Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

you insisted on not answering the question, well guess what
they are your rules swensson and the bird agreed
and if that the name of the game for you then thats the name of the game for me pal.

wow you have serious issues with comprehending the english language!

 

The Koko rule was invented by Koko.

 

You quoted my statements lol

Which one is that you never agree about anything stanford says.

Unusual is a break with convention.

What is the same meaning as unusual?


uncommon, abnormal, atypical, unexpected, surprising, unfamiliar, unwonted, different. strange, odd, curious, out of the ordinary, extraordinary, out of the way, unorthodox, uncustomary, unconventional, outlandish, offbeat, off-centre, deviant, novel, singular, peculiar, queer, bizarre, freakish, quirky, alien.


Synonyms of unusual in English - Lexico.com
https://www.lexico.com › synonyms › unusual


loony is another good description of unusual.

Fine then create a new word instead of trying to hijack and steal agnostic from us

No you dont, not if I dont know is acceptable practice and Dr dodge, the bird and you all gree its fine, so be it.

 

false you introduced I dont know, a new rule stop posting accusatory fabrications

your new yardmeatist rule was a hit! So now we use it.

Its total bullshit but do I look like I give a damn? I can play by any rules you want.

Instead of agreeing with you swensson and the bird should have corrected you.

They didnt, so suck it up buttercup! LOL

 

English is actually not my first language, but I think I've come to master it pretty well. What is especially notable is that I speak it better than you do, as all can see in this thread with your constant poor grammar despite purporting to lecture others.

 

HAHAHA
you wont catch me posting stupid **** like this:

Worse then denying it after I posted a citation proving its in fact semantic with no material difference in meaning.

 

What we won't do is catch you understanding it, despite multiple people here other than myself attempting to explain it to you multiple times.

You also failed to understand your own citation that you claim proves "its in fact semantic". First, Swensson showed you that you didn't understand what "Semantic" means. Second, you think it means the same, which it doesn't, but the two don't have to be the same meaning, again as was pointed out to you. Your citation doesn't say it does need to be the same. That is your own claim alone.

You seem to be having great difficulty understanding English. There would be no shame in that if you were not so pompous about it. If English is your second language, as it is mine, and if you are struggling with it, there is no shame in that.

 

What a load of ****!
False, I proved I used the word was used in common parlance.

Have you ever heard someone say, “That's just semantics?” Basically, they're saying you're picking apart the meaning of a word to draw a different conclusion but it all means the same thing.

Examples of Semantics: Meaning & Types
https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-semantics.html

Get it now????

First you people piss and moan that words are not clearly defined then when they are you simply ****ing ignore it!

swensson is wrong claiming my usage is incorrect, its 100% legitimate for anyone who understands english.

false, how so? WHat makes you think that shows I did not understand something or that swensson proved his interpretation was correct?

 

better hope swensson or someone else comes on to pick up the ball to try to bail you out eh?

 

And again, you didn't read your own source. Starting on the third line:
"It’s possible the person saying, “It’s just semantics,” is wrong, though."

Oh, yes.

Very good read, although (or is it because?) it says the exact opposite of what you've been claiming about semantics.

 

First, you showed you didn't even read the whole source you cited, when you were confused at me mentioning another part of the same cited source. Second, you drew a conclusion that your cited source did not draw. Your cited source does not say what you claim that it does, as Swensson also explained to you and you failed to comprehend.

If this is a language issue for you, why don't you just say so and we can be a lot more lenient to you. Nobody expects you to speak perfect English if you struggle with it. Nobody faults you for being confused or failing to understand anything either. The problem only arises when you pound your chest and talk down to everyone else thinking you know better, when you clearly do not, as is seen by the fact that every other person here has understood each other, and everyone else understands some very basic concepts that you are not showing understanding of.

It COULD be that you are simply having misunderstandings with everyone. If it is, then we could probably work with you to get to some constructive conversation if you made some effort at it and could see beyond your ego. On the other hand, if you are as I suspect, just playing word games and trolling because you want to boost that ego and smugly feel you showed up some "neoatheist" strangers on the internet, this will continue to go nowhere.

 

HAHAHA
no kidding?
another english scholar
Doesnt change the fact my use of "its semantic" is perfectly acceptable and correct, contrary to swensson claiming its not.

Thats right when some says something is semantic that does not mean they are correct any more than when the bird swensson and Dr dodge all agree its not semantic is correct. Hence , I proved it in my citation that the birds nonsense is in fact semantic. So in this case the claim that its not semantic is FALSE.

Nice try though!

 

FALSE

It most certainly does say what I said it says, and swenssons source agrees! LMAO

His quote was cherry picked nonsense that didnt even apply.

That nonsense you posted:

No there is no material difference, it is semantic, and my use of semantic AGAIN HAS THE SAME MEANING, through negative absorption precisely as I said. Swenssons source agrees.

