Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

Then your claim is that it is "legal" to not know, but it is "illegal" to admit this fact.

Your entire "argument" relies on "I don't know" being illegal (even though Huxley didn't know and you have admitted to not knowing). But, hey, if you want to backpedal, I'll accept the white flag.

 

Yes that is why I challenged your answer to the proposition.
Next time dont answer!

 

More delusion, I never made such a claim.

 

The same proposition that you haven't answered? Lol, classic Koko.

 

So you no longer argue that it is "illegal" to admit that one doesn't know the truth value of a proposition? It is legal to admit that one doesn't know the truth value of a proposition now?

 

True, however the proposition was "God exists" and you POSTED NOTHING and still have done NOTHING to demonstrate there are any issues with the proposition, instead you claimed stupidity.

Your ignorance claim fails on its face.

 

Thats right I have not answered! You two have demonstrated you are not able to debate the issue rationally.

 

I said I don't know. Just like Huxley did. Meanwhile, your "neutrality" is just as "illegal" (according to your logic) as admitting that you don't know. There's a difference between not knowing and stupidity. Huxley understood this. You occasionally do as well (consistency has never been your strong suit).

 

Any response other than true or false or proving a problem with the proposition does not conform with 2 value logic system. I dont know how anyone (other then the bird) could possibly take you seriously.

 

What happens when you don't answer a T/F question on a test? It counts as wrong. Your inconsistencies are showing again. If you want to debate the issue rationality, you are going to have to provide more than just emojis and the word "PLONK." And you are going to have to start being logically consistent. And you are going to have to address the sources you are provided. And you are going to have to stop hiding your sources. If the past few years are any indication, this is too much to ask for.

 

Value =/= "The only words you can possibly say when evaluating a proposition." I don't understand how anyone but you can't conceive of such a basic thought. Luckily, you appear to be alone there anyway.

 

Sorry,

You have 3 choices in a 2 value system

1) answer true
2) answer false
3) answer with a demonstration the proposition is not valid.

Answering the proposition as you did by claiming ignorance is not on the list of acceptable responses.

I know how difficult such a major **** up is for you to swallow but you seem to enjoy the agony of defeat?

 

So, in a 2 value system, it is impossible to not know the value. One minute you make this claim, the next you are called out on it and reverse course, and now you are back to it again.

In a 2 value system, is it possible to not know the value or not? Make up your ****ing mind.

So we are back to "It is illegal not to know" Koko. Can you get the other Koko back?

Dude, I can't even tell which Koko I'm talking to right now. You keep making mutually exclusive claims. Try addressing the above. In a 2 value system, is it possible to not know which value holds? Yes or no.

Or, here, let me put it in a language you can hopefully understand:

The proposition is "It is possible for someone to not know the truth value of a proposition."

Is the above true or false?

Refusal to answer will be accepted as evidence you've been trolling this entire time.

 

I reject your "I dont know" answer to a proposition unless it fits the following format:

Proposition:
You have 3 choices in a 2 value system

1) answer true
2) answer false
3) answer with a demonstration the proposition is not valid.

true, false, not valid; which is it?

Any attempt to divert from my initial challenge to your answer again shown above will be regarded as trolling the entire time.

 

So you responded to my question about whether or not it is impossible not to know by rejecting that possibility, contradicting your own previous claims and rejecting Huxley's position on the subject, rejecting that agnostic position on the subject. Thank you for clarifying. No one believes that you actually hold to this, and you will contradict it in the future.

 

Still dodging I guess that means you just agreed you are a troll.



the above proposition concerns a 2 value proposition system its either true or false.
Apparently you dont know that either.

