Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

How is your new atheist religion going Koko, other than Einstein are there other gods you do not believe in now?

 

Did you know they teach the proper use of conjunctions to 7 year old children in primer schools here in the US?

Weener? You may want to reserve your comments to things you understand, if you have a point to make about weener there is a thread here for that purpose, this is not the one.

Feel free to demonstrably prove your 'real' physics v metaphysics brilliance here: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-false-god-s-of-physics.586429/page-5

 

The thread is about atheism, since you have now shown yourself to be an atheist and by your own definition part of the religion I thought I might give one of my own some support, Koko me old atheist mate!

 

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving";[1] also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[2] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion.[3]Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.[4]
Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true." Circularity can be difficult to detect if it involves a longer chain of propositions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

 

I asked for a citation, theres no citation, citations are denoted with a superscript and a number inside square brackets like this; [99]

Then when you click on the reference your reference must cite 'circular logic'.

Citation please

 

Did you know they teach the proper use and understanding of conjunctions to 7 year old children in primer schools here in the US?

 

There's lovely then, mr atheist!

 

Did you know they teach the proper use and understanding of conjunctions to 7 year old children in primer schools here in the US?

and 4 year olds have a good comprehension of basic english language as well, in the US.

So what seems to be the major malfunction with children in the UK?

 

Don't they teach proper use and understanding of contractions in US schools?

Citation:

https://www.lexico.com/definition/citation

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/citation

https://www.lexico.com/synonyms/citation

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/citation

Missing from all definitions: "superscript and a number inside square brackets".

I sincerely hope you don't need the definition of "quotation"...

 

Here is a quote:

You claim that I have done something where there are no alternatives, whereas you haven't shown that there are no alternatives.

As I have shown before, none of failures you accuse me of are present unless you apply some logic that I don't agree with.

Sure there is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

If you need it in IEEE citation style, you can find it in the link.

 

Probably the influence of atheists like me and you x

 

Its your claim, you come out here posting alternatives, that is a claim, I want to see your logical justification for those alternatives.

The only thing youve shown is that you are more than happy to use logical fallacies as a premise for your positions.

Lets start there!

 

Agree.
And to support their opinions, they point to E=mc2...they know how to get more bang for their buck.
We can measure human intelligence by how much they have destroyed.

 

I'm not sure which alternatives you're talking about.

There are no fallacies in it, until you introduce your idea that lack of belief is to believe the opposite. In fact, my original statement includes only the LEM. You didn't reply to it last time or the time before it, so I will repeat it.

I say "Some people believe A. Everyone else do not believe A". This follows directly from LEM. You then apply Kokomojojo-logic (which I do not agree with) and morph the above statement into "Some people believe A. Everyone else believes not A". If that statement was true, agnostics would be impossible (as you indeed have pointed out, and since agnostics do exist, we know that the red statement is false).

I agree with you that the red statement is wrong (because it claims there cannot be agnostics, which is not true). However, the green statement follows directly from LEM and is therefore true. Therefore, the problem lies in your assertion that not believing something is the same as believing that the thing is false. If you do not add that idea, none of the counterexamples you suggest turn up at all.

 

You continue to fail in logic.

 

as you have been shown countless times by reference to stanford philosophy the correct (ie reasonable and logical) method to address the problem is to start with the logical basis.

Logic is based in 'Direct' affirmative truth statements.

Therefore if you want to adhere to LEM you are required to start by answering the question:
"Do you Believe in G/god", that is a yes or no.

So you then complain and say hey I lack belief in G/god.

Ok logic to the rescue.

Then you add a second true false question: "Do you Disbelieve in G/god", that is a yes or no.

You say NO I dont believe G/god does not exist, and you say NO I dont believe G/god exists.

Now you have a logical basis for 'DIRECT' analysis that evenb stanford is or would be forced to acknowledge as correct because you started from the correct analytical premise.

Presently the course you are on continues to defy logic and reason replacing it with magical word salad semantics, which only serve to prove there is absolutely no basis in logic what so ever for what you are pedaling.

