Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

You give him too much credit. I and others have asked him similar questions dozens of times now. He never even tries to answer. A word game would a refreshing change of pace. At least he'd be pretending to try to answer. I doubt we'll get even that much.

 

Dang, still no citation from the "I dont know" disinfo gang!

Why dont you simply admit you made it all up?

That would be far better than taking the beating you get from posting your constant barrage of strawmen! LOL

 

The number of stars in our galaxy is an odd number. True or false? Or keep running away and hiding and admit defeat yet again.

 

Thats not possible in trollville.

We have people that think they can hide by covering up their blunders with nonsequitur strawman arguments.

True/false is the long established method since aristotle and plato of converting linguistic semantics into a binary logic system for truth analysis.

Like I said earlier they think they throw the rule book away.

Binary is a 2 value system, not a 3 value system as they falsely demand.

"I dont know" cannot be converted into binary, only a fake logic teacher would even attempt such nonsense.

Take note how many posts have gone by since your point, I posted a citation to invalidate their point, they posted nothing more the hot air to pretend I dont know is legitimate.

SSDD, Square pegs in round holes.

 

What everyone but you understands (and you waffle on whether or not you understand it) is that we can acknowledge a true/false value without knowing which holds.

The number of stars in our galaxy is an odd number. True or false? There's a reason why you run away and hide every time you are asked.

 

As everyone but you understands: "I don't know" isn't an additional truth value. It isn't a truth value at all.

The day that you muster enough intellectual honesty and personal integrity to consider this question, you'll be equipped to join the rest of us in this discussion. Until then, you are clueless:

The number of stars in our galaxy is an odd number. True or false?

 

Sure it is, according to yardmeatism, hell not only did you use it, you defended using it bragging how you teach your imaginary students to use it, we all witnessed it, so please stop with all the dishonesty.

Nice contradiction though!

 

yardmeatism

When you get done counting them let me know so I can answer your question. lol

 

It sounds like our fake logic teacher may finally have a clue.

I have to admit that I am a bit surprised you feel for the stupidity he posted.
He made it up and neither of you can cite the 'logic rule' that allows "I dont know" as a legitimate response to a true/false question.

So are you ready to withdraw from the nonsense 'trash logic' that he is posting or continue this charade? It should crystal clear to you by now that he has little to no understanding of logic rules.

 

"God exists" is a proposition
Belief that God exists is a belief (i.e. a particular psychological state, a propositional attitude)
"Kokomojojo believes God exists" is another proposition.

A proposition must be true or false (LEM)
If "I have an apple" isn't true, then it must be false.
If "Kokomojojo believes God exists" isn't true, then it must be false.
(If "Kokomojojo has a belief that God exists" isn't true, then "Kokomojojo has a belief that God exists" must be false)

Not only have we established that it isn't true, we have established that we know that it isn't true (since if it was true, you'd know), reducing all the discussion about "I don't know" to a red herring.

That is not quite what I said. The ClassMarker source is about one particular implementation. For instance, I expect teachers to use true/false questions only when they provide enough information to answer the question, whereas as in the case of God's existence, that's not always the case.

Alright, what rule are you invoking that allows you to write "when you get done counting them let me know so I can answer your question" when the "answer" must be true or false?

Seems to me we're back to the point where you haven't provided a source saying that any such rule needs to be provided. I don't think there is a problem with your answer "get back to me...", and I'm curious to see why you do.

There is a rule that does what you're hinting at, and that is the LEM, but it applies only to propositions. By phrasing it as a question and an answer, you open yourself up to a person not knowing the answer (or simply giving the wrong one).

No, this seems to be consistent with everything else we've been saying. True and false are truth values, but you may not have access to the truth value of a given proposition. If you don't, then you may have to answer "I don't know", or "when you get done counting, let me know".

No, I'd say I disagree that your question is a true/false question. If it is possible to end up having to answer something other than true or false (for instance "when you get done counting them, let me know"), then true or false aren't the only answers.

Propositions must be true or false. Potential answers to whether a proposition is true or false include true, false, "I don't know", etc.

For instance, God either exists or doesn't exist, but when asked, it is perfectly possible to answer "Yes", "No" or "I don't know".

Funny, to all us others, it's you who have no such understanding. Insults about our intelligence coming from you means very little.

 

I don't know if he just doesn't realize he's constantly contradicting himself or he just doesn't care.

 

says the walking talking contradiction, professor dodge, fake logic teacher! you used I dont know as a 3rd condition then 100posts later claim its not a 3rd condition, then blame your contradiction on me of course. lol

 

huh?

youve established no such psychological condition.

PhD yardmeat, claims "I dont know" is a legitimate 3rd option and uses it in his imaginary classes demanding his imaginary students use it with him.

