Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

Wil you posted this nonsense

I proved you dead wrong (as usual)

Now you cya with a metaphorical analogy, or synonym to adversary.

Using the word contest in place of adversary, changes nothing what so ever with regard to the PURPOSE of the court, which is to drill down to the truth.

There you go, more proof folks neoatheist will go to any extents to attempt a win

 

No, our legal system is organized as being adversarial.

If it were to be oriented to finding the truth, the rules would be VERY different.

We would do stuff like allowing the defense to have access to crime labs and other assets that only the prosecution gets. We wouldn't deny the defense the right to offer new evidence on appeal, as some places do. We would have a VERY different public defender system. We wouldn't be rewarding prosecutors basis of their rate of conviction. Etc.

You are just dreaming, Koko.

 

Not in the US!
nothing in the words adversarial or contest change purpose for the court wil, sorry.
unless you got citations, that aint the way it works in my state, where are you syria?
the last thing I am is a statist but it is the states job to prosecute on behalf of a victim, (or public defender), so of course there would be an atta boy in there somewhere in the case of a victim, however you are selling more wooden nickels unless you can cite it to show any of that is true.
Dont get me wrong I am fully aware of procedures the courts use that are convenient to them and a hurdle to defendents, but nothing you posted negates the prime directive for finding the truth. Now if you want to bring in corruption, sure, but the courts were not designed to be corrupt.

 

False.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/adversarial-system/

 

Hmm I dont see anything that agrees with you wil

 

LOL - I didn't really expect you would. If you clicked the link, I think you!

But, you aren't the whole audience!

 

Sorry wil, no quote = not true
Anyone can post a link they didnt read

 

First sentence:

 

EXPLANATION OF FIRST SENTENCE:

who attempt to determine the truth
truth
truth
truth

Hope that helps wil, you know, I posted that on the previous page, maybe you missed or ignored it.

 

I sense a pattern here with Mr. Koko. It doesn't appear to matter who addresses him or what they say, the responses definitely have a pattern. Never answering direct questions. Never conversive, always combative. Always claiming to have proved something that wasn't proved. Lots of self congratulations. Lots of bolded, underlined, and coloured text. I think I could code a Koko chat bot pretty convincingly at this point.

 

Your question and continued good faith attempt to get to the heart of the disagreement can't get anywhere because there is no actual good faith disagreement. Koko has no idea what he is talking about and so he can't so won't answer what you ask.

 

Awe did the facts cause you pain? Never fails, Koko scores a home run and look who pops on to spam the thread with a boatload of bullshit and personal attacks throwing **** in every conceivable direction.

Asked, answered, IGNORED!

Yep Falsify and misrepresent me and the situation with bullshit spin.

swennson had the chance to respond and did not, instead he found himself trapped in an impasse and tried to do an end run by creating a new argument pretending it was part of the same, then telling me I agreed with him on a proposition of my creation.

I cant help either of you if you cant understand such elementary problems.

This is an excellent example proving my point.

There is simply nothing I can do to help you.

I used to laugh when I seen **** like that because I thought it was just trolling to jerk peoples chains, but it appears I was probably wrong.

 

Because you are a theist pretending to be agnostic, obviously.

 

A theist
does not believe that God does not exist

No swensson, the dictionary does not give you logical analysis, and neither does it give you what something is 'not' in its definition.

Therefore using neoatheist logic agnostics are also a subset of theists.

Agnostics are just everything to everyone! We Rock!

 

At the highest levels of economics and central banking policy it is considered that only Atheists can be trusted to do what is felt needs to be done by people whose belief pattern is neo-Malthusian.

In a way...... if it is true that Dr. Tony Fauci is working on a ten year or longer plan to reduce China to the economic and military status of a third world nation...... (which is a real possibility).... then Dr. Tony Fauci could not have been trusted by the Elite if his belief pattern had not been radically Atheist.


Could Dr. Tony Fauci be a heroic figure????

 

Sure, I'm just pointing out that we agree on it, that you haven't backtracked on it.

Anyway, you skipped the most important part of the paragraph, "not believe God exists" does not carry the same meaning as "believe God does not exist", just like "not vote yes" does not carry the same meaning as "vote no".

I understand it, I just don't accept it when it flies in the face of how English in fact works.

That's not enough, you also have to provide a reason for believing that that is indeed how the English language works. Instead, we have provided the senator example, which shows that English in fact works how I've been using it. "Not believe God exists" does not carry the same meaning as "believe God does not exist", just like "not vote yes" does not carry the same meaning as "vote no".

Except that theist isn't actually defined as not believing that God does not exist. Go on, find me a dictionary that says it does. Atheist, on the other hand is defined as not believing God exists, in accordance with the definition that we both have posted several times.

 

Theist isn't actually defined as not being a tea pot or a gopher either, however its a fact that theist is NOT a tea pot or a gopher.

