Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

yeh its a standard troll tactic while they take the last gulp of air on the way to the bottom, they post nonsense to ease the pain of the agony of defeat.

 

It went over your head.

 

No it didnt, neither has your failure to respond to my challenges in my last response to you.

 

I believe !God is a belief (it is a rejection of a god)
I !believe Gods is not a belief (it is a rejection of a belief)

This isn’t rocket science

 

So then you agree one is a positive belief and other is a negative belief.

Then again maybe you mean you dont believe that God doesnt exit either?

 

Oh? Explain?

So then you know its about additive color after all, yet instead of conceding you insist on pretending its just a jpg with unassociated colors, seems a bit trollish to me.

Now thats a good one!
Here maybe this will help!

Seems it is a conjunction after all!

There is more information for you!

I posted visual proof that when green and red light shines on the same spot its yellow.
........................................................conjunction
Thats your problem, you want to claim 'and' is not a conjunction good luck with that **** lol

I already proved the conjunction 'and' is additive.

three is one and two;




You keep substituting your nonsense grammar for mine.
Mine is perfectly legitimate english.

The color yellow is the color green and the color red.

Its not my problem you cant invent a way to make CE work with perfectly legitimate grammar.

 

Part of the problem is that he doesn't understand the difference between a linguistic conjunction and a logical conjunction. "Or," for example, is a conjunction linguistically speaking . . . but not in logic. In logic it is a disjunction. Hence why disjunctions ("or") and conjunctions ("and") have different truth tables. Once again, this is all stuff that is covered in the opening chapters of every intro to logic textbook, along with the fact that the variables refer to propositions . . . something else he doesn't grasp even after being provided sources.

 

pure genius!

I realize you have no clue that we are talking about the conjunction-"and" NOT OR?
Then again maybe you dont know the difference?

We realize that you think you are a logic genius however we get to enjoy another one of your ****ed up "logic" posts, FACT is there are BOTH an inclusive or and an exclusive or.

Inclusive OR allows both possibilities as well as either of them. So, if either A or B is True, or if both are True, then the statement value is True. Whereas Exclusive OR only allows one possibility. So if either A or B is true, then and only then is the value True.Jul 14, 2010

What is the difference between Inclusive and Exclusive OR?
https://stackoverflow.com › questions › what-is-the-differ...

Inclusive or: A or B or Both.
Exclusive or: Either A or B but Not Both.





The operations logical AND (∧), inclusive OR (∨) are dual, in the sense that the following hold.

>¬(A∧B)↔¬A∨¬B
>¬(A∨B)↔¬A∧¬B.

This means they have essentially the same properties. They're both associative, commutative, and idempotent; and they distribute over one another. So in conclusion, inclusive OR has nice properties, and it interacts nicely with logical AND.



Exclusive or is one or the other but not both, inclusive or is one, the other, or both.

Just like our genius logic teacher had no clue 'but' was a conjunction! LOL

Parents you woonder why schools are turning out dumbasses now days? Either that or his teacher claim is pure fraud, personally I suspect the latter since no school will hire anyone that screws up so LARGE.

 

On the other hand the bird did say something quite genius, last person I would have expected to come up with it, see if you peeps can figure it out

I would have gave him a like had he not included a series of pejoratives with it.

 

*sips earl grey tea*

 

As much as I respect Jean Luc and his preference for "Earl Grey, hot" allow me to suggest iced Earl Grey. Especially if it the weather is as hot in your neck of the woods as it is in mine. Mixes well with gin -- and the two together may be one of the most British things I can think of.

 

Yeh I know preaching about disjunctions when the topic in dispute is conjuctions was another pretty stupid blunder, but we are getting used to it, especially since you didnt know or can be both inclusive and exclusive.

Here this might help



Id suggest helping swensson try to figure how to come up with a solution, that is a 'valid' one but I wont because every time they follow your lead they have to deal with the embarrassment that follows from the resultant agony of defeat when they wind up debunked.

 

I am actually more of a green tea fella.

 

I don't think it's that. I don't think he is as clueless as he pretends to be. He knows. He just needs to pretend people said what they didn't so he can feel he destroyed them with his superior intellect.

 

and you pretend that I didnt bury the meathead logic bible only 2 posts above.

