Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

Im not the pne who pleads stupidity to be an agnostic.
There is no difference answering a proposition with "I dont know" as there is with farting!
You dont even know how to argue the point and neither does your side kick.
Even tho I gave you plenty of citation in addition to these:

How about we start with the idiots at grammarly, they have no clue about the english language, unlike you of course.



Then Google! Do you know how to comprehend a dictionary?




Then Oxford! Do you know how to comprehend a dictionary?




Then your dictionary! Do you know how to comprehend a dictionary?



Finally the people at stanford that you claimed were low class school only to later eat those words and back track.



There is a BIG difference between neither theism nor atheism is known and you using you dont know for a proposition.

In order to call yourself an agnostic you you have to claim neutrality, not plead stupidity.

Agnostic is Neutrality NOT stupidity, you are

 

There's a reason why you have to ignore half of your own definitions. And you are still running away from the fact that you've admitted you don't know and can't even refute that now. And this is just you running away from the fact that you still can't come to grips with your failure to comprehend the conjunction elimination. You'll never confront that. You will just keep shifting from one failed argument to the next, never settling on one long enough to have a discussion about it. When you are failing at claim A, you move to claim B. When you are failing at claim B, you move to claim C (still being careful to avoid failed claim A). It's a familiar pattern.

Watch, everyone. It is about to happen again.

 

@Kokomojojo

If neither theism nor atheism are known, then you don't know whether theism or atheism is true.

I'm just going to say that again a few times, although you will never address such a simple concept:

If neither theism nor atheism are known, then you don't know whether theism or atheism is true.

If neither theism nor atheism are known, then you don't know whether theism or atheism is true.

If neither theism nor atheism are known, then you don't know whether theism or atheism is true.

If neither theism nor atheism are known, then you don't know whether theism or atheism is true.

If neither theism nor atheism are known, then you don't know whether theism or atheism is true.

Comprende?

 

More nonsense from dr dodge, I did not use or admit to using your stupidity pleading to respond to any proposition except to mock the nutterville yard meat rules

 

I know what theism and atheism is, nonsense.
I also know what it takes to be an agnostic



but you need to read it

 

This is not an English sentence.

 

But it does mean you do not know.

If A, then B.
A, therefore B.

 

The conjunction elimination is covered in every intro to logic textbook. Even your own source (which you tried to hide) agrees with me on this. A and B, therefore B. This isn't a "nutterville yard meat rule." It's logic 101.

 

bullshit!
It means you are neutral!
A person would have to be really dense that cant read all the dictionaries I just posted that spell out its a noncommital 'position'?
Vote yes
abstain- noncommital
Vote no

childs play

 

If you admit that we can't know whether atheism or theism is true, then you are admitting you don't know. I'm sorry that the truth hurts.

 

IF?
I dont admit that.
Why do you insist on digging yourself a deeper hole?
SuperStrawman

 

This is something you've not only admitted many times before but have demanded of others.

 

do you realize what a stupid post that is?

 

I disagree with your assertion that basic literacy skills are stupid.

 

I suppose this will be your next 100 pages of dodge posts.

atheism and theism are definition of very well known beliefs,

it is true that people hold theistic beliefs
it is also true that people hold atheistic beliefs

I would never make such a stupid assertion/admission that "we cant know" atheism and theism, both very well known 'definitions'/'descriptions' of opposing 'beliefs' that people hold, because such a foolish statement would be demonstrated illiteracy.

Agnostic is not an appeal/claim of stupidity as yardmeat asserts for himself, and insists that I have to make the same stupidity appeal, as we can see not only in dictionary citations but from my explanation and one of the best academic sources on the planet that of course the yardmeat claimed was not a quality school,

agnostic IS a claim of 'neutrality' between to opposing arguments/conditions/beliefs etc.

Its not an IF, for me, its a YOU DID, as in yardmeat DID post a claim/appeal to stupidity.

Yes a little literacy is highly beneficial in a philosophical discussion.

Professor Dodge, logic teacher extraordinaire, please pay attention here I am trying to teach you the actual meaning of agnostic as it is understood by the smart educated people in philosophical universities.

Your welcome.

 

For those who are interested; As a side note, I should point out that stanford needs to use better language than they do so it has better clarity for lazy researchers/readers and people who have difficulty connecting the dots to understand correct 'meaning'.

Huxley in his rebuttal to the oxfords mistake made it perfectly clear that his position is not based in 'I dont know', 'not known', its based in 'not demonstrated' 'not proven' 'not warranted' 'insufficient evidence, which is the pure 'scientific' approach, which is 100% NOT the same as pleading stupidity as the dictionaries imply.

An honest scientific assessment demands a neutral position until something is demonstrably true or false.

