Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

Thanks for posting that long quote from Huxley. I suspected Koko misrepresented what Huxley said. I had heard of Huxley before and didn't think he was as irrational as Koko made him out to be, but some doubt had crept in.

 

And that was perfectly clear from the start, to everyone who didn't intentionally set out to misunderstand you so they could grandstand and feel smugly superior to you, fooling only themselves.

I called this the moment I saw you and Swensson write the word "answer". I knew Koko would pounce on that demanding it means you were claiming to answer the question with an additional possible truth value.

Hence the need to distinguish "answer" from "response". With anybody else this would be pointlessly pedantic, but with Koko it is an opportunity to misrepresent you.

 

Ah, excellent notes. That clarifies quite a bit and will (hopefully) help clarify future disconnects.

 

Its a declaration but not a proposition, had you spent more time paying attention to swenssons and my discussion instead of spout of that superstrawman was here to save the day only to have no clue what a proposition is, is frankly hilarious.

I have no need to. all the wacky **** you think are arguments have already been answered by phds et al, and you fail to comprehend that they buried you.
yes
RIP

I posted several quotes from him and you ignore them


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



Yes quoting a published academic source is called a supporting expert citation, contrary to stupid narratives passed off as legitmate that doesnt even comprehend wtf a proposition is.

 

Yes you knew koko is right in exposing logical nonsense.
He answered a T F proposition with "I dont know", then he and you defended as 'truth', it is not the truth of the proposition, you have no defense.

 

Wow now yardmeat and the bird are going to tell us the university of british columbia are asshelmets for also citing this byron dude!

The brilliance in this recent thread is so bright I need welders googles to protect my eyes! Shades arent good enough!

yer both beyond my ability to help

RIP

 

NOBODY SAID IT IS.

But you need to pretend people did so you can entertain yourself by calling them names, saying PLONK and RIP, and posting emojis. Childish but fun for you I suppose. So horray?

 

IT IS when you use it as an answer to a proposition that requires a TRUTH ANSWER, then ARGUE ITS "YOUR TRUTH" as the yard meat and yourself did, and continue to do!

On a 1 question test you both score 0!

Only a total retard would be so stupid as to require someone to say, HEY IM ANSWERING NOW before giving an anwser, which goes to prove how desperately WAY over the edge weak your attempts to salvage the wreck that the yardmeat created.

Of course I am going to jump all over the nutterville craziness I see in front of my eyes! If you want me to stop then stop dumping bullshit in my thread.



Brilliant distinctions btw! LMAO

Ok I have my hazmat gear and welding googles on and braced for your next radiant post!

 

You've provided no source that says that anyone must immediately provide a truth value answer to a proposition the moment they are faced with it, without any further exploration. None. Not one. Meanwhile, I clarified from the beginning that it isn't about "my truth." Try being honest for a just one post and read. I stated from the beginning that propositions HAVE a truth value, and it doesn't depend on "my truth." "I don't know" refers to the fact that I don't have enough information to know WHICH of the truth values hold. Something Huxley also said.

A few more times, just to see if it can finally sink in:

Just because a proposition has a truth value doesn't mean you know which value.
Just because a proposition has a truth value doesn't mean you know which value.
Just because a proposition has a truth value doesn't mean you know which value.
Just because a proposition has a truth value doesn't mean you know which value.
Just because a proposition has a truth value doesn't mean you know which value.
Just because a proposition has a truth value doesn't mean you know which value.
Just because a proposition has a truth value doesn't mean you know which value.
Just because a proposition has a truth value doesn't mean you know which value.
Just because a proposition has a truth value doesn't mean you know which value.
Just because a proposition has a truth value doesn't mean you know which value.

 

Nobody said "I don't know" is the truth of the proposition. Not yardmeat. Not me. Not anybody. Annsisting that is another person's view, so you can attack it while dodging what they actually said.

Wow yardmeat. You were right. Look how he doesn't provide a link to that "quote". And look what Oxford actually says the definition is if you look it up (exactly what I said).

 

You provided an immediate answer, it was bullshit, but you defended it as a legitimate answer anyway.

 

It's a familiar pattern. Just look for the times when he "quotes" something or gives a screen shot and refuses to provide a link. He always does that when he knows the source actually contradicts him. Same goes for when he mentions you or me or anyone else without actually tagging or quoting. He knows his argument is lacking and he's just trying to slip something by.

 

Hey judge I didnt so I was speeding so why do I have to pay the fine!

 

I'm sorry you hold Huxley and, well, even yourself in such low regard. Hell, you seem to be the only being in existence who says it is illegal to not know the truth value of a proposition. Maybe one day you will find a source that backs up your claim.

 

Meanwhile, Koko claims it is impossible to not know you were speeding. Weird.

 

Go ahead post your citation that "I dont know" is a valid response.

 

Seriously, why continue feeding this troll? He knows full well he is trolling.

 

I've provided sources and counterexamples proving that is possible to not know the truth value of a proposition. It is something you've admitted before, something you refuse to debate, something your hero Huxley agreed with, and it is absolutely central to agnosticism.

 

You have proven Huxley is too complicated for you

 

See. He STILL insists you claim "I don't know" is a "valid" response, despite repeated clarification by you. He always will. He is not open to actual discussion.

 

I've directly quoted him agreeing with me and you refused to discuss the quote. I'm obviously not the one he's "too complicated" for.

 

Maybe he loves you?

 

Of course not after I challenged it and he realized I was going to trash that nonsense its throw **** at the wall time after that point.

More delusions, I never claimed that he claimed it was valid. I claimed that he used it as an answer to a proposition, and any answer to a proposition goes without saying that its valid unless we are talking about someone who is a complete idiot or has no knowledge of logic convention.

The yard meat claimed to be a logic teacher, poor kids.

 

koko never made such a claim, any other delusions you want to tell us about?

After rebutting that nonsense you post more than 10 times I dont see the need to repeat it any longer.

 

Yet more dishonesty. I've said from the beginning that propositions HAVE a truth value (either true or false), that "I don't know" isn't a truth value for a proposition, and that it is instead an acknowledgement that one does not know which of the two possible truth values hold.

You weren't able to comprehend that, so you tried switching to T/F testing methodology, which is nonsense for several reasons:

1) They aren't the same

2) If they were the same, then your "neutrality" would be just as "illegal" as "I don't know"

3) There actually ARE many T/F questions in tests where not enough information is provided to know the answer, in which case "Not enough information" or "Not given" or "Can't say" is acceptable. I'd provide a dozen or so sources for that, but I'm tired of doing work for you that you won't address. If you give me your word you will address this fact, then I will provide sources. Everyone who has passed high school (or likely even junior high) has experienced this. A similar situation appears in EVERY geometry class in which you are know that an angle HAS a value, but you haven't necessarily been given information to know WHAT that value is.

4) Many of us have been in situations where we were asked a T/F question on a test that we had no way of knowing the answer to due to the information not being covered or the question being mis-phrased. I had this happen more than once in high school, undergrad, and grad school. What happens when you can prove to the teacher that this is the case? The question no longer counts.