Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

He corrects ignorant grammar usage.
Not one of your team are capable of defending your grammar.
What else can anyone think but that you lack an adequate grammar skill set?
Especially when it went so far as to cite a pyblished philosopher to prove you were wrong which of course you responded by going into denial LMAO

duh... you just called me a troll LOL

Now that is a truly ****ed up interpretation of my position.
Too bad the bird is so obsessed with me.

The Bird Said:

I have to laugh when people come out here and totally embarrass themselves.
God is known as the Holy Ghost! Otherwise known as the holy spirit!
The bird came up with a new one, theist-atheist.
Thats what you are when you cant tell the difference between up or down.

The moral of that story is atheists can believe in ghosts as long as they are not holy!

The Bird Said:

Especially when they believe in the Holy Ghost.
Unbelievable!

The Bird Said:

Except God and ghosts live in the spirit realm, you are soooooo funny!

Theres no thinking about it, yardmeat PROVED IT when he answered the proposition with "I dont know" then defended it as a correct response. Oh and then tried to pull an authority card by telling us a bunch of BS that he is a logic teacher, NOT!
He couldnt even draw a venn diagram FFS, and here we are talking about conjunctions and he went off on a rant about disjunctions and didnt know the difference between an OR and xOR. LMAO

Dont blame me, you hang yourselves!

 

Public service message-

This is the OFFICIAL definition of agnostic:

I [Huxley] have a sort of patent right in "Agnostic" (it is my trade mark); and I am entitled to say that I can state authentically what was originally meant by Agnosticism.

1. Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern.

Agnosticism simply means that a man shall not say he . . . believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to . . . believe.

https://mathcs.clarku.edu/huxley/UnColl/Rdetc/AgnAnn.html


Thats why agnostic defined as:

What's The Difference Between Atheism And Agnosticism?

Sep 29, 2020 — However, an agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in a god or religious doctrine. https://www.dictionary.com › ... › Mixed-up Meanings


If you believe you are an atheist then you cant logically claim to be agnostic. Neoatheists always conveniently forget about the nor disbelieves part.


......in the dictionaries.

 

What word would you use for someone who does not know if there is a god?

 

Careful: he used to claim not to know . . . while citing a personal idol who also said he didn't know (Huxley) . . . until he claimed it was illegal to not know. Now he runs and hides from the question about whether or not he knows.

 

Was Huxley really as upset about people using the word "agnostic" differently than he did as Koko gets? Or did he understand that coining a term doesn't mean you own it, and people may use it differently than you initially intended the word to mean?

 

Huxley was well loved and had hundreds of guests at his funeral. So my guess was he didn’t go around telling people that what they say means something other than what they meant

 

He was trying to spin you saying you don't know as having said "I don't know" is a truth value... which is ridiculous and which nobody would say. I don't think he was saying it is illegal not to know. What would that even mean? Illegal how? There are ignorance laws? Ignorance police?

 

Indeed. He was already beloved as you say and well respected. He didn't need to delude himself and pretend people said what they didn't just so he could pretend to "correct" them. Only people with very very low self esteem do that sort of thing.

 

For what reason? Why would you need "a word"?

 

Are you sure your name shoul

A person can use it to form a sentence. You know, along with other words.

 

You’re the one stuck on saying my definition of agnostic is incorrect, so what word would you use instead of agnostic?

 

He's used the same definition of agnostic that you are appealing to now for several years. He knows there is a reason to have it. He's just playing dumb now.

 

Nope, I'm saying your usage is incorrect.

 

Stop with the pedantic responses.
What word would you use.

 

Fill in the blanks! A fun exercise for the whole famdamily.

1. A person who believes a god exists is a _________.
2. An ________ is a person who is certain that god does not exist.
3. A person who does not know god exists is an __________.
4. Every time I see someone who does not know if God exists but chooses to have faith in God anyway, I see a ______.
5. Someone who criticizes everyone while patting himself on the back is a _____-______.
6. A person who clings to their ideology too tightly is ______.

 

LOL
really?
What do you think is pendantic? 'Exactly'?

 

Fill in the blanks! A fun exercise for the whole famdamily.

1. A person who believes a god exists is a _believer________.
2. An _irrational___[person] is a person who is certain that god does not exist.
3. A person who does not know god exists is __unknowledgeable__.
4. Every time I see someone who does not know if God exists but chooses to have faith in God anyway, I see a believer_.
5. Someone who criticizes everyone while patting himself on the back is a __meat___-___head___.
5a. Someone who criticizes everyone while patting himself on the back is a ___bird__-___brain___.
6. A person who clings to their ideology too tightly is ___ideological___.

There ya go!
Got any more? lol

 

Sure, you can use any word differently, you can call a 'pile of horse ' a 'happy meal' if you like. yum. such nonsense I see out here.

Dictionaries used to attribute definitions to their inventors, in this case oxford decided they didnt like Huxleys definition and put their incorrect 'equivocation' in its place which conveys a completely different meaning than intended by its inventor. Welcome to corporate propaganda. But some of us dont forget.

 

Oh?
Since when?
You used it for years!
Projecting again I see.
What reason?
(Watch he wont post a reason!)
Dodge predicted.

Dont worry your throne is safe.

 

Sure, a conjunction is true if and only if its conjuncts are true. You argue that a conjunction is true, even though the conjuncts are false, which is not allowed in logic. You try to jump around with children's videos or zooming in on pictures, when the source of truth is simple and straightforward, a logical conjunction is true only if its conjuncts are true, so if your conjuncts are false, your conjunction must be false, or you've picked the wrong conjunction to begin with.

