Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

Oh really? How so? Care to explain? No, of course not. Nor do you understand.

 

you claimed what swensson said is true to be false, how ****ing hard is this you? LOL

 

No I did not. You failed spectacularly to read what he wrote.

 

yes you did

 

Ok so now you have gone from goalpost shifting to random gibberish to gaslighting. Is it a slow day in your troll swamp?

 

you really should throw all your mirrors away, this is too funny!

 

That's what I wrote in response to you, not Swensson. You think what you wrote is the same as what he wrote because you are an idiot. But it isn't.

 

You keep calling me a troll and its clearly not me.

What is trolling?

In scientific literature, internet trolling is defined as a malicious online behaviour, characterised by aggressive and deliberate provocation of others. “Trolls” seek to provoke, upset and harm others via inflammatory messages and posts.

Rule 2 violation.
Thats closer to flame baiting, it falls under both.

That was what swensson said directly referencing the result as pertaining to God and you contradicted him and called me troll and an idiot for stating what you did.

 

There he goes with the temper tantrum emoji again…

 

He starts foaming at the mouth whenever anybody gives him a taste of his own medicine. I have yet to see him interact with ANYBODY in this thread without spouting nothing but insults, yet he gets all bent out of shape if I insult him.

 

No it isn't. And of course you know that.

 

Alright, throwing everything we've said so far, still without any indication that you've even understood what is being said to you. Again. Besides, this particular example seems to avoid the actual meat of the question.

In this case, not only do I not believe that there is such a tea pot, I in fact believe there is no such tea pot. I believe that the proposition is false. I don't have absolute certainty or anything but I think I have a pretty good guess. That is best expressed as what I believe about the proposition.

I know for a fact that "I believe there is no such tea pot" is correct, because I have direct access to my beliefs, and the statement only claims to say whether I believe it. To proclaim "there is no such tea pot" is in my opinion likely correct, but (dishonestly or just for convenience) glosses over the fact that it is my belief.

Consider instead a proposition which actually explores the distinction we've been talking about:
Proposition 2: There is an odd number of blades of grass in my garden.

Do you hold the belief that there are an odd number of blades of grass in my garden?

 

Well, he's still not grasping the distinction we're interested in. If he acknowledges some other distinction doesn't really matter to me for these purposes.

 

You are, once again, violating the law of noncontradiction. A and ~A can't both be true, and A and ~A can't both be false. If they are not equivalent statements (such as A and ~B instead of A and ~A), then the word "god" or "exists" refers to something different in each statement, i.e. "Okay, THIS God doesn't exist, and this other God over here doesn't not exist (which would mean it does exist)".

 

Addressing both your comments and the OP’s assertion, what constitutes a ‘nation sl religion’? Just curious.
If I label myself a Christian, what religion do I follow? In answering that. Question, consider I was raised in Northern Ireland.

 

A Christian is anyone who believes the following: "Jesus Christ exists and is precisely who he says he is, namely the Son of God".

That is what I call the "initial circular argument" (or "foundational belief") of Christianity.

 

Where I grew up, if I went to locks north, if encountered, I’ be considered Christian, but the wrong kind of Christian; something that could have gotten me killed… that threat was always present.
Hmmm, let’s see, I was baptized in a Catholic Church, dis all the sacraments, save one, went to Catholic school, was even an alter boy at one time. I have read the Bible, cover to cover at least twice (also btw the Koran). So, am I a Christian?

 

I dont know if you have any grass at all or even a garden, but aside from that you are again trying to use a psychological state of mind as a proposition, technically for present date and state of affairs 'God exists' is a false premise since there is no way to claim either true or false as a fact and insufficient supporting evidence especially on the atheist side of the equation.

To funny, you just creamed swenssons logic not mine!

BTW

If I answer "true" to God exists, its a lie, it is not an established fact that God exists
If I answer "false" to God exists, its a lie, it is not an established fact that God does not exist

Either position leads to incorrect results.
NeoAtheists should know this since they claim to base their position in reason, which arguably is not true either.

 

I addressed your logic, though I suppose "logic" is an overly-generous description.

 

you didnt, that was swenssons, that I merely repeated back to him. LOL

So you want to have fun? Great! Prove this:

"Saying atheists don't believe there is a God is not the same as saying atheists believe there is no God. I can see you can't see the difference. But there is an important difference between those two statements. It is what allows you to be agnostic."

is NOT semantic LOL

Not-Semantic of course means a 'significant' material difference.

 

There is overlap, but there is a difference. Honestly, you are the only person I've encountered who doesn't get it. Every native English speaker I've had this discussion with is able to grasp the concept in a couple of minutes, at most.

Maybe it would help you better to just replace the word "believe" with "assert" until it clicks.

Example:

Let's look at claim A. A, in this case, means that there is a boy named Alejandro who just succeeded at his very first attempt of cup-and-ball while eating a vanilla ice cream cone in a park in Mexico City on the afternoon of April 12, 2022.

Either A is true or A is false. It can't be both and it can't be neither. Anyone capable of grasping the basic concept of non-contradiction understand that. If it were both or if it were neither, then logic itself would fall apart.

Does that mean that you have to answer yes or no, personally? No. It either is true or it isn't, whether YOU ASSERT it is true or YOU ASSERT false is a different story. "I don't know" is perfectly fine. Same for the example of whether there is an odd number of grass blades in your yard or an even number. Either one or the other is true, and not both, but whether or not you KNOW or are PERSONALLY WILLING TO ASSERT one way or another is a different story. Which is why you correctly say that either God exists or he doesn't, but you have yet to be able to provide a non-contradictory position yourself on the subject. Think. This isn't difficult. The question of whether or not it is true is different from whether you KNOW or HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE one way or the other.

So think it over. Either God exists or he doesn't, but YOU DO NOT ASSERT that God exists and YOU DO NOT ASSERT that God does not exist. You don't know. Get it? If you get it then think it through just a liiiiiitle bit more. Do you understand the difference between

1) "I do not assert that A is true" and
2) "I assert that A is not true"

You supposedly fall into the above category, so surely you understand that there is a difference, otherwise every agnostic like yourself would be committed to claiming that God does not exist.

Again, this is where a Venn Diagram would come in helpful.

Picture a biiiiiiiiiig circle that says "People who assert that God exists." Are you inside that circle or not? Yes or no?

 

Koko is "agnostic" and not a dirty "atheist", and the difference is important to him. It is the only rational position! But the difference is also not a material difference and not at all important to koko you see.... There is no material difference. They are the same and only difference by semantics! But they are very very different and it matters. Kokomojos never contradict themselves.

 

Do you believe that Jesus Christ exists and is precisely who he says he is (namely, the Son of God)?

 

yardmeat just killed your claim you know, it certainly explains why you refused to explain it.

 

No he didn't. He supported it And your thinking he killed it is just more of you displaying you don't understand. Many of us have tried to explain it to you, and you refuse to listen, with fingers firmly planted in ears.

He also pointed to your ever-lasting self-contradiction.

If there is no difference between the two, or no material difference between the two (your new weasel words), then you are an "atheist" as you define that word, or not materially different from an atheist. So welcome to the dark side.