Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

Ok, let's have a closer look at that line. As I've mentioned, each line represents a person. The line you have marked represents a person for which Y is true, but not X. That is, he believes the statement "there is no God", and he does not believe the statement "there is a God". The Z column shows whether this person is an agnostic, but he has a 0 in that column, so he is not an agnostic. The A column represents whether this person is an atheist (in Flew's definition), there is a 1 in that column, so he is an atheist. I don't see any logic being violated by those statements.

In particular, you bring up the Law of the Excluded Middle, so we can look closer at that. A is defined as A=not(X), indeed, A is the negation of X. The Law of the Excluded middle states that a statement is true, or its negation is true. That is, it demands that if X is 0 then A is 1, and if X is 1 then A is 0. In the line you have highlighted, X is 0 and A is 1, which is one of the states allowed by the LEM. Thus, the line you have marked is consistent with the LEM.

 

PLONK!
REJECTED!
I have no idea what you 'think' you are doing, but that is NOT remotely a functional truth table.

Lets try this, start with something 101 shall we.... see if you can write a truth table for ONLY atheist and theist and get it right.

btw if you think I am kidding or you think I am wrong buy the chips and watch it blow when the outputs go to the LEM condition! LOL

 

Ok I guess Im feeling generous tonite, so heres a bone for you:




That is what your TT should have looked like. Pay attention to the output, it is a single output as it should be and the it produced the same output as your nonfunctional configuration.

Its correct in so far as construction, ie its functional, its not correct otherwise because (your logic is a mess) but at least that is what it would have 'had to look like' in so far as proper TT construction is concerned.

you can only have one channel (output) per person your one output can however demonstrate several identities.

More than one identity is fine but then you also need to show there is no LEM conflict with other identities.

In the single output you can set up your logic to any of the 4 identities.
theist, atheist, agnostic, flew

there you go knock yourself out

 

actually, forget about everything else.
since your arguing to justify flew, just show us the logic for flew.
if you need more than 2 inputs add them
you will need whatever makes you happy for believe and disbelieve.
just flew.

 

I have to admit I really didnt even read anything you wrote because I did not need to. One quick glance at the TT told me the story.

So I just looked at what you wrote and the problem is you do not understand how to read a TT.

TT's are set up to run through all possible input conditions from 0,00,000,0...n to 1,11,111,1...n respectively. corresponding to the number of inputs, then the resultant output is evaluated for each possible logic condition left to right.

For whatever reason, and I am assuming its because you dont understand how to read a TT, you seem to think that your flew output magically overrules the agnostic output, when in fact it creates a LEM violation.

When evaluated properly the inputs show that you have 'a condition' indicating no disbelief and disbelief at the same time, with your output as an atheist, and not only is that a LEM violation, its a direct contradiction of itself. You cant have no disbelief and disbelief at the same time.

A condition anywhere in the TT of belief or disbelief are illegal conditions for an agnostic! Hence the output is 0 for all input conditions except 0,0 where it is a 1, which expresses the identity of an agnostic.

So back to the drawing board with you. Like I said forget combining it with anything else I'd be interested in seeing the stand alone version of the flew logic because I contend and maintain it fails logic. Prove flews theory is in fact logical.

 

I am amazed at all the work you have done to in order to delude yourself that not believing X is true equals believing X is false. Humans are capable of not having an answer or belief about something being true or false....

 

cool, so you are in total agreement with me.
I proved that point here:


Its called 'Agnostic'.
as you can see anytime a belief or disbelief shows up on the input a 0 shows up on the output, when both belief and disbelief are 0 the condition you just stated is met, that condition is agnostic.

 

I mean seriously?

If it does not govern the result then its not part of the same equation



THAT is not the TT for a not gate FFS.

The TT for a NOT gate is:
X.........A
_______
0.........1
1.........0

The TT for a BUFFER gate is:
X.........A
_______
0.........0
1.........1

The buffer gate is the one you would use to prove atheist and theist:
X.......A
_______
0........0 = atheist
1........1 = theist

Seriously, this problem is as '101' as any logic problem can possibly get.

It doesnt look like anyone here can produce a logical proof for flews wacky theory. Its no surprise to me anyway why stanford file 13'd it.

So I await a proof for flew before I die of old age please.

 

be sure to give the gal a like!

 

... but what is your point? Yes, you can show us fancy tables... that aren't making any point for you.

 

whats not clear about:

 

Yes, atheists and agnostics exist. So do theists. So what?

 

So I answered your question:

 

.... so you have no point? Just enjoying playing with tables for no reason? ok then.

 

ah, there you go, its all my fault because you dont understand the point!
you can always go to school you know.
the real question is why are you in this thread if you dont understand the subject matter?
Then again maybe you are just here to heckle me because I debunked flews 'lacker' theories logically proving the matter beyond a shadow of doubt that they are 100% pure bs.....

