DO mean the mere negation of being theist.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2021
    Dirty Rotten Imbecile likes this.
  25. Dirty Rotten Imbecile

    Dirty Rotten Imbecile Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2016
    Messages:
    728
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    63
    But don’t worry Kokomojojo! I have faith that you will come around.
     

Share This Page