Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

That doesn't match any definition of theist that I have seen. To be theist you have to believe a God exists. Merely not believing God's don't exist doesn't suffice.

Correct, when "atheist" is used to simply mean not -theist, and isn't used to mean somebody who positively believes there are no Gods.

 

sorry lack does not work when compared to theist and agnostic, you have to find a different argument if you want to use the lack (no decision required). Agnostic and theist are decisions.

 

So you keep claiming. Did you also decide not to believe you are an elephant dreaming?

 

I dont know is either legitimate or it is not, make up your mind.

 

feel free to prove otherwise
ask dr dodge LOL

 

yes we know its not a legitimate response, and we also see people lie in the thread too, and I suppose you think that is also legitimate?

 

You haven't provided a response to any proposition. I've provided two examples. You STILL can't respond to them. Shall I post them again? There were only two. A child could manage this.

You, once again, forget that this forum has a search feature. Here's just one example: post #2778 . . . not only from this year . . . but FROM THIS ****ING THREAD.

 

Yep, I knew you were posting out of context bullshit.
thanks for proving beyond a shadow of a doubt you are simply jerking everyone around, AGAIN!

 

Yep I refuse to acknowledge any proposition until you validate I dont know with an academic citation.
You know you have nothing. zippo, nada

 

I posted you admitting that you think the question is unknowable. Do you now deny your previous claim? If so, then since you now claim it is known, then what is your answer? I'm not sure if you just don't remember ever taking a test before that had T/F questions, but simply refusing to answer means it counts against you.

 

I've already proven it is not only possible to not know the answer to a proposition, but that you are guilty of not knowing the answer to some propositions. You have proven, meanwhile, that you refuse to answer any propositions . . . and you haven't even proven that it is "legal" to not answer. Sad trombone.

 

you cant even read ffs
and you think you can argue philosophy?

 

Funny all I seen was your unsubstantiated OPINION that you CANT PROVE so you hide!

 

Well, if you thought you had a real argument, then you'd be able to articulate one. You can't. Instead you stamp your feet and scream and complain and insult. Nary a logical argument in sight.

 

No, it isn't just my opinion that there are propositions that you don't know the answer to. You've admitted this before. And you refuse to even take a stand now about whether you do or don't. All I've seen from you are tantrums. Let us know when you are willing to address even TWO propositions. So far you refuse. You demand it of others, but you can't muster the courage and integrity yourself. Pathetic. But run away and hide again, if you must.

 

I suggest anyone who wants to see the sinking as in fake logic teacher gulping for air with his I dont know claim, simply look up Hitchens razor.

Yardmeat logic teacher extraordinaire

PLONK AGAIN!

 

Hitchens never claimed it was illegal to not know the answer to a proposition.

Meanwhile, I've answered all of your questions and you will not respond to either of the propositions I've given you.

Keep throwing tomatoes. You still can't answer simple propositions or provide a single source that supports your position.

And I will remind you, once again, that when you try to sneak in these fake "arguments" while not quoting me or tagging me, everyone can see that you are trying to run away and hide.

When you are done scurrying (if you ever will be), then you have propositions to address. Chop chop.

 

There you go folks, he doesnt even comprehend the meaning of Hitchens Razor LOL

Hitchens Razor
It implies that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.

Yardmeats "I dont know" claim is prima facia bullshit folks.

 

Yet more running away and hiding and hoping I won't notice because you know I will ask you for sources that you don't have the honesty or integrity to provide.

You do realize you just argued in favor of atheism? Right? Of course not. Not like you'd ever be bothered to read your own sources . . . as has been repeatedly been shown. Read your own link. I know you don't make a habit of doing that, but just for one day, give it a shot.

 

You heard it here first, folks. Koko claims I know whether or not God exists.

 

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat

Daym, now he thinks burden of proof means defending atheism. LMAO
Keep squirming!
Another screwball yardmeats theory debunked (again)

 

You literally just cited an argument in favor of atheism. Literally. You'd know that if you had read your own damn link, which of course you won't.

Meanwhile, you are the one claiming omniscience. The burden of proof is on you for that. You are the one claiming you know the answer to every T/F proposition. Unless you are now admitting that you don't know the answer to every T/F proposition. Don't worry. We all know you lack the integrity to address this. How's your omniscience theory going for you?

 

Now now, dry your tears, hey its not like I am not sympathetic to your loss, here this should help?

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat has nothing to do with atheism.



If you refrain from making **** theories and illogical answers to propositions up you wont have those problems.

He cant validate his logic theory folks, the latin means if he cant validate we dismiss as nonsense, an ancient burden of proof axiom, that he thinks mean atheism.

Im sorry I had to flush your "I dont know" is a legitimate answer to a proposition, religion, down the crapper, truly I am. Say cheeze!:



Do you want to retract it now and apologize to the readers?

 

I am a bit confused as to who you are responding to, me or Yardmeat or if you are conflating us, or perhaps I am having difficulty understanding using my phone.
But, I stand by my posting. If you must refer to someone suggesting a lack of a belief in a supernatural entity as an ameba or whatever label you want to assign feel free to do so, it doesn’t change the fact of wha I believe or don’t believe and I will refuse to accept your label and I reject your definition.
I find it interesting that you reference Durkheim, back when I was a professor at UWM, I used to conduct a seminar debunking his first book when he referenced Mayan artifacts as depicting extraterrestrial contacts… total Bs he used to con the guidable into buying his book and his concocted narrative, he was nothing more than a con man. So, using him as an authority for anything simply undermines anything you have to say… find better, or be judged as not worth engaging with. Of course, that won’t win anything for you, but will give you the last word.
I