Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

I provided a few links proving your nonsense, why havent you conceded yet?

So hows that "I dont know" workin for ya? LMAO

All you have proven is that you run away from your own claims.

 

#4291. Don't ask for sources if you aren't going to read them. Then again, I'm used to that by this point. You constantly demand sources while refusing to provide your own, then you refuse to read the ones you've demanded.

 

And those links didn't back up your claims. Meanwhile, one topic at a time. I'm tired of your attempts to scurry and hide. Right now we are talking about the color thing. If you would like to move on to something else, say so and we will, but one topic at a time.

 

I agree to all of the above. The bolded (my bolding), is the exact criteria for being an atheist in the Oxford and Flew definition.

True, but it is still possible to make a proposition about a psychological state, and it's possible to have a psychological state about a proposition.

Your statement: "It is not true to claim koko believes there is no God" is a statement about a claim about a statement about a psychological state about an existence about a God.

 

Cant find huh? Imagine that!

Yeh we have over 300 posts of your dodging "I dont know" LMAO
So we start there.
All you have proven is that you run away from your own claims.

Clearly you do not comprehend what your link is about, took only one glance. Again I was NOT talking about your strawman, pigments, please read your link slowly so you stand a better chance of comprehending it,

NOWHERE does it state all color is the result of pigment, such foolishness.

Hey bird is he trolling yet?

 

You asked for a link, I provided it. You said you couldn't find it, so I told you where to find it. What are you still struggling with? And, no, I never said that "all color is the result of pigment." In fact, I said the opposite, referring previously to both pigment and light-based primary colors . . . which is in the ****ing link, so ****ing read it it. I said that yellow + blue = green is only true when it comes to pigments, and not with light. Jesus, if you are going to demand all of this information without providing any sources of your own, the the least you can do is read and address the links you've asked for. But, of course, that's too much to request, as per usual.

 

WHAT? You mean to tell me that Ox defined agnostic as atheist? Now way!
Agnostic as I state it is 'not' reducible to either atheist or theist.
Not even with yardmeats A and B therefore B, which works perfectly for things reducible.
Like he said the man is wearing a hat and a coat therefore the man is wearing a coat.
Yardmeat cheated and strawmanned my proposition to read as a pigment, I stated nothing about pigment in my proposition.

 

thats correct I could not find it, not that it mattered because I should have known in advance that your link would prove my point contrary to your claim. SSDD

 

It isn't "yardmeat's." It's one of the most basic inferences in logic. Every intro text covers it. It works perfectly fine for any proposition A and proposition B, which is why you had to strawman and introduce things that aren't even propositions.

Holy ****! You are finally starting to get it!

Ah, and now we are back to you being unable/unwilling to read the thread.

 

Ah, thanks for confirming that you didn't actually read it. As predicted. No, it doesn't prove your point, which you would know if you had read it. SSDD. But, just for shits and giggles, tell us what the link has to say about how you get green when it comes to light instead of pigments. Now tell us what it says about getting green from pigments.

 

you arent. still hiding and pretending you have some superior logic ability after proving precisely the contrary
Not only in logic, but physics, and history as well

 

I did actually read it, and it agrees with my point. If you dont like it try quoting the portion you think is a counter, the reason you didnt is because it proves my point not yours.

 

There's a reason why you can't ever discuss any of these issues in detail and constantly try to change the subject and hide, running from one of your contradictions to the next, never able to sit still and actually discuss any topic. The moment you see you are in a corner, you run to another topic. Which is why you still can't even discuss the topic we were just talking about. You've already run away from that one.

 

No, you didn't. If you did, you'd know that "yellow + blue = green" is true for PIGMENTS and not for LIGHT. Shall I dumb it down for you further?

 

Im not the one failing to discuss, you keep running away from your claims, what are we up to like 7 now?

 

LMAO, yeh definitely do that!
dumb it down all the way!

 

You keep changing the subject. If you want to stick to on, then stick to one. I'm giving you the opportunity to do so now and you keep bitching about it.

 

You can do better than that!
That proves nothing about pigment.

Now if you are trying to prove me correct I did say that green is the composite of blue and yellow. You did an awesome job of proving me correct.

Maybe you dont understand what the word composite means, like you didnt understand the word infinity

 

The chart on the right IS about pigment. It even ****ing says so. When you are dealing with SUBTRACTIVE color models -- PIGMENTS, then yes, yellow and blue make green. When you are dealing with ADDITIVE color models -- LIGHT, then no, they don't. In fact, green is a primary color and yellow and blue make WHITE. Here's another link to try to help you learn these basics of color theory. And please don't make me teach you how links work again.

But, as predicted, you are desperate to change the subject. If you'd like to talk about infinity instead, fine. Just let me know. But I will only discuss one topic at a time.

 

How strange! Got anything dumber? That wasnt dumb enough!

The suns spectrum:

This patch of rainbow colors shows the visible light spectrum of the Sun. If you used a prism to separate sunlight into its constituent colors, you would see something like this. Astronomers used a large, prism-like instrument to create this extremely detailed view of the Sun's spectrum. The spectrum starts with red light, with a wavelength of 700 nanometers (7,000 angstroms), at the top. It spans the range of visible light colors, including orange and yellow and green, and ends at the bottom with blue and violet colors with a wavelength of 400 nm (4,000 angstroms).

Sun's Spectrum | Center for Science Education


You blew it again! LMAO

 

And? What exactly do you think that proves? How does anything I've said contradict this? You're struggling again.

 

it doesnt, you see when you disagree with a counter claim you have to prove your point NOT MINE! LMAO

 

Thank you for agreeing that your post has nothing to do with any claim I've made. Meanwhile, my links do address your claims. Try reading them. I've given you two. You've read neither.

 

It has to do with the claim I made that you counter claimed only to prove me correct! LMAO

When your strawman comes back to bite you in the ass!