 

I have an idea, why dont you have our resident self proclaimed logic expert, Professor Dodge build you a truth table and the associated venn diagrams? Very quick and simple for a logic expert. Badda Boom Bodda Bang!
Shall we take bets? It will NEVER HAPPEN! (for obvious reasons) LMAO

 

As scientific studies show, the difference is in fact material, since belief and disbelief activate different regions in the brain. Surprisingly, philosophy also confirms the scientific findings when it tells Bullivant that his attempt at using Flew's definition as an umbrella term fails because weak atheism (doesn't believe there's a god) is not the same as strong atheism (believes there's no god). Your precious Standford says so.

 

firing different brain cells has 100% ZERO affect on meaning.
Yes you all like to talk about bullivant and pretend stanford doesnt also address flews theory and tosses it in the trash can as well right along with bullivant. smoke n mirrors is all you got.

1) It fails as an umbrella definition -bullivant -PLONK
2) it fails because a psychological state is NOT a proposition -flew -PLONK

Yes a non proposition is not the same as a proposition. Whats so difficult about that?

 

Why don't you simply clarify? You mean it has no "material difference" or you mean it is exactly the same and only different in wording?

And if it is exactly the same, then how do you explain your being "agnostic", as you define that word?

Why do you consistently refuse to explain this apparent contradiction? You could have avoided my dialog with you, and be rid of "the bird" that you so often complain about had you simply made an effort to explain yourself in good faith.

If you don't think it is a contradiction, you should at least be able to see why it appears to be one:

1. First you say that you don't believe God exists and that you don't believe God does not exist, which you define as "agnostic". See your chart I quoted recently wherein you write exactly that. Is this correct?

2. Then you say that if you don't believe God exists, that is the same as saying God does not exist, and that there is "no material difference" between these or that the difference is "semantic", by which you mean they are the same. Is that correct?

If any of the above is not correct, and is a misunderstanding, here is YET ANOTHER opportunity for you to clarify.

And if both (1) and (2) above IS what you are saying, then do you really not see the conflict? And if not, can you see why everyone else does say they see a conflict there? Can you explain why everyone else is wrong about said conflict?

 

clarification 1

clarification 2

clarification 3

clarification 4

clarification 5

How much more clarification do you need a borg implant? Wheres that truth table? How about a venn diagram?

Its easy to prove your point if it were real.

 

1. First you say that you don't believe God exists and that you don't believe God does not exist, which you define as "agnostic". See your chart I quoted recently wherein you write exactly that. Is this correct?

2. Then you say that if you don't believe God exists, that is the same as saying God does not exist, and that there is "no material difference" between these or that the difference is "semantic", by which you mean they are the same. Is that correct?

If any of the above is not correct, and is a misunderstanding, here is YET ANOTHER opportunity for you to clarify.

And if both (1) and (2) above IS what you are saying, then do you really not see the conflict? And if not, can you see why everyone else does say they see a conflict there? Can you explain why everyone else is wrong about said conflict?

 

HAHAHA dodge!
AHAD too?
we are discussing semantics.
you were going to give us a truth table to prove your point.
you know that BIG DIFFERENCE!!!!
topic jumping, when you are on a sinking ship jump to another one and change topic! LMAO

 

Are we? I thought we were talking about the oh so horrible statement you keep quoting of mine and how oh so very wrong it is.

Is that not why you brought up "semantic" in the first place? Weren't you trying to prove that not believing in God and believing there is no God are the same thing?

How many opportunities do I have to give you before you decide to clarify?

If not believing in God and believing there is no God are the same thing, then how can you be agnostic?

Why do you constantly refuse to address that? What are you so afraid of?

 

I don't need a truth table or venn diagram to highlight the conflict between (1) and (2). You do? I am confident that everyone but you can see said conflict. I am actually pretty confident that you can too, but pretend not to.

 

still dodging and deflecting, now you are trying to sell us that the nonsense you posted is supposed to mean agnostic? Get serious. smoke and mirrors, that even more ridiculous than your claim its a BIG difference! LMAO

total nonsense, what a mass of confusion! Maybe you should leave this to swensson

 

Yes, you are. Why do you refuse to address the post you purport to respond to? Why do you not explain what I asked you to explain, clarify any misunderstandings, etc. I've been more than patient with you, giving you opportunity after opportunity to tell me if I have misunderstood you, etc. Yet I predict when and if you finally understand what I've been saying all along, you will then claim I strawmanned you above. I have given you ample opportunity to explain away your self-contradiction, but you shy away from doing so every single time.

Quoting this back at us over and over, you never noticed the part bolded above?The difference is what allows you to be what you call agnostic. Without the difference you have only theist and what you call atheist.

It is the difference that allows you to separate what you call agnostic from what you call atheist. Given that you are so adamant that you are not atheist, this appears to be a very big difference to you indeed. Your claim (1) does not fit with your claim (2). They directly conflict.

Only you are confused. Everyone else here understands this perfectly. Multiple people have attempted to explain it to you. You are either too dense, or pretending to be. It is hard to tell which.

 

Why do you answer the questions I give you with questions, and demand I answer your questions and refuse to answer the questions in substance that I ask you? Thats not a discussion. All I got and still get from you is dodge, just like Dr Dodge.

I totally undertstand what you have been saying and you are wrong as I have proven.

Sorry friend, its not a democracy, 2+2 does not = 5 I dont care how many of your pals agree with you.