Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

I thought you were talking about propositions and not questions, and now you are telling me you are talking about questions and not propositions. Which is it? Are you talking about "binary questions" or are you talking about logical propositions.

 

Typo.
you responded less than 10 seconds after I hit reply by accident no time to correct the typo, but:
Thanks for admitting you dont understand whats going on.

 

Then you can provide your correction. What is your correction?

 

You dont know after several pages of discussion, hilarious.

 

You can't actually articulate your argument. That's the problem. It used to be hilarious, but now it is just sad.

 

you have failed to demonstrate every narrative you posted, and that is not only hilarious but over the top gut buster since you claim to be a "logic teacher" just before you make the most ludicrousl claims I have ever seen in my life starting with "I dont know" is a valid response to a T/F proposition. Oh and it gets better! I have lost count how many time you have doubled down on that BS, and that is beyond pathetic.

Your recent posts and obnoxious dodging perfectly fits the birds definition of troll. Oh wait that definition only applies to his opposition, when the opposition posts unassailable counter arguments, I forgot.

 

You can't even tell the difference between T/F testing methodology and a proposition. You can't tell the difference between a question and a claim. You've already admitted you were wrong many, many times over, but you can't remain consistent.

 

still accusing me of your incapabilites
I never used "I dont know" except to mock the stupidity you posted which I made very clear that was what I was using it.

 

As others have pointed out, you keep accusing me of claims that YOU have made. You find out an argument is trash, so you attributed it to someone else and hide the fact that you made it.

 

more false claims against me

 

Name one false claim. Be specific.

 

Yes, be specific try the quote function.

 

I was the one asking you to name one false claim. Specify. Try the quote function. You just used it, which means you didn't comprehend the post you quoted, so maybe start by reading the actual post.

 

I was asking you to use the quote function for your claims, I dont see a claim from you.

 

Koko is here equating "an additional truth value" and "a legitimate response". That is key to his game. Keep an eye on that.

And note how he refuses to clarify what he means by "legitimate", what makes a response legitimate, etc.

A response is any reaction to a stimulus. Shrugging shoulders, walking away, answering the question asked, and saying you don't know the answer are all responses to a question being asked.

All are perfectly fine as far as I can tell, not illegal, not taboo in our society etc. What makes any of them legitimate or illegitimate and who decides this?

 

Yep you have true and false, use of anything else (other than proving the proposition is not valid) has not been demonstrated by your failing team to be legitimate, since its no longer binary, ie True or False. Our fake logic teacher would not be capable of passing a primar school logic test because "I dont know" (His response to a T/F proposition) creates a 3rd value.

Berkley is 'perfectly' clear about that:

The fundamental elements of propositional logic are propositions—statements that can be either true or false
A proposition is like a variable that can take two values, the value "true" and the value "false."
SticiGui Propositional Logic - UC Berkeley Statistics

There is no 3rd choice given, no such choice as "I dont know", which was yardmeats choice, and yardmeat has failed to post a citation validating that there is a 3rd choice option.

He has not been able to validate it because its an illegal value he is trying to insert for agnostic, then pretends its my argument.

Very simply, when you state True, the binary value associated with that choice is a 1, when you state False the binary value assigned to that choice is 0. Binary values are 1 and 0, nothing else.

Yardmeat seems to think that he state can state a 3rd value that caanot be associated to binary therefore his logic falls under DUH

Yep the game is 'play by conventional logic' or concede.

How come you havent whined about the last 100 yardmeat posts since they perfectly fit 'your' definition of trolling? Whats up with that? How come you are silent about that? I guess the 'truth' is that it 'really' depends what side people are on, people that counter your arguments are trolls and people who dont get a blank check huh?

 

No, it does not. It does not address the truth value of the question. It is a response but not an answer to what was asked. Similar to how your post I am now addressing is a response to my post but does not address most of what I wrote. You do that often, so it is odd that you don't recognize it can be done.

You are pretending that yardmeat has said otherwise. He hasn't. If you think he has, that is projection on your part.

Responding by noting you are not able to answer a question is not the same thing as claiming a third possible option as an answer to a question.

No he isn't. He is just trying to show you that whereas all true/false questions have only 2 possible truth values (true or false), we often don't know which it is. This is not a bold claim and should not be so hard for you to admit, and then move on to productive conversation.

 

Yardmeat, and even moreso Swensson, have been remarkably polite and patient with you and have entertained your games for years. I myself made repeated attempts at good faith conversation with you for quite a while earlier in this thread and it became apparent you were not interested.

You instead always speak of "winning", thump your chest, give others names, refuse to answer the most basic of questions to find common ground to build conversation from, strawman others even when repeatedly corrected as others clarify, make zero attempt to clarify anything you say so you can pretend to be strawmanned yourself, etc.

These are all examples of trolling. These are all things some folks do now and then, but that you do far more than anyone else I have come across on this forum. These are why I no longer believe you are corresponding in good faith.

But what side are you even on? You have not countered anyone's actual argument or position. Nor have you clearly presented any argument of your own that others could address.

From your posts in this thread I really can't tell most of the time if I agree or disagree with your positions taken, since those positions are constantly shifting or made cryptic, or because you are not stating any opinion other than how very wrong somebody is (that isn't saying what you claim they are saying).

 

Making it all up, anyone following the thread even poorly knows the truth is the exact opposite.

Well it is kind of fun watching you kids wipe the egg off your faces when your theories die a slow death RIP

Nothing I can do about that if you arent able to pick out the nuances in language. We had this discussion earlier. Im sure you conveniently forgot your semantics game that went up in flames. lol

 

I actually think Kokomojo may be shocked to learn that many of his interlocutors actually agree with him on many things, if he ever bothered to have a good faith conversation and find out.

I, for example, would fit under his preferred definition of "agnostic" (neither believe God exists nor that God does not exist), and not under his preferred definition of "atheist" (I don't assert Gods don't exist. I can't know that; but I see no reason to think they do so by the other common meaning of "atheist" (not-theist) I am one).

 

because it tips into amphiboly.
knowledge is merely the reasoning, not the response
you cant respond to a binary proposition with I dont know since all binary propositions are either true or false nothing else.

 

Nobody here even knows for sure what theories you are projecting onto "you kids". We can only guess, as your strawmen keep changing. Everybody here can see that you haven't actually addressed what anyone else here has been actually saying to you.

Again, you provide another good example of responding without answering. It is ironic that you demonstrate this repeatedly while refusing to admit to yardmeat that one can respond to a yes/no question without answering it and purporting a third possible truth value.

 

you have me confused with both yard meat and yourself
I do not use his approach, its invalid, laughable actually
yet he tries to pretend that I am and tries to jam it down everyones throats. lol

 

You can RESPOND to a true/false question by shrugging, walking away, rolling your eyes, stating you don't know the answer, or doing anything else in response. You can't ANSWER a true/false question with anything but true or false.

This is the 4th time I have written that and you have dodged it every time.

 

I made them perfectly clear complete with truth tables.