Its a fact that atheists do not believe God exists? true or false?

Its a fact that theists do not believe God does not exist? true or false?

Answer the questions.

 

OK, so you believe that God exists.

Do you believe that =
"Aa, Biamie, Bilé, Binbeal, Boli Shah, Bossou Ashadeh, Budai, Budai, Bugady Musun, Bugid Y Aiba, Bunjil, Cai Shen, Ceros, Chenti-cheti, Chi You, Chimata-No-Kami, Chun Kwan, Cihang Zhenren, City god, Clermeil, Congo (loa), Consus, Cronos, Cunina, Dagan, Dagda, Dagon, Daikokuten, Damballa, Dan Petro, Dan Wédo, Dauke, Dea Dia, Isis, Istar, Isum, Iuno Lucina, Izanagi, Jade Emperor, Melek, Memetona, Menthu, Merodach, Mider, Mielikki, Min , Molech, Mombu, Morrigu, Mounanchou, Mulu-hursang, Mu-ul-lil, Muzha , Na Tuk Kong, Nana Buluku, Naunet, Nebo, Nehebkau, Nergal, Nezha , Nga, Nin, Ninib, Ninigi-no-Mikoto, Nin-lil-la, Nin-man, Nio, Nirig, Ni-zu, Njirana, Nogomain, Nuada Argetlam, Numakulla, Num-Torum, Nusku, Nu'tenut, Nyyrikki, Odin, Ogma, Ogoun, Ogoun, Ogyrvan, Ohoyamatsumi, Ōkuninushi, Omoikane (Shinto), Saturn, Sebek, Seker, Serapis, Sesmu, Shakpana, Shalem, Shangdi, Shango, Sharrab, Shen , Shennong, Shezmu, Shina-Tsu-Hiko, Simbi, Sin, Sirtumu, Sobek, Sobkou, Tenenet, Tengu, Tenjin, Theban Triad, Thoth, Ti Jean Quinto, Ti Malice, Tian, Ti-Jean Petro, Tilmun, Todote, Toko'yoto, Tomam, Tu Di Gong, Tu Er Shen, Tuonetar, Tuoni, Ubargisi, Ubilulu, U-dimmer-an-kia, Vaticanus, Vediovis, Vellamo, Venus, Vesta, Wadj-wer, Wen Zhong , Weneg, Wenshu Guangfa Tianzun, Wepwawet, Werethekau, Wollunqua, Wong Tai Sin, Wuluwaid, Xargi, Xaya Iccita, Xevioso, Xuan Wu , Yama, Yau, Yemaja, Youchao, Yuanshi Tianzun, Yuchi Jingde, Yunzhongzi, Zagaga, Zaraqu, Zer-panitu, Zhang Guifang, Zheng Lun, Zhongli Quan, Zhu Rong , Zonget"

is the God you believe in or are you an atheist as far as they are concerned? Countless people believed in them all of their lives so why do you deny them unless you are an atheist?

 

Im not sure what you are driving at with all that? That a theist has to believe in every every conceivable G/god past present and future to be a theist?

 

I agree that it is true that atheists do not believe God exists, and that theists do not believe God does not exist (so I'd answer true to both questions).

Agreed, just like the definition of a yes-voter isn't "didn't vote no", but it is nonetheless a fact that a yes-voter did not vote no.

It is true that a theist does not believe that God does not exist, but in addition to that, theists are by definition also required to believe that God does exist (which is a related although not quite equivalent statement). It is the latter (green) of those clauses that make theists distinct from agnostics.

By contrast, atheists (in Flew's definition) do not believe that God does exist, and contain no additional requirement on believing that God does not exist. The part that made theists distinct from agnostics is the asserted belief, whereas the equivalent requirement is not present in the definition of atheist.

"People who do not believe God exists" (i.e. atheists), include both those who believe God does not exist, and those who have neither belief, just like "people who did not vote yes" includes both those who voted no and those who abstained.

 

It is just a very short list of characters people have claimed to have been Gods throughout the ages. The point being that if a person claims to believe in the God creature, why can't one of those characters be the real God instead of the biblical or koranic God?

After all, not one god of any kind has ever done anything godly in scope since it was first created by a con man.

 

What you point out is worthless. Christians may believe in the same god but all interpret his teachings differently.

Atheism, like religion is based on unprovable beliefs. The big difference isn’t of belief but of what beliefs. I whole heartedly believe that both are nothing but faith. Neither has scientific evidence to back themselves up.

 

Nothing you've said addresses the post you quoted at all. Please read the post and try again. You haven't even tried to understand the post.

 

Again, that very much depends on how one defines "atheist", and as pointed out above it will also depend on how you define "God". Which God?

"God" could mean anything from bible God or another similar God from another literalist religion, or all the way across the spectrum to meaning nothing but love.

 

actually he did