He didnt even know we were discussing conjunctions, not disjunctions and as usual went off on his typical tangent tantrum rant. -boring- waste of bandwidth

Yep I know, you dont, and Im not in a teaching mood, so figger it out.

Pretend? LOL, More like you dont understand grammar well enough to know what you said, forcing me to explain it to you or this thread would not progress beyond 0.

Dont sell yourself too short, you did get 1 right, the question is which one?

Even a broken clock is right 2 times per day!

 

A "negative" belief is a lack of belief...it is not a belief in the negation of the subject.

I have "no belief in God" is not the same thing as I have "belief in no God"

 

What is the 'scope' you are talking about?
How many choices are you working with in this world you are trying to describe?
Your language suggests 2?
'Theists' and 'atheists' is that correct?

 

Yes, you either believe in a God (theist) or you lack belief in a God (atheist)

 

categorically that logically leaves you with 'only' 2 choices, yes (I believe in God) or no (I do not believe in God), there is no taxonomy possible with only '2' choices.

If you do not believe in God then you have no belief in God therefore you lack belief in God. No difference.

 

That sounds needlessly ambiguous to me. Why not just say a lack of that belief?

1. You can have the belief that X is true. (what most call "theist")
2. You can lack the belief that X is true. (what you and I call "atheist")
3. You can have the belief that X is false. (what Koko calls "atheist", and others call "strong atheist".
4. You can lack the belief that X is false. (2&4 together being what many, including Koko call "agnostic")

Koko told us he sees no difference between 2&3 (or I presume between 1&4 though he didn't say that).
But he then defines "agnostic" as 2&4 together.

He doesn't see the contradiction in that, and has repeatedly refused to explain himself until we ran out of patience with him. His response was always some sort of name calling with no substance or even civil discussion, aside from repeating the above claims.

 

@Nwolfe35 , as you can see these guys lost the initiative a long time ago.

They see things that dont exist, and their combined grammar/logic capabilities including the self proclaimed teacher dont even academically rate to the first week of the first semester.

The only reason these guys do that is so they can mischaracterize and misrepresent my actual position, by rebranding their regurgitation as mine. Age old dirty debate trick.

He is playing a trick to divert you into nonsenseville.

You and I are dealing in a world of 2 conditions, 'as you described' the bird needs to include the toilet seat in his. So we start with your world of 2.

 

The Holy Ghost is the third member of the Godhead. He is a personage of spirit, without a body of flesh and bones. He is often referred to as the Spirit, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Lord, or the Comforter.

Holy Ghost - Church of Jesus Christ
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org › study › gospel-topics

What is spirituality atheism?

atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence.

Atheism | Definition, Philosophy, & Comparison to Agnosticism

https://www.britannica.com/topic/atheism > Religious Beliefs

[clarification added]

Citations look pretty civil to me!

Nah like above, we all know you and the yardmeat just got too many red faces every time koko outed and exposed the silly you kids call 'logic'

 

For me, Gnostic and Agnostic have nothing to do with belief. It's about knowledge.

I do not know if a god exists (or I lack knowledge that a god exists)
I do not believe a god exists (or I lack belief that a god exists)

That makes me an agnostic atheist.

 

So how did the 3rd condition get in here? You clearly defined the scope of this discussion as 2 options only now a 3rd is magically added. Seems a bit dishonest to me.

Same is true if you lack belief in God then you do not believe in God, again No difference.

You failed to respond logically to the challenge, instead you move the goal posts into a different world.

In Both cases you respond with: NO to "Do you believe in God".

Clearly there is no distinction between the two.

Do you want to fix that or challenge the semantic in some way?

Go for it!

 

Yes, I understand. And your definition is more useful, as it conveys more information, but others have a different meaning, and one relevant to what I was saying.

Yes, I understand. And that's pretty common.

But is isn't what Koko was going on about.
It doesn't speak to the difference between not believing God exists and believing no God exists. The latter requires the former, but the former does not require the latter, which shows that Agnostics (his meaning; not yours) are atheist (your meaning; not his) but not all atheists are agnostic.

Note how easy it is to equivocate between the different meanings of atheist and agnostic. That's where Koko plays his tricks. You yourself seem to be agnostic by both meanings, so they may be especially effective regarding you.