Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

Haha that's a good one.

 

Koko likes to show this off a lot. I am guessing it is his participation trophy from preschool. The last time he felt like a winner.

 

Ole yardmeat cant cite his BS I dont know theory. Both blues and yourself put the axe to it previously but now swensson has picked it up LMAO

False I dont post every conceivable red herring like the meat does, or how about that stupid semantic statement you made that everyone told you was semantic meaning the same thing but you dodged it even AFTER I proved it was semantic, talk about trolling.

Ok so atheists can believe in and talk to imaginary spirits and ghosts.

So atheists have been pedaling false advertising and in fact arent any more rational than theists.

There are different budhists, some are atheist some are not.

all factual atheists are materialists.

haha, its a philosophical tenet.

Yeh like how many times have I heard that BS. Done with it my butt LOL

 

Like I just said done with it my ass! LMAO

 

Cranking Jewish Space Lasers long before MTG

 

Believers can't prove their specific kind of supernatural exists. Instead they talk about a divine spirit and a holy ghost with no proof whatsoever.

 

serious defects in your logic as well as the birds.
meat just throws shat at the wall as fast as he can to get as many posts as possible between the present and where he is proven wrong.
Its SOP with these guys. LOL
Whats your gig? Total make believe?

Lack of belief, Without, and Absence, have the same problem.

In each case atheists would exist exclusively, without the existence of theists.

I mean we are talking some ridiculously bassackwards logic here friend.

 

How can anyone demonstrate the existence of entities who are invisible and do not appear to interact with the physical universe? Which is more likely: these spooks exist, or they are nothing more than anthropological artefacts dating back to our prehistory (anthropomorphism, fertility gods etc.) which later evolved into monotheism in ancient Egypt (the Aten)?

 

A religion cannot be rational.
Religion/faith is not by its nature rational.
I said pages ago. you cannot use rationality to assess or describe a religion.
Since atheism is NOT a religion but is based on and defined by tenets held by regions people, it is not rational either. Both are BELIEFS based on things that cannot be measured, assessed, seen, heard or witnessed.

As for classic surnatural beings, no one said atheists believed in them. That was a deliberate misrepresentation of an example proving something else. However believers worship spirits and ghosts.
You tell me which is more rational.

 

well now atheists are believers in the holy spirits according to the bird!!

What are the spirits of the Holy Spirit?



The sevenfold ministry of the Spirit

Including the Spirit of the Lord, and the Spirits of wisdom, of understanding, of counsel, of might, of knowledge and of fear of the LORD, here are represented the seven Spirits, which are before the throne of God.

Seven Spirits of God - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Seven_Spirits_of_God
Just when I think Ive heard it all! LMAO

 

Quite possibly. Christianity took a great deal from historical belief.
In fact the idea of ghosts and spirits walking amongst us goes backto Ancient Greece.

 

Indeed it did. Note the similarities between the Hymn to Aten and the Song of Songs in the Bible. The Israelites came into contact with other cultures and these cultures influenced their world view.

And probably earlier if one notes the veneration of ancestors in some cultures. The spirits of the ancestors had to be appeased, for they were easily angered, much like the Bronze age god of the OT.

One can trace the evolution of the gods throughout history.

 

He did not say that..
And you have answered my point, merely copied a definition.
As a believer it is this supernatural stuff you nd other believers profess to believe.
It cannot be part of a rational religion but as I said, faitth/religion is not rational nor can be judged in those terms.
The entire OP is erroneous, sloppy thinking and lacking any awareness of vocabulary.

 

sure it can, you can adopt science as your religion, that been the atheist mantra for ages!

It may not be factual in the cse of faith based religion, but it is rational for the most part. Depends wh

if someones religion is grounded in science you certainly can.

Atheists like anyone else have a worldview and beliefs they cannot prove, the bird says they even believe in ghosts and spirits, so atheists are really theists.

We can measure science.

The bird did.

The bird said it clear as day.

Yeh thats why I said the birds atheists are really theists.

Noether atheists or theists are rational.

 

And people believed in a "presence" in plants, water (hy use of throw objects into water as worship), the sky.
All supernatural.

 

Do stop misrepresenting others 'arguments.

 

Lame. I know you. My handle was NWO_Spook, and I remember your threads. They may not have been here, but it's you and you haven't changed your behaviour, for you still employ the same old illogical and fallacious assertions while playing games designed to evade and distract from the main points.

There is no problem. I reject the silly assertion that gods exist and you cannot demonstrate they do. Why should I believe people who tell me gods exist? Show me gods exist and I will believe you, but you can't, so why bother me such puerile notions? It's that simple and all your pseudo-philosophy cannot change that.

That is beyond asinine. If theists weren't asserting gods exist to others, then others wouldn't need to reject such irrational and unsubstantiated claims, therefore they would not be atheists. Try thinking it through instead of merely reacting with more moronic pseudo-philosophy.

Agreed, therefore I suggest you quit such irrational nonsense. Furthermore, you're not my friend at all. I remember you. I remember your baiting, your lies, your asinine theories, and you haven't changed your MO one iota. That is why your posts are of little or no interest to me, for you started in your very first response to me yesterday (AEST). Or have you conveniently forgotten your original snipe? You are ill-mannered and poorly educated, yet so tediously vociferous.

I await the infraction for your report.