Well, I'm aware that yellow is a mix of red and green in an additive colour model. I don't think the colours are "unassociated", I just think the relationship between them is not a logical conjunction. I know you're showing examples of additive colour, I have yet to see you show that it has anything to do with conjunction elimination.

A logical conjunction isn't just two things that are present at the same time, it's an operator that is true whenever all of its inputs are true and false otherwise.

That's about the part of speech conjunction (which is just the words and/but/or/etc, not the sentence they're a part of), conjunction elimination is a part of propositional logic, and applies to logical conjunction, a logical operator which is true if and only if all conjuncts are true.

I mean, what you posted doesn't constitute a proof (since we could easily construct a picture with purple or something else where your picture had yellow), but I agree that in fact, if you shine red and green light on the same spot (with similar intensity, on a white or yellow background, etc.), the spot looks lit yellow. That's not a logical conjunction though, that's shining two lights onto a surface.

If you want to find out how a logical conjunction works, then you use the rule that a conjunction is true if and only if its conjuncts are true. In our case, the conjuncts are false, so the conjunction must also be false.

I am using the grammar and word choice from conjunction elimination. If you use some other grammar than that which is found in conjunction elimination, that seems like a you-problem. Conjunction elimination remains valid.

Might be legitimate English, but it is not a logical conjunction, so it's beside the point. Conjunction elimination applies to logical conjunctions, if you decide to change it to apply it to something else, then that is a you-problem, in the meantime, conjunction elimination remains valid.

 

Thats just your 'opinion'.

We dont see a citation!

I told you to feel free to modify the proposition such that CE works, I dont see that either.

Looks to me like you are simply ducking out because you cant make it work.

You do make your cop out sound good though.

Are you saying 'uncle' yet?

I can tell you why it doesnt work and why you wont be able to make it work using the logic or lack thereof you insist upon using.

Like it or not its a fact, green light and red light makes yellow light. (using additive color)

Therefore the conjunction is true.

Its easy to make into a truth table.

g-r-y
f-f-f
t-f-f
f-t-f
t-t-t

yep yellow is green and red is TRUE!

 

we OBSERVE the conjuncts are true. We know for a FACT they are true. We see it with our eyes that they are true. Sounds pretty silly to say they arent true. Its a well known fact of physics that its true.

yellow is red and green
therefore yellow is red

Then PROVE IT! Its not what you think that matters its what you can PROVE!
You demand the same from me, and I do, now its your turn! prove it.
You 'thinking' its not a conjunction because 'you' cant make it work, does not constitute proof by any stretch of the imagination that its not a conjunction.

Again: Feel free to rewrite the conjunction any way you like to make CE work.

 

What is it you want a citation for? Pretty sure I've given this citation several times:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_elimination
It mentions that conjunction elimination is valid, shows the link to logical conjunctions (rather than the grammar conjunction you try to insert).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_conjunction is the citation for conjunctions being true if and only if the conjuncts are true.

Both also has some links to more detailed descriptions. Those two references include all the information in my argument.

Well, conjunction elimination is about true conjunctions, I don't know why you expect it to do anything about something that isn't a conjunction.

I agree with the first line, I don't agree with the second line. I guess this is yet another step you can't seem to justify, conjunction elimination remains valid.

According to your highlighted line, all three statements are true. I.e., in this table, you've marked "yellow is green" as t. even though it isn't actually true.

No, you observe "yellow is a mix of red and green in an additive colour model", I agree that that one is true.

However, you have done nothing to say that that's the conjunction of "yellow is green" and "yellow is red", and in fact, we can show that that conjunction must in fact be false.

I suppose the fact that the correct conjunction must be false and the additive colour model sentence is true proves that the additive colour sentence cannot be the correct conjunction.

Sure, a conjunction is true if and only if its conjuncts are true. These particular conjuncts are false, so the conjunction must be false. That's a proof deriving from the definition of a conjunction, and doesn't do any red herrings into jpegs or children's videos. I feel like I supply this proof several times per post.

No, we have very straightforward rules about what makes a conjunction and how a conjunction works. A conjunction is true if and only if its conjuncts are true. The conjuncts ("yellow is red" and "yellow is green") are in fact false, so the conjunction must also be false.

Sure, you could do something like:

A: When an LED screen shows yellow, the green LEDs are lit (true)
B: When an LED screen shows yellow, the red LEDs are lit (also true)
A AND B: When an LED screen shows yellow, the green LEDs are lit, and when an LED screen shows yellow, the red LEDs are lit.​

A AND B is the correct conjunction of A and B, and is true if A and B are individually true. Since A is true and B is true, the conjunction must be true, so the conjunction A AND B is true.

As a true conjunction, we can apply conjunction elimination:

A AND B: When an LED screen shows yellow, the green LEDs are lit, and when an LED screen shows yellow, the red LEDs are lit (true)
A: When an LED screen shows yellow, the green LEDs are lit​

A AND B is true, A is a conjunct of A AND B. Conjunction elimination tells us that if A AND B is true (which it is), then A must be true. So, conjunction elimination tells us that A must be true.

This shows the correct application of conjunction elimination to a correctly constructed conjunction, and shows that we've inferred the correct result (compare the inputs and outputs both marked in green).

Of course, this doesn't really prove anything, since even faulty logic could give the right truth value, but you asked me to rewrite it on a form that works, there it is. If we want to prove things, we'd have to base them in the definitions, as I have done in all the other responses.

 

Those arent statements they are minterms.


.........,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.A..............,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..........B...........,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.....................A^B


Nope only one row is true.

If we have red and green we get yellow, the conjunction is true.

 

as we can all see red and green is yellow the conjunct is true