Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

your proof?

 

Here is a creative out for Koko. He could now tell us that "God" has no meaning. Then "you believe God exists" isn't a proposition so needn't be either true or false. And he would be right that "God" is often not defined clearly, and sometimes not defined at all.

 

It can't be true and it can't be false.

 

If you think it has meaning, tell us what it means. You can't, because it doesn't. And since it has no meaning, it is not a proposition. It is just an incoherent series of words.

 

Not if X is being used as a variable that we have not yet set a value for.

 

Not my problem, its yours, you, swensson, and the bird, claim every statement is A,!A, so pick one.

 

Another straw man.

 

Oh so you now admit that not every statement abides by your A,!A rule.

 

And now you shift the goalposts. Every logical STATEMENT abides by that rule. Not "everything," which is what you said last time. Not every string of words is a statement in the world of logic. Every intro book covers this.

 

There is no shifting of goal posts.
If you said in reference to the previous statement above: "my statement is a lie" is it logically true or logically false?

 

"My statement is a lie" there would be false. Because the statement referred to as true. To have liars paradox it must refer to itself. Needs to be "THIS statement is false", not refer to some other statement.

 

nonsense

 

I agree it isn't shifting of goalposts. It is a desperate attempt to divert attention away from Swensson's last post to you (showing the Stanford article doesn't say what you claim it does) and from your ongoing self contradiction.

 

Desperation is on your side, not mine.
and all your claims that my interpretations are incorrect are nothing more than unsupported hot air, compared to my claims about your interpretations which have been proven incorrect with academic citations.

 

You are wrong about your academic citations. Swensson's last post very clearly pointed this out to you regarding Stanford. You ignored that and created a new diversion, as is your way. You routinely refer to outside "authorities" that you yourself do not understand and claim they say what they do not. That doesn't help you.

 

No diversion, the strawmen you create are the diversions not me bringing it back to the topic before you dodged it.

and swenssons last post was a 1000 page book

 

The OP is about if "Neo[atheism]" is a religion.
"This statement is false" is a new topic to divert.
Your inability to understand conjunction was a new topic to divert.
Your self contradiction was a new topic to divert.
Even Flew was a new topic to divert.

When you can't support your previous nonsense you rush to new nonsense. It is a pattern you repeat consistently in this thread. Within the next 5 pages you will be spouting even more new nonsense and will have abandoned all of the above. When somebody shows you that you are wrong, you always run away.

 

The string of words you put together is not, logically speaking, a statement, if your intention here is for it to be self-referential and not an appeal to a different statement. Yes, you've shifted the goal posts.

 

Debunking your nonsense takes a lot of space, both because you spout so much of it and because your reading comprehension is so poor that we have to be very thorough with you.

 

If that were tru you would have cited supporting evidence or explained why the grammar is not a sentence, you did neither, you have nothing. shifting my claim as usual. Oh wait thats creating a strawman!

 

american courts understand perfectly, you dont. lol

 

You talking as you do here in front of a judge or jury would be absolutely hilarious.

 

The religion matter has been proven thousands of pages ago, swensson wanted to take it into flew and agnostic. I even play by his set of rules, what more can you ask?

Of course it does prove further that neoatheism is irrational.

 

I dont have to, they understand english.

 

I think if you respond to people and ask them questions, and they take the time to write a long post answering those questions for you clearly, you shouldn't brush them off as TLDR, or divert away with new unrelated nonsense.

You have not even established that Swensson or anyone else here is a "neoatheist".