Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

I stated a T/F PROPOSITION NOT a QUESTION, He was stating questions He responded with "I DONT KNOW" to a T/F PROPOSITION NOT a QUESTION! NOT A VALID RESPONSE.

 

I remember your beloved truth tables. And I remember how you mislabeled them in an attempt to misconstrue others.

I also remember you saying you neither believe God exists nor that God doesn't exist, while at the same time demanding that if you don't believe God exists that means you must believe God doesn't exist. And I remember your complete refusal to explain the apparent contradiction no matter how many times you were asked to.

 

Irrelevant. Answering a true / false question has 2 options. A proposition has two possible truth values. That doesn't change the fact that you can respond without answering, and it doesn't change the fact that you don't know what the truth value is for every proposition, and you may admit that without claiming a third truth value, as yardmeat has.

You can respond without answering. You do it all the time in this very thread.

 

You have 3 options, true false or prove its not a valid proposition.

Anything else is a DODGE UNLESS one of you 3 amigos can POST A CITATION VALIDATING YOUR CLAIM "you may admit that without claiming a third truth value".

CITE THE RULE, or CONCEDE!

How about posting a little intellectual honesty for a change.

 

Hmm… atheism a religion? I have read the Old Testament, New Testament, and side by side comparatives of two other ‘canatonical’ variations,
I have read a translation of the Koran, and
I have read trans Latinos of two of the three surviving Maya Codexes, each of which provide the foundation for the dogma and teachings of the associated religions and the dogma followed by the ‘faithful, but other than an individual expressing disbelief in the existence of a God or Gods I have yet to see anything resembling what might be called scripture that would provide the basis for atheism that could be remotely construed as a Bible or Koran analog enabling calling a simple disbelief in a god or god, a religion. If such exists please enlighten, I’d like to read it; perhaps I could be converted.

 

https://www.atheists.org/about/our-vision/

https://getordained.org/blog/atheist-minister

https://www.atheistrepublic.com/contact-us

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

 

Again, that applies to answering a true/false question, or stating a position regarding a proposition. It does not apply to merely reacting to either.

You are now again being purposefully obtuse, you didn't address anything I wrote (you reacted without answering) and you are fooling nobody but yourself.

 

False!
I am standing my ground until one of you 3 amigos post something that resembles intellectual honesty, you 3 amigos pretend to make the important distinction so you can hide behind your strawman intellectually dishonest posts.

This isnt over a T/F question, strawman, its about a T/F proposition presented to Dr Dodge that Dr Dodge, self proclaimed logic professor extraordinaire as expected DODGED and continues to dodge, Just like you are doing right now.

Yes his reaction that you and swensson are trying to justify was to answer by claiming "I dont know" is valid as you just did, to a true false question, which is a dodge since I dont know is not a VALID truth value.

(He alleges that he teaches this **** to his students)

Why you people insist on embarrassing yourselves is beyond me. Please refrain from posting more strawman, this is about a proposition NOT a question.

Berkley, you know one of those evil academic institutions that keep proving all your theories are nonsense, is perfectly clear about what responses are legitimate.

I dont know is NOT on the list, either CITE A COUNTER OR CONCEDE

and if you continue to dodge posting a counter citation to be obtuse, please feel free to accuse yourself of trolling since that perfectly fits YOUR definition.

 

Correction:

Yes his reaction that you and swensson are trying to justify was to answer by claiming "I dont know" is valid as you just did, to a true false PROPOSITION, which is a dodge since I dont know is not a VALID truth value.

"Question" is his intellectually dishonest strawman that you also adopted.

 

It is a perfectly fine response. So is shrugging or walking away. It isn't illegal or even taboo. It just isn't an answer to the question or position on the proposition. Why that bothers you so I don't know.

You would not lose any face by admitting that there are propositions you have no position on or true/false questions you can't answer. Why you told yardmeat you refuse to acknowledge that is just you being pointlessly stubborn.

But what ground is that when your disagreement is imagined? We aren't taking the position you assign to us. Nobody has said there is a third option or third answer to a proposition or true/false question. That is entirely your own strawman.

 

Thank you for finally admitting its a Dodge, and that our illustrious self proclaimed "logic teacher" is either a fake or should be fired from his job for incompetence and teaching stupidity. I noticed swensson took his bat and ball and went home some time ago when confronted with validating the matter. It is not legal if it does not provide a legal truth value, meaning its outside the conventional rules and without validation.

You admit its a dodge and at the same time declare its not illegal with no validation or support for such a claim.