 

Welp, that settles it. I respond to your questions; you refuse to respond to mine or anyone else's. I read your sources and respond to them, as I have for MULTIPLE topics, and you refuse to reciprocate. You continuously HIDE your sources and then bail when called out for doing so. You try to dodge discussion by bringing people up without tagging or quoting them. You continuously CONTRADICT your own sources, and you even contradict YOURSELF regularly. You continuously misrepresent the posts of others (just as you do your sources) when you do "respond," and you do this all while maintaining positions that appear to be unique to you and no one else. When confronted, you "respond" with emojis and the word "PLONK." Your own "response" to this post will be limited to emojis, "PLONK", and some variation of "I know you are, but what am I?"

You continuously drag EVERY conversation into bad semantic arguments and you can't even represent your own semantic sources with honesty.

I'm a patient man and I've gone through this pattern for your physics denialism (you still deny observed relativity), your logic denialism (you still can't accept the conjunction elimination), elementary color theory (I taught you the difference between additive/light and subtractive/pigment color mixing), history denialism (you still deny that the Nazis engaged in the mass extermination of Jews), etc. etc. etc.

Unfortunately, it looks like you are beyond reform in these respects. Ta ta.

@Jolly Penguin , you have my sincere apology for dragging you back into all of this after you wisely chose the iggy route. I'll now join you.

Koko, should you ever decide to change your colors and have an honest conversation, have someone PM me with details and I will consider changing my ignore list to address.

 

4. Don't answer.

Both Koko and yardmeat went with 4.

With yardmeat putting koko on Iggy, perhaps this thread can finally fade into the obscurity it was always bound for.

I am amazed Koko managed to keep us responding to his trolling for so long.

Now he can post some childish emoji, again state people can't prove what they never claimed, etc. Cheers.

 

BE FREE FROM THE YARDMEAT MERRY GO ROUND, your turn!



Its about time you put me on iggy! (it wont last folks) When the agony of defeat wears off the yardmeat will be back bringing all this **** up again pretending it never happened and pretending he did not contradict himself countless times.

clearly I have been too patient, any time the yardmeats battleship is sunk its iggy time!

Thanks yard meat.

Now maybe this thread can go back to some resemblence of a discussion instead of 500 pages of the yardmeat dodging and diverting in a futile attempt to salvage the logic wreck he created after claiming he taught logic classes. OMFGawdacres!

 

according to YOUR definition of troll its you that is the troll not me! So much for your grand distinctions that you think have value in changing the course of the argument.





Putting me on iggy was the only option the yardmeat had left after being TOTALLY DEBUNKED!

Took him a long time to figure out that he made a major blunder that he couldnt squirm his way out of.

Not my responsibility to answer it was his.
He wants claim "I dont know" is oke-doke then he has to prove it, you are still here so prove it.

I remind you:
Hitchens Razor
It implies that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.


.

 

Are you ****ing kidding me?

THANKS! Promise you will never respond to me again!

After your constant assaults of dodging, goalpost moving, attributing made up delusional quotes to me, quotes that I NEVER made, your contradictions and troll accusations to throw people off the fact that you made a GIANT BLUNDER that you cant squirm your way out of, trust me I am shedding giant horse tears that you FINALLY put me on iggy! THANK YOU!

I doubt I will ever recover from the joy of going back to a rational productive discussion without you! (All the BS aside I suppose it was productive, at least in so far as debunking the nonsense you are selling and proving you have no formal logic training contrary to the claim you are a logic teacher! )

Well folks, I will save you all some time, yardmeats strawman dodging posting tactics has made this a 500 post circle jerk because he refuse to acknowledge you ****ed up, and of course the bird makes his 'distinctions without a difference' then accuses me of shoehorning in my own definitions.

500 posts condensed, he claims "I dont know" is allowable when answering a proposition in a 2 value (true/false) logic system, I summarily rejected that as nonsense until proven by academic citation.

Yep you guessed it, no citation was ever produced. Therefore it stands as nonsense his agreement is not required.

If it is, then its not within convention I am aware of, for a 2 value logic system, therefore I demanded a citation since logic rules are very well analysed and published.