That said:

Logic gates dont bullshit, if you disagree with this express your alleged logic using gates to prove your points, I have no interest in joining you in your word salad strawberry fields forever playground.

As you can see since my logic is 100% supported electrically there is no 'possible' violation of LEM for agnostic.



Now lets see yours......any word salad not in electrical format will be summarily rejected.

If you cant express it electrically it does not exist in logic.

 

Agree so far.

As mentioned before, I worry that we mean different things by the word "disbelieve", so I have made a specific point about saying what I mean, and not try to confuse things by also introducing uncertain wordings.

Instead I would say I have added the true/false question: "Do you believe that G/god does not exist".

Your last sentence here is not clear. We have two questions, "Do you believe that God exist" and "Do you believe that God does not exist". Answering no to the former corresponds to "I do not believe that God exists", answering no to the latter corresponds to "I do not believe that God does not exist". Note that the coloured phrases remain unchanged and are treated the same, there is no verbal slight of hand.

Just pasting a truth table is not enough, you have to point out what each "input" and "output" corresponds to (and also your justification for using a NOR gate rather than any other gate).

That being said, the table you have posted does happen to illustrate my point. In this case, X corresponds to "Do you believe that God exists" and Y corresponds to "Do you believe that God does not exist". Each horizontal line represents a person, and them answering yes (1) or no (0) to each question.

The first person has committed to neither position, their answer to both questions is "No", they are an agnostic (it just so happens that column Z corresponds to whether this person is an agnostic). The middle two lines correspond to believers in each statement. The last line corresponds to someone who believes both statements (this person is demonstrably wrong, and I don't think we need to concern ourselves with this person for the purposes of this discussion).

This much, I think we agree on, unless you're trying to use the table in some different way altogether.

Now let us look closer at Flew's definition of atheist. It is (paraphrased for our purposes): Atheism corresponds to the statement "I do not believe that God exists". As the colour coding indicates, this is to answer no (0) to the first question (X, "do you believe that God exists"). I.e., anyone (any line) in which there is a zero in the X column is an atheist in Flew's definition. As you can see, the first line (which we have already determined to be an agnostic) has a 0 in the X column, and is therefore an atheist by Flew's definition (of course, this doesn't invalidate our verdict that the person is agnostic, it simply states that that person is an atheist in addition to being an agnostic). There are no logical problems with this setup, it is not at odds with your truth table, it merely has to do with labelling the different states.

Let us now consider the idea that "believing that there is no god is the same as not believing that there is a god" (an idea that you often float, but which I do not accept). In our terms, we can rewrite this as Y = not (X), i.e. for any person, if Y is 1, then X has to be 0 and vice versa. This is contradicted by the fact that the agnostic answered 0 to both questions. I.e., your addition breaks logic.

 

Sorry no truth table, rejected

 

I'm using the same truth table as you are. But sure, I can add it again.

Agree so far.

As mentioned before, I worry that we mean different things by the word "disbelieve", so I have made a specific point about saying what I mean, and not try to confuse things by also introducing uncertain wordings.

Instead I would say I have added the true/false question: "Do you believe that G/god does not exist".

Your last sentence here is not clear. We have two questions, "Do you believe that God exist" and "Do you believe that God does not exist". Answering no to the former corresponds to "I do not believe that God exists", answering no to the latter corresponds to "I do not believe that God does not exist". Note that the coloured phrases remain unchanged and are treated the same, there is no verbal slight of hand.

Just pasting a truth table is not enough, you have to point out what each "input" and "output" corresponds to (and also your justification for using a NOR gate rather than any other gate).

That being said, the table you have posted does happen to illustrate my point:


In this case, X corresponds to "Do you believe that God exists" and Y corresponds to "Do you believe that God does not exist". Each horizontal line represents a person, and them answering yes (1) or no (0) to each question.

