Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

besides it NOT a suggestion its an analysis that is proven true because you cant cite it.
you made it all up.
No evidence to the contrary exists. PLONK

 

I don't even know what you need a citation for. Near as I can tell, you are asking for a citation for something that you selectively admit depending on how the wind is blowing. Meanwhile, you've cited nothing that supports your own case.

I'll ask (and you will run and hide from this question): Do you HONESTLY not understand that a proposition can be true even if you don't know it is true? Do you HONESTLY not understand that a proposition can be false even if you don't know it is false?

. . . are you honestly a solipsist who things that the TRUTH VALUE changes depending on what you do and do not know? Seriously? Am I dealing with that level of psychosis?

 

You can't even articulate what you are asking for. Meanwhile, I've proven the inference that you are demanding is invalid.

 

more Dr dodge dishonest rhetoric, this is about logic not rhetoric, you cant cite your nonsense neither can anyone else LOL
PLONK!

 

youve proven no such thing, another redd herring to avoid posting a citation! LMAO
You dont even see how inept and lame your position is.
no citation = bull no matter how you want to sugar coat it.

 

I'm sorry that you think logic is bull ****. I disagree. But your belief that logic is bull **** explains this entire "discussion."

 

@Kokomojojo

Is the number of stars in the Milky Way even or odd. Your "answer" to this question encapsulates this entire "discussion." Once you are capable of comprehending this question, you'll be able to discuss this topic. Until then, you are not capable.

 

X marks where you are. I'm on a planet thattaway...

Rorty was using that as an example I quoted it as way to illustrate the Pragmatic approach. Traditional philosophy (and your thinking) can't deal with it.

"The history of attempts to do so, and of criticisms of such attempts, is roughly coextensive with the history of that literary genre we call “philosophy” – a genre founded by Plato. So pragmatists see the Platonic tradition as having outlived its usefulness. This does not mean that they have a new, non-Platonic set of answers to Platonic questions to offer, but rather that they do not think we should ask those questions any more. When they suggest that we not ask questions about the nature of Truth and Goodness, they do not invoke a theory about the nature of reality or knowledge or man which says that “there is no such thing” as Truth or Goodness. Nor do they have a “relativistic” or “subjectivist” theory of Truth or Goodness. They would simply like to change the subject. They are in a position analogous to that of secularists who urge that research concerning the Nature, or the Will, of God does not get us anywhere. Such secularists are not saying that God does not exist, exactly; they feel unclear about what it would mean to affirm His existence, and thus about the point of denying it. Nor do they have some special, funny, heretical view about God. They just doubt that the vocabulary of theology is one we ought to be using."
Richard Rorty

 

Like I said I read your rorty link, and he does make some good points like that above.
It would certainly avoid the constant trolling of neoatheists trying to constantly hammer round pegs into square holes as you have been observing. Every time I ask them to cite the rule they dodge with strawmen and red herrings.

 

My herring are paisley.

(And if anyone can spot the reference, you are a god)

 

Neo-Atheism? Well, the conclusion that any kind of true atheist arrives at is different from that which an agnostic person determines.

The atheist walks out in his backyard at night, looks up, and says...

. "Yup, I'm sure of it... nobody and nothing created any of this...."

.

 

Classic Koko reading comprehension fail.

 

Correct. But not believing does not equal believing the opposite. If it did, you couldn't have what you call agnostics, who neither believe God exists nor believe God does not exist. We've been over this dozens of times. Your games have grown tiresome.

 

And yes, atheism only regards the existence of Gods. Being atheist doesn't mean anything else. It doesn't say anything about what your other beliefs, rational or irrational may be. And so those beliefs may or may not include belief that ghosts, big foot, the loch ness monster, spiritual chi energy, etc. exist.

 

You are the one claiming atheists can believe in the supernatural, whats wrong, just realized you shot yourselves in the foot again?
All I am asking is that you prove it whatever it is you think is there is real.

sorry 1 stands for true, 0 stands for false, if you pick 0 then your answer is false is the opposite of true, hence if you do not chose true the ONLY Other option is false then you believe false. duh
Not 1/2 false, not I dont know like yardmeats illogical nonsense.

so do you have conversations with these spirits in the supernatural realm often?

 

Yes

No

You somehow read the former and it led you to think I claimed the latter.

Reading comprehension fail.

No, what's wrong is that you don't realize you shot yourself in the foot again.

Correct. You either believe X or you do not. Theists hold the belief that God exists. Atheists do not. What you call Agnostics do not, as you yourself have told us repeatedly.

Or you don't choose. Nobody is forcing you to choose. Again, you yourself have stated understanding this. The elevator need not go up or down, and can be stationary. You need not believe God exists or believe God does not exist. You can be what you call agnostic.

You argue against yourself constantly in this thread, and you don't even realize you do so, even when we point it out to you repeatedly. Again, your games are tiresome. I don't believe you are this dense. Nobody capable of turning on a computer and posting on a web site is this dense. You are trolling. And its no longer entertaining.

 

So you advocate dodging the question, ok.

No you can dodge, its not a legal logic option but its an option.

So how do you 'legally' do that?

You said its either x, or !x.

Do you dodge the question like yarmeat and now swensson has joined you in that nonsense?

Not at all, you dont see the trees because the forest is in the way.

On the contrary thats all about you friend.

You said atheists believe in ghosts and spirits, they are from the God realm, they live in the same duplex, God upstairs, spirits downstairs.

We need a FULL explanation how that is possible?

If you cant prove God does not exist how do you expect to prove spirits do exist since they are both living in the supernatural zone.

It glows in the dark you know! Everyone can always see when your back is up against the wall, just search for you calling me a troll and dense, you make it easy for them. LOL

 

It is. And as yarmeat has noted, you pretend to be incapable of understanding that something being X or !X means you can tell us, or should be expected to be able to tell us, which it is.

You are the only one who dodges. We have all given detailed answers that you either are too dense to understand, or are pretending to be. My bet is the latter.

No. I did not. Again, reading comprehension fail on your part.

I said they can and some do. If they do it doesn't stop them from not believing Gods exist, and thereby being atheists. Budhisst and Taoists, for example, who don't believe in Gods but believe in spiritual Chi energy or ancestor spirits, are atheists. Other atheists are materialists and don't believe in anything supernatural.

Citation? You took a census? Are you their land lord?

I don't. And you know that.

It used to be a bit comical when you projected like this. Now it is just lame. Your act is dull now and I'm done with it.

 

Hey! I remember you now. You were a 9/11 truther who used to post all sorts of crazy **** that didn't make any sense. Now, I see why your responses in this sub forum are so asinine. LOL You used to blame Jews for everything.

 

I'm not sure if it is the same guy. I wasn't around back then I think. But he DOES go on elsewhere about how the Jews tried to holocaust the Germans, instead of the Nazis genociding the Jews. See his signature. His holocaust denial isn't really relevant to this thread, but it does line up perfectly, doesn't it?

 

No, it is him. I remember the username distinctly now, and the avatar. It was a long time ago, but there is no mistake about it. He was king of the irrational argument and all the puerile distractions, including the semantics games, the bad manners and the feigned comprehension issues were all traits he employed liberally. How could I forget?

 

Its kind of surreal seeing Darth Vader speak a disturbing truth.

No, Luke. I am your father. Do not underestimate the dark side of Kokomojo holocaust denial.

 

This is surreal:

​

 

quote it you remember nothing, you are making it up.

 

What a crock, I acknowledge all 40 of the jewish holocausts between 1860 and 1945, I always have to ask which one?

Really got you kids pinned into a corner I see