Just a bit of orwellian double think, cognitive dissonance!

Now Doctor dodge has a bigger problem since that is the logic he uses for claiming he is agnostic and we now know its a dodge.

 

Finally? I have tried to point out the difference between a mere response and an answer 6 times now. And you apparently still don't get it.

It isn't a dodge. It just isn't an answer. Is is a response other than an answer, and there is nothing illegal or taboo about that. Admitting you don't know what you don't know is honesty. You should try it.

Are you aware of any legislation in any country that says you are not allowed to say you don't know the answer to a question or the truth value of a proposition? I am not. It is not illegal. Nor is it taboo to anyone but yourself.

 

sorry whatever comes out of your mug in response to a proposition IS your answer, a nonresponse IS your answer! So you found a new dodge now? LOL

 

can we have a little intellectual honesty please?
There is no civil law or enforcement of an "Illegal" chess move either.
and you try again take us back to Oz

 

This seems to confirm yardmeat's suspicion that you are incapable of understanding that people don't always have any answer to give to some questions, and don't have a position on the truth value of some propositions, despite yourself claiming to be agnostic.

You don't allow for people to say they don't know? Despite you yourself saying you don't know if there is a God? Really?

I invite you to correct the above if you are misunderstood, though your history makes me think you won't take that opportunity.

 

Possible responses to being presented with a chess board include declining playing chess, stating you don't know how to play chess, taking a chess piece and admiring the workmanship, etc.

There is nothing wrong with any of these responses. They just aren't playing chess.

Just as you can respond to propositions or true false questions without answering them.

If a man doesn't know how to play chess, and so won't make the first move in a chess game when you set up a board, do you berate him as you have yardmeat? Do you about our that he is dodging?

 

This was meant to read "do you cry out that he is dodging?". I only just noticed the typo and it is too late to correct it.

 

Of course I do, I also allow them to concede to making really stupid claims they cant back up. YOu know the drill we just went through it with that stupid semantic post you made that I had to bust you on in triplicate.

I have never said such a thing, except when I made it perfectly clear it was used as a MOCKERY OF STUPIDITY now being pedaled by not one but all 3 amigos, and I am being polite I could have said stooges.

They are when they move the piece like yardmeat, then swensson then you did.

You talk about intellectual honesty and posting in good faith, the above is anything BUT!

 

You do? Then why do you get all bent out of shape when yardmeat tells you it is perfectly fine to admit you don't know if God exists or not? Why do you insist on pretending he tried to push some third truth value when he never said any such thing?

Oh how gracious you are in your slurs and name calling. Very polite indeed.

Again, this only demonstrates your failure to understand or read what people write. None of us moved any piece. You have demanded we do so and cried foul when yardmeat said he can't. You are mostly arguing with yourself, and you either don't realize it or you do, and are trolling.

Actually the above was another generous attempt to give you yet another opportunity to clarify, clear up misunderstanding, and engage in good faith, and your response was more name calling, more strawmanning, and more trolling. Horray for you I suppose?

 

I could never top you in my wildest imagination.

I have given all 3 of you more than than generous opportunity to validate your claims and you dodge it with the same loony narrative, more strawmen, and intellectual dishonesty.
Its not possibly to engage you in good faith until you show good faith.

Still no citation from any of you, PLONK!

"I dont know" is pure bullshit and everyone knows it.

 

Read their materials ; nothing that smacks of religious scripture there. There mission statement was more a declaration of secular tolerance with what many might label as agnosticism, than of atheism.
I find atheism as untenable as theism. Still, I am about to be ordained in the ULC… thanks for the links.

 

Koko doesn't understand the difference between there being atheist religions and atheism being a religion. According to his logic, having red hair is a religion because there are people with red hair who are religious.

 

It really depends on how you define "atheist" and "agnostic". If defined as Koko insists, that "atheism" means the positive faith belief that God's don't exist, then I agree with you. If you instead define "atheist" as just meaning not-theist then agnostic forms a subcategory of atheist. That gets Koko here really bent out of shape.

 

Not my problem your grammar skills and ability to connect the logical dots are wanting.

So hows that "I dont know" workin for ya? LMAO

 

Yes atheism is really defined as a toilet seat and agnostic is the handle to you push to flush the toilet, no different than over the deep end edge of how you have been defiining it thus far LOL
Agnostic absolutely is not a subcategory of atheist, its been proven to you countless times, and you were flusehd out of every rabbit hole you tried to hide in yet you remain in denial.

So hows that "I dont know" workin for ya? LMAO