Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

Very simply;

Theist takes the position belief G/god exists
Atheist takes the position belief G/god does not exist
Agnostic takes neither position, neither believe nor disbelieve.

Its impossible, more like delusional to claim one 'knows' G/god exists or does not exist, that is false on its face.

agnostic-atheist... is not-voting and voting at the same time.

No sane person can claim neither and one at the same time.
LNC violation.

Agnostic-atheist fails logic.

Flew is a wooden nickel.

Hey, but good luck to ya!

 

Theist takes the position belief G/god exists
Atheist takes the position belief G/god does not exist
Agnostic takes neither position, neither believe nor disbelieve.

Now that said;
We can reverse that with an idenitical meaning.

Theist takes the position disbelief G/god does not exist
Atheist takes the position disbelief G/god does exist
Agnostic takes neither position, neither believe nor disbelieve.

Again that said;
We can set it up for lacker still has an identical meaning.

Theist takes the position lack of belief G/god does not exist
Atheist takes the position lack of belief G/god does exist
Agnostic takes neither position, neither believe nor disbelieve.

All versions have identical meanings and contain NO logical errors, NO LNC violations and NO LEM violations!

ALL versions fit this logic table or the exact negation with an identical meaning;



That I posted earlier.

So Mr Phelps, your mission if you decide to accept it is to format a logic table that proves Flews theory is correct, WITHOUT LNC, LEM VIOLATIONS.

 

Yes. Those are the definitions you keep insisting on. They are not the definitions most self described atheists use, nor are they the most useful definitions. I have told you this repeatedly and you have ignored it every time.

Theist: Believes in God(s). May claim to know God exists and may claim to have a “personal relationship “ with God. Or, may have doubts about it, have no direct personal experience with God(s), and not claim to know.

Atheist: Lacks belief in God(s). May claim to know Gods don’t and can’t exist and plainly state “there are no Gods”. This could because God is being defined with contradictions. Or, may not claim to know if Gods exist or not, but simply not be convinced that they do.

Agnostic: Doesn’t claim to know, or thinks knowledge about Gods is impossible. May be theist or atheist.

As the table I made for you shows, you can be both agnostic and atheist, agnostic and theist, an atheist who claims to know there are or can be no gods, or a theist who claims to have personal knowledge or direct experience (or a “relationship”) with god(s).

There are many many theists who claim to know God exists. There are plenty of atheists who claim to know gods do not or can not exist. As you define God to be more and more particular and with more and more contradictions, fewer and fewer atheists will be agnostic to that definition of God.

Incorrect.

Of course not, but that’s not what an agnostic atheist is. As I told you repeatedly, all your silly tables do is illustrate your own insisted upon definitions.

 

correct

incorrect. Atheists lack belief in a god or gods.

It is not possible to take the position of neither belief or disbelief. We've been over that.

 

So AFAYC 'NO' atheists believe G/god does not exist?

The famous last words of a trapped atheist with no explanations and no clue how to escape the goo.

Why not? Explain, better yet cite it.

 

what 'dictionary' definitions do self described 'athiests' use, citations please.

any person admits to belief in G/god is a theist

So then someone who 'lacks belief in G/god' has no belief in G/god, or are they sneaking a little bit of belief in there on the sly down low, under the radar to hedge their bet?

So what does an agnost believe or disbelieve?

you violated the LNC, I mean I coiuld give a rats ass if you want to run around demonstrating the finest in illogical, then we have nothing to discuss, but if you want to claim its logical then you have a lot proven and groovin to do.

oh? so an agnostic atheist is somoene who does believe in G/god and and does not disbelieve in G/god at the same time. You realized thats really wacked out logic I hope?

Is lack of belief a True (1) or False (0)?

 

Sure it does, it is captured under Agnostic Atheist. They have by no means stopped existing or lost the label agnostics, they have merely picked up the label Atheist.

I agree. It is only you who suggest this wipes anything out, the logic I suggest gives them the label atheist in addition to the agnostic label.

I agree that you can't have someone simultaneously answer [0,0] and [0,1]. However, the point of Flew's logic is that Atheism does not correspond to [0,1], it corresponds to [0,X] (where X is any value, i.e. 1 or 0), and that position is perfectly possible to combine with [0,0]. If you consider atheism to be [0,1], then what you're discussing is not Flew's logic, and any issues you find are not issues with Flew's logic.