 

I am well aware. You are both failing to address my points and to elaborate on the questions I think would shine a better light on our disagreements. You also make assumptions about what I mean that directly contradict ideas that I have explained at length. I have pointed out inconsistencies in your logic, and you don't even mention them, let alone resolve them.

Sure it is. All the outputs follow the logic prescribed. What other functionality do you require?

I still maintain our fundamental issue is not one of logic (at least not the logic described in these tables), but one regarding the definition of "atheist". The table for Flew's definition of atheist, I have already provided, and the table for theist will simply have an output that is a copy of the X column. It won't give you any new insights.

Here is a simulation of the setup that your marked row represent: Source
Seems to work just fine. X and Y are 0 and 1 respectively, as the inputs of that row dictate, and the outputs Z and A are 0 and 1 respectively, just as my table shows in the same row. You can also use the simulation to verify any other combination of inputs by clicking the input numbers (and for reference, here is an example of a faulty circuit, just to show what the simulator does when given something that would blow up).

What's non-functional about mine? Here is my setup in the simulator: link (again, you can verify the other entries of the truth table by clicking the input numbers). It seems to work just fine. The benefit to my set up is its simplicity, how clearly it follows from the definition (that A is not(X)).

Your setup generates the same truth table, just in a more roundabout way, so what benefit is it?

No, each line in a truth table corresponds to each possible combination of inputs (in our case, any combination of beliefs). Each output represents a conclusion, based on those inputs. Nothing is keeping you from drawing several conclusions about the person's beliefs based on their inputs, so you have have several outputs.

For instance consider this link in which there are a bunch of inputs (fire sensor readings), and two conclusions that can be drawn (one answering whether there is a fire, and another answering whether there is disagreement between the sensors). This confirms that truth tables can easily and functionally have different outputs, showing different conclusions about the same inputs.

Of course, if you're interested in a particular output, you can simply read only the corresponding column.

The Law of the Excluded Middle applies only to negations. You only need to show that there is no LEM conflict between things that are negations. In this case, the only negation is A=not(X), and indeed, you will find that for each line in the tables below, A is 0 when X is 1 and vice versa, which is what the LEM demands. I.e. no violations in my setups.




LEM follows directly from logic, so if there was a violation of LEM, you should be able to point to it directly in the circuitry, and to a corresponding rule (and given that the LEM deals only with negations, the piece of circuitry you point to should be a not gate, and the rule you point to should be about negations). As you point out later, you can have several identities, so what logic do you use to argue that there is a LEM violation?

Sure, or you can set them all up at once, so we can get them all in one table, instead of having to produce 4 different tables (large sections of which just repetitions of one another). Nothing is keeping you from reading any of the individual logics by considering one column at a time.

Obviously, I'd argue that it is you who don't understand how to read the truth tables and corresponding circuits. Although I think it is more useful for us to examine our disagreements than just stating that the other person is wrong.

I don't think I have said that the logic in the Flew's atheist column "overrules" the agnostic output, they can be simultaneously true (as in the case of all the self-proclaimed agnostic atheists, which you seem to be aware of). They are not negations of one another, so the LEM is not violated.

Either way, we have gone through all the trouble of bringing in truth tables and circuitry. My truth tables show no uncertain data points (and take into account all rules that we have discussed). All my circuitry works just fine (as evidenced by the simulator, as well as the fact that they follow from the truth tables).

This is the reason I have been hesitant to use the word disbelief, you use belief to mean two different things, and then pretend that they are the same thing.

Disbelief can mean believing the opposite of something. Agnostic do not have type of disbelief (since this type of disbelief is in itself a belief). In our tables, this is represented by Y=1.

Disbelief can also mean not having a certain belief. This type of disbelief is the negation of having a belief (and so, the Law of the Excluded Middle applies between this type of disbelief and having the belief). Agnostics do have this type of disbelief (but this type of disbelief is not in itself a belief, so this does not ascribe any beliefs to the agnostics). This type is represented by a 1 in my A column (or a 0 in the X column).

If we make the Kokomojojo logic jump that these are the same things, then we get logical errors. It is only after that logic jump that agnostics turn out to illogically both have and simultaneously not have this disbelief. I.e., it is only by introducing that Kokomojojo-logic that agnostics turn out to be impossible (it is not actually a feature of Flew's logic).

Since we've gone through the effort of brining in circuitry (and I'm enjoying the simulator), here is what your assumption looks like in circuits: link. As you can see, the simulation is failing to run, and we get an error message at the bottom of the screen. Your contribution is illogical.

Only in one sense of the word disbelief. I would suggest that you phrase it in terms of "I believe there is a god" and "I believe there is no god" instead of disbelief. The second kind of disbelief in my explanation in the last few paragraphs is not in itself a belief, and therefore is not "illegal" to assign to agnostics.

I would agree, I only included it because you insisted on including it (and because it is helpful to see the analogue to the agnostic case).