The first person has committed to neither position, their answer to both questions is "No", they are an agnostic (it just so happens that column Z corresponds to whether this person is an agnostic). The middle two lines correspond to believers in each statement. The last line corresponds to someone who believes both statements (this person is demonstrably wrong, and I don't think we need to concern ourselves with this person for the purposes of this discussion).

This much, I think we agree on, unless you're trying to use the table in some different way altogether.

Now let us look closer at Flew's definition of atheist. It is (paraphrased for our purposes): Atheism corresponds to the statement "I do not believe that God exists". As the colour coding indicates, this is to answer no (0) to the first question (X, "do you believe that God exists"). I.e., anyone (any line) in which there is a zero in the X column is an atheist in Flew's definition. As you can see, the first line (which we have already determined to be an agnostic) has a 0 in the X column, and is therefore an atheist by Flew's definition (of course, this doesn't invalidate our verdict that the person is agnostic, it simply states that that person is an atheist in addition to being an agnostic). There are no logical problems with this setup, it is not at odds with your truth table, it merely has to do with labelling the different states.

Let us now consider the idea that "believing that there is no god is the same as not believing that there is a god" (an idea that you often float, but which I do not accept). In our terms, we can rewrite this as Y = not (X), i.e. for any person, if Y is 1, then X has to be 0 and vice versa. This is contradicted by the fact that the agnostic answered 0 to both questions. I.e., your addition breaks logic.

 

The above illustrates the logic for 'Agnostic', NOTHING ELSE!
If the above works for Flew then flew has NOT described an atheist but an Agnostic. You cant claim the same logic for Atheist as Agnostic, you should know it does not work that way. The fact that you would even suggest such a thing, that it might be the same proves your logic is highly suspect.

X - "Do you Believe in G/god"
Y - "Do you Disbelieve in G/god"

Z = 1 = Agnostic
Z = 0 != Agnostic

dis·be·lieve
be unable to believe (someone or something).
"he seemed to disbelieve her"

have no faith in God, spiritual beings, or a religious system.
"to disbelieve is as much an act of faith as belief"dis·be·lieve

 

I agree that the output Z describes whether someone is an agnostic, but the different lines of the truth table describe every possible combination of answers to X and Y (the three lower lines just describe possibilities that do not qualify someone as agnostic).

I didn't claim I use the same logic, I claim that the point I was making is can be seen in the same table (although not as an output). I wrote that Flew's atheism corresponds to having a zero in the X column. If you need it written as an output, you can see it here:



X: believe that God exists
Y: believe that God does not exist (as in the previous post, I'm avoiding using the word "disbelief", in order to avoid equivocation)
Z: Agnostic
A: Atheist (in Flew's definition)

As you can see, for each line, A = not(X).

There are several definitions of disbelief, which means we risk equivocation if we use the word. While, ostensibly, we could come to some conclusion about what we mean by the word, it is not necessary to explain and examine the logic above. Believing something is more clearly defined (at least for our purposes), so I'm using that instead.

 

lol 40 pages and atheism remains by definition, not a religion.

 

40 pages and the your spam posts are just as laughably meaningless now as they were the first time.

rejected, 2 outputs represent 2 different people
secondly you just violated LEM for agnostic.
thanks for playing though

 

Nope, two outputs represent two statements about the same person/situation. Different people (or at least different people with different beliefs/inputs) are represented by different rows.

That being said, nothing is stopping us from showing only one output, i.e. considering only the one statement (it's of course just the same table, with the Z column simply hidden/ignored):



This is of course a normal not gate, with the modification that we've introduced a different input that doesn't actually govern the result. (We can if we wish stop considering that input as well, at which point we generate the truth table for the normal not gate).

Nope.

The law of the excluded middle states that "for every proposition, either this proposition or its negation is true" (source). A is constructed as the negation of X, and indeed, for each line in the truth table, you will find that either the proposition (X) is true, or its negation (A) is true, as the law of the excluded middle demands.

 

You have 2 and ONLY 2 choices, either its 2 people or its an LEM violation, FFS already.

.