 

It's such a weird thing to get hung up on. Such an odd thing to refuse to understand. Such a peculiar need to misunderstand what you just wrote above in order to dodge addressing what you were obviously saying.

 

I have no control over people demanding I accept their illiterate personal theories.
Therefore I reject it, they can sort it out on their own time.
Just like the semantic nonsense you posted and pissed away a few hundred posts, and when a citation quashing it was posted rather than using it as learning experience, instead you went into denial.

 

@Kokomojojo , you really need to actually read Huxley if you are going to appeal to him.

 

yep, and that is the criteria for his claim of 'neutrality', neither believe nor disbelieve, which is NOT a claim of stupidity, but thanks for playing. Try reading for comprehension. I have explained this to you and posted citations.

“Agnosticism is of the essence of science ― Thomas Huxley

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.” ― Thomas Huxley

“The scientific spirit is of more value than its products, and irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors.” ― Thomas Henry Huxley


Your "I dont know" BS cant even be translated into logic.

Your BS is a contextonomy fallacy which means not compatible with atheist/theist logic as you tried to use it.

 

He claimed to not know. He used that as his basis for neutrality. I just quoted him. There's a reason why you can't address his direct quote. He based his neutrality on ignorance. He ****ing said so. THAT IS HOW HE DEFINED AGNOSTICISM.

Then why did Huxley say he didn't know? Why do agnostics say they don't know? Why have you said you don't know?

Also, "I don't know" can easily be translated into logic. It is a proposition. "I don't know" can be true or it can be false. And here is where you are going to start getting confused again.

"I don't know" is not a third truth value, but it is, by itself, a proposition. "Huxley didn't know whether or not God exists" is a proposition. It can be true. It can be false. It happens to be true, and I provided a source for this, which you can't address.

If I respond to the proposition that "Huxley didn't know whether or not God exists" with "Hm, well I don't know if Huxley knew because I haven't researched it yet," then I'm not introducing a third truth value. I know this statement is either true or false; I'm just admitting that I don't know which of those truth values hold.

 

​

Yes NOT an 'answer' to a proposition AS YOU USED IT, still dodging

Which is precisely why I called you out on the carpet for using it as a 'response' to a proposition that you can only answer T and F. DUH
Looks like you are not teachable

Had you read my previous posts he clarified his meaning and definition.

I bet you are amazed that the smart people AGREE WITH ME!

MAYBE MORE CRAYOLA WILL WORK!​

Thomas Henry Huxley’s Agnostic Philosophy of Science
by Jiwon Byun M.A.,
The University of Chicago, 2009,
The University of Wisconsin, Madison,
2007​

Propositions concerning anything beyond phenomena lack evidential value; verified propositions have evidential value; if one wishes to make a claim about the knowledge status of a proposition, one should evaluate the evidence and be honest about the result without further pretension.

Huxley discussed the realm of ignorance to show its lack of justificatory value.

The signature remark of Huxleyan agnostics is “Show me evidence,” rather than “I don’t know.”

This interpretation undermines the widely accepted view that Huxley’s endorsement of agnosticism poses philosophical obstacles to his larger project of promoting science in Victorian society. His intention behind agnosticism was to establish and maintain epistemic merit of science without any unknowable, metaphysical or theological, apparatus. Science is the practice of agnosticism, and for this reason, our best way to knowledge.


You posted nonsense, both in logic and philosophy

 

As I used it, it was and admission that I don't know which of the two truth values hold, not a third truth value.

Because you don't know what possible VALUES means.

Yes, he did. While agreeing with me and disagreeing with you.

Lol, you ignore what HUXLEY HIMSELF SAID and rely on someone else to tell you what he said? Pathetic. And there's a difference between UNKOWABLE, and what you personally don't know. A distinction Huxley made in the quote that you are unwilling to read.

I'd quote him again, but you refuse to read.

 

Then stop using it to respond to a proposition because when you do you have no leg to stand on to defend yourself.

If you think the distinction agrees with your nonsense then you are back to pleading stupidity, which anyone with 3rd grade reading skills can fully understand pleading stupidity is NOT agnostic, logic could care less if its your 'personal' truth.

How many more times do you need me to sink your titanic before it soaks in that you are wrong koko is right. RIP

 

"I don't know" is a proposition. It can be T/F. It is also an admission that you don't know the truth value of a separate proposition. This ain't rocket surgery. You are the only person here who doesn't get this.

I will try to make this as simple as possible:

"I don't know if proposition A is true" is both a proposition in itself and an admission that you don't know the truth value of proposition A.

Seeing as I'm willing to quote him and address his statements and you aren't, it's pretty clear which of us is willing to employ some reading skills. Especially since he's making THE EXACT SAME DISTINCTION I AM.

Is RIP your new PLONK? Why can't you address what Huxley said?