That being said, logic does not demand that you take all of your inputs into account. As an example of this, logical truth is a statement which is true regardless of the truth or falsity of its constituent propositions (source). While it is often omitted due to being obvious or unnecessary, there is nothing illogical about the concept. Not being "part of the equation" doesn't make it illogical, just superfluous. I just keep including it to keep you from mixing up the different kinds of disbeliefs.

You have to read the entire sentence. As I said, what I presented was a not gate with the modification that there is a different input present. As you have mentioned earlier, a truth table needs to include every possible combination of values that the inputs can take, so the truth table must be extended to include different values of Y. That being said, Y isn't connected to anything, so every result in the truth table is still what it would be in the normal 2x2 not-gate truth table, i.e., it is still a perfectly normally functioning not gate.

Flew's ideas are not statements about the world, or about logic, it is about language. Flew has identified a concept, and put a word to it. Logically, this is no more complicated than the first person to find an apple and decide that there should be a word to describe it. There are no particular proofs needed. It is only when you apply your Kokomojojo-logic that contradictions appear (it is only then that we start talking about what is happening in the world, rather than how we describe it).

 

bullshit, your not gate uses the 'x' input, not a 'different' input

as I said, you may as well save your circular rhetoric it wont work here, the gates dont bullshit, and I read and understood your gate logic in a new york second and that is a damn fast second.

your rhetoric might dazzle some people but your truth table tells the real story and is a total PLONK!

 

Jesus, read what I'm writing. I'm saying that there is another input present, not that the other input is being supplied into the not gate.

 

I dont see any gates or TT that reflect it, so BS!
are you kidding me?
you expect me to wade through that word salad gish only in the end to call bullshit?
NO, not until you can show me a logic table that supports your claims.
Logic tables dont bullshit.

Took me a couple minutes to learn that shitty little program you use, and an hour to get it into a postable format which is a waste of time since its clearly beyond everyones comprehension but Im gonna post it anyway.



Since you cant read a TT and think your little sim is better there it is, PROOF agnostic exists. The red light comes on every time there is a 0,0 on the inputs.
0belief, 0disbelief

My original pic to demonstrate and prove what you think does not exist! LOL



Secondly here is the ludicrously simple logic for agnostic atheist and theist LMAO

Oh and if its not painfully obvious B=Belief and DB=Disbelief or whatever euphemism or metaphor you want to use in its place, changes nothing.



Nope no room for a flew in there! LMAO

Knock yourself out!

 

there we have it, proof this is a waste of my time

its not me, you are the one that has a problem with usage not me. I dont give a damn how you use it, use it anyway you want and prove it with gates.

I already corrected your bogus bunk logic and addressed the rest of your points and if you continue refuse to accept that FACT, Im sorry but there is nothing more I can do for you. I even took the extra step, something I never do, and explained it to you, what the requirements are and how to properly set it all up, you ignore it, now if you continue on this path I have no choice but to ignore you.

If you understood what you are doing then you would know why I only need to take a quick glance at the logic you use and have no use what so ever for your rhetoric. All I need is to see what you have on the inputs and what you got for an output. Not 100 outputs

Until proven otherwise, Flew fails logical review, PLONK, thats the sound flews theory makes when it hits the bottom of the trash can.

 

I understand the thread title fine. Atheism is not a religion, your weird fixation on tables notwithstanding.

 

you sure about that?

Oh, those are called 'proofs', they are used to prove a 'valid' point, (mine) and at the same time in the case of swensson an invalid point.

what possible reason could you have to say that?

 

I think this is what is driving Kokomojo. He has made religion and worldview synonyms and argues atheism is a worldview (despite it only being one non-belief and different atheists actually having different worldviews), because be thinks calling atheists "religious" and having "faith" will get under the skin of atheists and annoy them. His odd claims don't seem to have any other point to them whatsoever.

He appears to be a simple troll.

 

Incredulitiy is typically annoyed when faced with the facts!

Christianity is simply the believe in Jesus and you accept that it is a religion.
Atheism is simply the disbelief in Jesus et al
Nothing odd about it.

Atheists think they are special the same rules that apply to Christianity dont apply to them LMAO

SCOTUS ruled several atheism orgs are religions.

Everyone knows atheists have equally if not stronger 'FAITH' than believers!

When I read your posts I see a troll post because it ignores the FACT atheism is a faith and pretends atheism is based in facts, its NOT. In fact it defies logic. Pure faith no different than any 'other' religion.

Blame me for what you are doing.

Because you refuse to acknowledge defeat does not mean you have not been defeated!

I know incredulity is driving the atheists that refuse to accept the FACTS, and they want all threads proving atheism is a religion shut down.

Neo-Atheism is a failure and the only defense they have left is thread removal.

Atheism is a worldview, a worldview IS a religion, citations previously posted.

 

you showed a 3 input 2 output diagram, nothing more/