 

Indeed, some assert gods exist, others assert faeries exist. Those who assert 'x' god exists dismiss the existence of the faeries the others hold dear, but in essence they both are essentially believing in invisible entities who do not appear to interact with the physical universe. Yet they keep asserting these entities exist.

As the wise Christopher Hitchens once said, 'we are all atheists; it's simply that I don't believe in one less god than you' [para.].

 

You seem to be mixing up a lot of concepts. A proposition is one thing, and people answering questions about propositions (and the answers they might give) is something fundamentally different.

A proposition has to be either true or false. If asked whether a proposition is true, only true and false are direct answers.

It does not follow that a person therefore has to be able to "answer" true or false when asked about the proposition. Like with the question of odd or even number of blades of grass, you sometimes do not know. "I don't know" is an indirect answer, it is a plausible, and perhaps even necessary answer, but it does not actually tell us whether the proposition is true or false.

However, definitions rely on propositions, not on people answering questions about propositions. If a shape has three sides, it is a triangle, regardless of whether some person knows about it, or answers stuff about it. Similarly, a person might be wrong about how many sides a certain shape has, that doesn't mean it's not a triangle, it just means the person is wrong.

If "I don't know" is the reasonable answer, I'm pretty sure a teacher will mark that above someone who just skipped the question. There is a common test type where "there isn't enough information in the question to answer" is the correct answer, like here. If you've written out your logic, you will in many cases get points for steps that you have done correctly, even if you've left something out in another part of your reasoning.

Sure we can. As you say, if "Kokomojojo believes God exists" was true, you would know about it. That's not the case, so we can rule it out. Or do you think that it somehow might be true that you're actually a committed theist?

The above also shows that while "I don't know" is a correct answer for "does God exist", it is not a correct answer to "do you believe God exists", since the latter, we actually have enough information to determine.

I'm not leaving my original position, I am merely rejecting your misunderstanding of my position. This is why I don't want you to compare my answers to for instance yardmeat's, you add interpretations and inferences that aren't true, seemingly without noticing.

Every proposition is logically required to be true or false. Not every question demands a direct response. If you don't know, you don't know, and saying anything else would be dishonest.

However, definitions are effectively propositions, and they apply only when the propositions in question are actually true, whether you don't know the answer is beside the point.

Nope, a proposition always has a truth value, but it does not follow that any particular person has access to that truth value.

If there is an odd number of blades of grass in my garden, then the proposition "there is an odd number of blades of grass in my garden" is in fact true. I haven't counted them, so my answer is still "I don't know", so it is possible for "there is an odd number" and "I don't know" to be true at the same time. "I don't know" is not a 3rd option, it is an answer to a different question.

 

He notices. He knows what he is doing. You aren't addressing an honest actor. That's the only problem here.

 

'every' proposition defines some meaning, therefore requires a direct response that is the nature of a proposition and why we have lem and lnc.

false its not a reasonable response to a proposition.
quote your source! it is impossible to tell is one of the choices offered. That is not a source, that is some teaching tool, I dont know would have to be one of the choices, and secondly it is not a T/F question.
source!

No you dont know that I dont know is the correct answer that God exists. Sure because the second is not a proposition.

Its the same thing stated using different words.
Neither you, meat, or the bird has sourced a citation that allows this dont know nonsense as a valid response.

and if you take a test with 10 T/F questions on it and you do not answer them because you do not know you FAIL! LOL
Well except professor dodges students they get an A+++ the more propositions they do not know.

All propositions are effectively propositions.

Source?

Since when does log allow for expansion to the future?

that highly misleading, since the proposition is about how many blades not if you know.

I await your teams source for all these imaginary rules. Looks to me like another professor dodge special.

 

an honest actor provides a source for the rules they claim, so that excludes you and professor dodge, and the jury is out on swensson.
I need to see the rule in logic sourced from some university, not rules from some armchair commando thats too fat to climb out of mommies basement.

Hell you have proven such poor grammar skills you failed to provide an explanation for the sentences you post, I had to do that for you!
Of course it proved you were 100% wrong in your claim so it wasnt a total waste of time.

So what happened to "Im done"? Am I that irresistible?

got a source yet?

 

Oh yeh and btw, the liars paradox has a valid sentence structure and it is a declarative, therefore anyone claiming that its not a proposition is false, it is, however it is 'also' a proposition that 'leads' to a paradox.

 

I agree btw. However our resident logic teacher who claims to be teaching logic in school responded to the proposition "God exists" with "I dont know" (instead of T or F) and he said his students had better answer a logic question with "I dont know" if they dont know.

So whats your opinion on that?

We need to settle the matter how we are going to handle it in this thread.

Its senseless to continue with 2 different versions of logic rules.

So then you agree, that I dont know is not a valid response to a T,F question? Yes or No?

It sounds like we agree, that @yardmeat is trying to sell us a big sugar coated turd instead of logic?

Maybe thats why he dodges and hides every time the point every time the point is brought up? He doesnt want to admit he's been busted.

 

It only took a few years, but you finally understand what the rest of us have tried to tutor you on this entire time! Congrats! Let me know where to send the confetti!

Which is something you literally just said you now understood . . . and now you are running away and changing your mind. Why? Make up your mind. Can you understand this elementary concept or not? You can't even make it two sentences without changing your mind.