As you can see in the truth tables I have provided, my A column is true for any inputs that follow the definition [0,X] (i.e. both [0,0] and [0,1]). Similarly, there is no contradiction between [0,X] and [0,0] (since 0 is an allowed, but not demanded, value of X). As such, this definition brings with it no logical issues. Similarly, the circuits I showed contained no exploding states, no contradicted gates, but corresponded exactly to the truth tables.

That doesn't seem true to me. For instance, in the fire sensor example (link), it is perfectly possible to have two output, describing two conditions that are simultaneously true (in this example, "there is a fire" and "sensors are in agreement"). It doesn't seem to me "illegal" to draw those 2 conclusions.

Flew's definition is along the lines of "does not believe in god". The green text there corresponds to 0 as the first value. Flew's definition does not include a statement about the second input "believe God does not exist", and so, it can take either value, without falling outside of the definition.

Nope, we have lots of words that have more than one definition, "orange" being my common example. The fruit definition came first, but that by no means makes it "illegal" to use the colour definition.

In languages, we allow them to overwrite one another easily: "I'd like some orange juice"/"Do you have this shirt in orange". The only dodgy area is equivocation, to take a statement used with one definition, and interpret it using the other definition. I hasn't seemed to me any self-proclaimed atheists have done so (although you do it, when you claim to show what happens using Flew's definition, but still use the non-Flew definition [0,1] at the same time).

 

Is this progress?

Correct, each input value has one and ONLY 1 input value per row.
Correct, each output value has one and ONLY 1 output value per row per specific input condition.

Which is why you cannot add atheist to agnostic,
you cannot have 2 different outputs for a 'specific' input condition.

You and your bretheren showed 2 outputs on the output line, LNC violation.

X in logic gates means 'data invalid' or unusable.

So you just claimed its invalid lol

X for an input means unusable input because it has no effect on the output.



I think I should be getting paid for teaching remedial logic course here.

Toggle is also often displayed as an X because there is no logic associated with it. ei useless.

Each sense in your fire thingie is either sensing different things (all different) or if the same seek 3stage agreement a AND b AND c = ok to rock n roll.

Agnostic is 2 stage agreement, agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve

Ok so back to the drawing board for you

Good luck!

 

From what I have seen so far you peeps dont even know how to digitize your 'lack of belief'. An 'X'? Failing that you do not have anything that resembles a logical system to work with in the first place.

Oh and I did not word that perfectly correct , but I expect you know what I am driving at?

Basically each block (rectangle) has one and only one allowed value for the output for a specific input condition at any one time.

Of course except a chip that provides multiple functions for processing, which of course is not appropriate to prove identity.

Swenssons first design was a function block and function lock can have any number of outputs (NEVER 2 values on the same output at the same time) as they are used for process control of larger systems.

 

We just went over that for you. Atheism is a lack of belief that God(s) exist. Some atheists also believe that Gods positively don't exist. I know it may confuse you, but lacking a belief for and having a belief against is not the same thing. Then some atheists lack belief God's exist, have positive belief they don't exist, and claim to know this to be so. These three things are not the same.

 

Oh hell I can have more fun than a barrel of monkeys with this!

No matter how you people spun it so far its bunk!

You cant escape logic!

I have NO PROBLEM WHAT SO EVER building logically indisputable tables, when will we see some from you? In my lifetime?

yours is all ****ed up, you cant have 2 idenities on a single element output PLONK!

You lika da lacka?



we can do da lacka!

damned if it doesnt turn out with EXACTLY the same results as believe/disbelieve, believe not believe!
LOL

Im still waiting for someone to engage me with qualified arguments.

Anyone?

 

They have no belief in God. That doesn't mean they claim to know God's don't exist. They may not give it any thought. They may see no reason to believe and leave it at that, leaving the door open if any convincing evidence should later be presented to them.

It depends on the particular agnostic. Being an agnostic itself is not about belief. Its about not claiming to know, or that claiming that knowledge is impossible. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

I violated nothing. And you can keep your ass, thanks.

I gave you a clear definition of what an agnostic Atheist is. I even put it in a table for you as you requested. An agnostic can be a believer, they just can't claim to know.

 

I am still amazed that you think these tables of yours do anything but illustrate the definitions you are trying to push on everyone. You really think they "prove" something? What?