He failed to provide anything but his personal narrative (as usual) and instead responded with 'anything' no deference to how far over the edge that he could dream up to attempt to place his burden of proof on me. Well as you can all see it didnt work!

@yardmeat is the weakest link!




Im sure the readers are happy they wont have to read page after page of adnauseum dodging, "logic teacher".

.

 

Here you go folks, he moves the goal posts anywhere he thinks he can score point when sucking the last gulp of air!


Did you know?

Originally, to exterminate something was to banish it or drive it away. And it is this meaning that can be found in the Latin origin of "exterminate." "Exterminate" comes from "exterminatus," the past participle of exterminare, meaning "to drive beyond the boundaries." The Latin word exterminare was formed from the prefix ex- ("out of" or "outside") and "terminus" ("boundary").

Not much more than a century after its introduction to English, "exterminate" came to denote destroying or utterly putting an end to something. And that's the use with which the word is usually employed today.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exterminate

Yes I stand by the fact that germany banished the jews from germany, see navaarra well except the 150,000 jewish soldiers in his armed forces LMAO Yes exterminate magically became became total destruction after 1945, simply amazing how that works! I wonder who could have done that?

Now the yardmeat was buried in his last holocaust debate with me and I gave him a link HERE to the holocaust thread and flagged him with a post and guess what.....you got it he never showed up! Can you imagine that? Can you imagine why?

Go ahead, put your narratives up against my citations again, this can be the exception, please do respond to my posts in the holocaust thread. There are hundreds of posts there from myself and other people, pick any one you want and go for it!

Just like the last time he will be a no show folks, once things go past narrative its all over.

 

This is not the crazy armchair narrative stuff you see from certain people on this board, it is a well researched analysis of 'Huxley's' Agnostic as reviewed by J Byun for his post doctorate:

I removed all the 'crayola' since this is intended for all the rational people out here that do not require crayola explanations.

Here are instructions on the 2 value logic system, again crayola removed:

 

One of these things is not like the other

 

I see yellow between green and red (or maybe more like brown), I don't see yellow being red and green. Where did you get the idea that looking at the borders would show you the conjunction?

Besides, finding a few yellow pixels is hardly enough to claim that the picture as such can be considered yellow (that would be an actual composition fallacy, car tires being made of rubber does not mean that entire cars are made of rubber). I agree that you can get yellow from mixing green and red in certain configurations, but that's not the same as green and red being yellow.

Are you claiming that I couldn't find something that isn't just rendered with blur? This flag is made from red and green patches sown together. The flag is green and red, but it is not yellow (it is possible that you can find yellow pixels in the picture of the flag, because of how pngs and jpgs work, but you wouldn't in the physical flag).


Seems I was right in saying that using colours opened a bunch of red herrings that had nothing to do with the logic we were trying to assess.

No, it just proves you added a bunch of incorrect logic in front of the conjunction elimination.

Luckily, we have a process that can sort this out. We disagree on whether "yellow is red and green" is an appropriate way to test conjunction elimination.

1. Yellow is not green
2. "A and B" is only true if A is true and B is true (source)
3. Therefore, "yellow is green and yellow is red" is false (since at least one of the conjuncts is false)

So it seems, as I've mentioned before, that you have not picked a correct conjunction. The failure is with your test, not with conjunction elimination itself. Conjunction elimination remains unchallenged (untested even) by your example.

The definition we used for atheist contained the exact phrase that I used to identify an atheist. I have yet to see a dictionary or similar defining a theist as "a person who does not believe that God does not exist".
You have not shown that neg-raising is mandatory (in fact, you have used the particular sentence we're interested in without neg-raising).

So no, so far, you haven't shown that you fulfil any condition that declares you not an atheist in Flew's definition, whereas the atheist line follow logic and definitions to the letter, and have spelled it out in detail.

Nope, Stanford was really quite clear that the term “atheism” has more than one legitimate meaning, and that nothing said in the article should be interpreted as an attempt to proscribe what meanings people attach to those labels.