Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

Both are truth statements, but the latter is nonsensical. It's like saying I don't know what flavor 4 is.

 

See how these people try to salvage their failed arguments? They fabricate everything as they go.

 

Nope, I've always said that about propositions. You, meanwhile, have tried passing off "Yellow" and "red and green" as propositions. Neither are propositions.

 

he cant comprehend that whatever is not stated in the rules or propositional logic is not valid.
He's owned by Berkley

 

You really don't want to get back into color theory after how badly you were embarrassed last time. Meanwhile, I have the exact same position about aliens creating the universe as I do about God creating the universe.

 

Berkley never claimed that omniscience is required. That's just something you made up. Meanwhile, you continue violating your own fake rules. You've owned yourself.

 

I explained how you presented a false interpretation, you have nothing to stand on anymore

 

You blew it and continue to blow it, everyone with a brain is laughing at the nonsense you have been posting.

 

You literally claimed that adding yellow light to blue light creates green light. That's objectively false. But if you now understand how color works, thanks to my tutoring, and you now understand how propositions work, then we can go back to discussing the conjunction elimination that you keep running away and hiding from. No? Didn't think so.

 

In Judaism, men made sacrifices to God for his acceptance, approval, and blessings, thus bringing God down to man. In Christianity, God came down to man and made a sacrifice of himself to man for mans acceptance, approval and blessing. That in so doing, he might bring man up to God. So whether we persist in selfishness, or act to the pleasure of God, it hinges on our free agency, as to whether we will remain in the dark or be obligated to God. The table is set and the invitations have gone out to all. According to Jesus Christ, the religion of salvation begins at our rebirth. If so, then our first original birth and life is not religion as much as it is a precursor. Therefore Atheism is simply to be born, to live and to be, and to acknowledge the wondrousness of life. And seeing that people have seasons and do change. Who's to say that the rejection of salvation today might not lead to acceptance at some future time.

 

And if any of them can create a logical argument, that will matter to me. Until then, I don't care about the cackling of the ignorant.

 

But let's test your theory right now, @Kokomojojo . @cabse5 , please address the following T/F proposition: "The number of stars in our galaxy is an even number."

 

So, he was wrong. It's the colors blue and yellow which make up the color green not green on the light spectrum.

 

So, how was the universe created? Hum?

 

Blue and yellow pigments make up green in subtractive color mixing. Green is a primary color in light/additive color mixing and yellow and blue light produce white light, not green. There was a whole thing about it.

 

I have no idea IF it was created, and if it was created, then I don't know how or by whom, if there even is a whom. You may have gotten to this already while I was typing, but I asked you a question as well.

 

You are being pointlessly cryptic and contradicting yourself again. Do you or do you not think it ok to not know the answer to a yes/no question. A moment ago you said it's ok (but not legal to say it in response (?)). Now you are telling me you only said that years ago.

And also, all through the thread you have been demanding everyone uses your preferred definition, even to the point of pretending others did so when they clearly meant another definition. And now you admit that that other definition was the very one they you yourself used to use and got from a dictionary.

... Really?

Oh wow. The irony is off the scales. You have been misrepresenting both Swensson and yardmeat for hundreds of pages even when corrected over and over. Moreover, we have been trying to get you to clarify your contradictions and communicate clear positions but you are constantly pointlessly cryptic as above.

 

I bet you that if either of them read this thread they would understand me perfectly and be completely confused by you and offended by you trying to misrepresent them.

 

He provided the best interpretation that was possible from what you stated to minimize your contradictions. You COULD be less cryptic, explain apparent contradictions, answer direct questions occasionally, try to understand why you fail to get a message across, etc. But you don't... So what do you expect to happen?

 

Lol, and do any of his sources actually ever use the word "response" or talk about acceptable responses, or talk about some responses being "illegal"? No. They talk about truth values, not @Kokomojojo 's "acceptable responses."

 

I don't know. And there is nothing wrong with that response, despite Koko not liking it.

 

Not liking it . . . and yet agreeing with it at the same time.

 

Like I said IT DEPENDS ON THE RATIOS and you pretend I never said it, It works fine in adobe photoshop and there is no pigment required!

 

But it doesn't depend on the ratios. Blue and yellow light do not make green. No matter the ratios. And Photoshop, but default, uses subtractive/pigment color mixing, not additive/light color mixing. I'm sure there's a setting you can change for that, though.

 

If you corner him and pin him down, he will simply strawman the **** out of anything you said completely changing the meaning. His strawmen always change the meaning to something I did not argue, then tells me he is teaching me. Then his shadow the bird comes along and accuses me of trolling but never him regardless how much he dodges. What a joke. Good luck with any argument you try to make, he will falsify your meaning.