Neither you nor Dr dodge has shown any such rule or method exists making the "I dont know" (3rd option nonsense) critically important to nail down.

 

I haven't contradicted myself at all. You have. Notice how you are already running away and hiding behind a straw man after previously admitting that "I don't know" isn't a 3rd truth condition. Make up your damn mind, or at least let us know which Koko we are talking to today. Are we talking to the Koko that says everyone is a theist or the Koko who says he isn't at theist? Are we talking to the Koko who says you have to be a theist to have morals and values or the Koko who claims to have values despite not being a theist? Are we talking to the Koko who admits that "God exists" is bivalent or the Koko who doesn't understand that? Are we talking to the Koko who understands that "I don't know" isn't a truth value or the one who can't get that through his skull? Which?

Speaking of dodging, when can we expect you to answer one of the many counterexamples provided that disprove your position? Is the statement "The number of stars in our galaxy is an odd number" true or false? Oops, there he goes running away and hiding again.

 

I've already proven that the Koko inference is logically invalid. I've provided plenty of examples, all of which you dodged, run away, and hid from. I've addressed every source your provided, and you have addressed none of mine. If you are going to be wrong, at least be interesting or honest. If you can't be right, interesting, or honest, then there is nothing to "respond" to.

 

You have the wrong descriptor, 'imagined' does not carry the same meaning as proven.

You responded to the proposition God exists with "I dont know".
Try to be more honest please.

 

Also, @Swensson , can we just sit here and appreciate the supreme contradiction here -- one that outpaces all of Koko's previous contradictions?

1) He claims we haven't established that "I don't know" is a psychological condition . . . despite claiming to be in such a psychological condition himself (unless we've caught him on one of the days where he says he's a theist, that is).
2) He claims that he doesn't know if "I don't know" is a psychological condition, which is perhaps the most delicious contradiction I've ever seen on the forums.

 

I've proven it. Many times. I can do so again, but you will run away and hide again. If you promise to actually respond to the argument provided, I will do so again. If you surrender again, then fine.

"I don't know" is the honest response. You realize you just called yourself dishonest, right? Of course you don't.

 

now all you have to do is prove its a logically valid 3rd option in your binary logic system since you again justified its use.

 

So I'm talking to the Koko who doesn't understand that "I don't know" isn't a 3rd truth value? Earlier in this thread there was a Koko who understood this fact. If you still don't understand, try talking to the Koko who did understand.

 

If you respond with "I dont know" to a proposition (as you did) you are are using it as a 3rd option. so sorry. You claimed to be a logic teacher and have proven you are not.

In a binary logic system you only have True and False as acceptable legitimate responses.

 

Bivalence in logic refers to truth values. Not "options." So sorry. Again, there was a Koko earlier in this thread who understood that "I don't know" isn't a 3rd truth value. You should talk to him. He's smarter than this Koko.

You've obviously never taken a logic class, as has been proven several times now. You don't understand bivalence, you tried passing questions off as propositions, you couldn't grasp even the bare bones basics about inferences (including the conjunction elimination), etc.

But I'm going to assume you passed high school, so you likely took a geometry class, right? So this is as much as I can dumb this concept down. If you lack the critical thinking skills to understand what I'm about to say or the integrity to respond, then there's nothing more to discuss:

Just because you know that an angle HAS a numerical value doesn't mean you know WHAT that numerical value is. I'm asking you to muster the honesty to respond to the previous sentence.

Knowing that a question HAS an answer is not the same as KNOWING the answer. Why do you deny this basic fact?

 

ah back to that worn out rusty redd herring Dodge.

the FACT remains:

If you respond with "I dont know" to a proposition (as you did) you are are using it as a 3rd option. so sorry. You claimed to be a logic teacher and have proven you are not.

In a binary logic system you only have True and False as acceptable legitimate responses.

 

Then why does everyone but you acknowledge this basic fact? And why do you sometimes acknowledge it?

Quote a single logic textbook or professor who agrees with you. Just one. I've asked many times. You run away every time.

Bivalent. Not binary. Bivalent. And it means that True and False are the only possible values, not the only "acceptable legitimate responses." It has nothing to do with what you know or don't know. You'd understand this concept if you had read the rest of my post, which you can't muster the honesty to do.

No one buys your bull ****. You are on an island by yourself.

 

Yes every proposition requires a "response" True or False and yes those are the only values as I have described that you can legitimately use.

the FACT remains:

If you respond with "I dont know" to a proposition (as you did) you are are using it as a 3rd option. so sorry. You claimed to be a logic teacher and have proven you are not.

In a binary logic system you only have True and False as acceptable legitimate responses.