 

Please, context fallacy

Claiming to know what you believe is a completely different argument.

believe or disbelieve regards what is believed!
know or not know regards knowledge

You cant know what you cant prove, atheists cant prove the claimed knowlege is a fact any more than a theist can

It is because we asked the agnostic: "Hey agnostic what do you believe"?
Agnostic: I neither believe nor disbelieve

You cant have 2 conditions on a single output even swensson agrees with that, you have nonsense on its face.

No I quoted a dictionary no less, you ignored it.

No they cant, totally illogical

 

The fact that you continue to claim you dont know what is obvious to a 101 logic student is proof you should not be arguing something you dont understand.

 

Dog. Brown.
0. 1. Brown non-dog
0. 0. Non-Brown-non-dog
1. 0. Dog that is not brown
1. 1. Brown Dog

Look everyone! I proved something by Kokomojo logic.

 

Bravo!

And yet many theists claim to know God, what God wants, think they talk to him, have a personal relationship with him etc.

And many theists define Gods with logical self contradictions, which some atheists seize on to refute those gods as impossible, and thus know they don't exist.

As I said before, the number of atheists who are agnostic to any particular god claim is going to vary depending on how logically self contradictory it is and how unfalsifiable it is.

Sure, but that doesn't stop people from claiming knowledge.

No. Agnostic says "I don't know". And may say "Nobody can know". That doesn't mean they don't have any belief on the matter.

I don't believe you killed your wife, but I don't know. I am the equivalent of atheist agnostic on the matter.

Nobody said you can. This is your everlasting strawman.

 

LMAO!

Dog. Brown.
0. 0. No dog
0. 1. Brown
1. 0. Not a brown dog
1. 1. Brown Dog

Thats a pretty funny table but it is functional

the condition 1,1 proves a brown dog, all other conditions fail the proof because both brown and dog must be true at the same time.

 

I understand just fine. I also understand you have made no actual point and have just illustrated some definitions you wish we would all use. And I also understand that when asked what your actual point is, you dodged.

 

It literally does nothing but say that a brown dog is both brown and a dog. Mind blowing stuff eh?

 

it answers a compound question with a compound answer
what you are doing with your agnostic atheist nonsense is adding 'calico' to the equation in your dog example. Which you would call foul ball on, or should call foul ball if you have the knowledge.

Dog. Brown.
0. 0. No dog
0. 1. Brown
1. 0. Not a brown dog
1. 1. Brown calico Dog

 

redd herring

There is no 'particular' god claim, its believe in god (any G/god) period. belief is an OR gate any god makes the statement true.

This is not about the logic of everything people claim that you can toss into the pot unless its entered here as a 'applicable' argument to the subject matter presently under review.

We are not talking about what people claim outside religion, lack, atheist, agnostic, and the standing subject with that regard is Flew, Swennson wanted to argue flew to prove his point.

You jumped in and dont even know what the presently standing argument is about.

Until they are asked the question "what do you believe".
It requires a direct answer regarding what is or is not believed!
You dont answer the question what do you believe with 'I dont know', unless of course you are dodging the question entirely with a nonresponsive answer.
You are repeating yourself this has already been answered not my problem is you cant accept the facts.

non sequitur
thats your problem
you failed to distinguish the difference between what is knowledge and what is belief.
No wonder you are going around in circles

Yours is the strawman, knowledge does not matter here, only what is believed, something can be believed on no knowledge at all.

The most knowledge can do is fortify a believe, knowledge is not the belief, the acceptance of some premise as true is belief. Knowledge or lack of it can support a believe but it is not a belief. Nice try though

 

My post was perfectly clear.

 

No. Not a red herring. It makes these definitions useful.

Different believers define God in different ways, everything from a persona with specific desires, commands etc, to deism to the mere claim that "God is love" and nothing more. To speak of theists and atheists you need to speak relative to whatever the particular God conception is.

And it will be different for different agnostics, because being agnostic isn't about belief in, lack of belief in, or disbelief in gods. It is about claiming or not claiming knowledge.

But many do respond to "does God exist" with "I don't know". They are agnostic.

Yes. because for whatever reason you kept responding to me without addressing what I actually wrote, and responding as if I wrote something else entirely.

Bingo. You can believe without claiming to know. You can believe on no knowledge, and those who do are agnostic believers. You can distinguish them from believers who aren't agnostic. And that makes the term useful. It also works in regard to atheists.

 

Your post was clear indeed, but the response to your post was a bit cryptic. I wonder what AFAYC is supposed to mean and why the word no is put in quotes.