Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

I never said pigment was required for light. I contrasted light with pigment. I was the one who brought up that difference. And you are still wrong. With light, yellow + blue = white, not green.

 

Such stupidity!
Depends on the ratios and intensity.
Changes exactly 'zero' regarding my proposition.
Again my original proposition stands unscathed.
Since you insist on making frivolous arguments then we shall use the same proposition with primary colors, yellow = red and green
PIGMENT NOT REQUIRED.
You cannot reduce a composite as I stated it likewise for agnostic.

So when you gonna stop running away and hiding out?
Hows that "I dont know" working for ya?

 

I never said that pigment was required for color. I said the opposite from the beginning. I said that blue + yellow = green is true for pigment, but not for light, which you disagreed with, saying instead that it produced green even with light. But I get it. You are now thoroughly embarrassed and want to move on to the next subject. You can reduce a conjunction. It's called the conjunction elimination. It is one of the most basic inferences in logic. You've provided no source or counter argument to this, even after I provided multiple sources backing me up on that.

 

More diversion dodging and ducking.
You strawmanned my proposition by insisting on pigment.
The proposition stands, since it depends on the light ratio, I did not say equal intensity or define a specific wavelength of blue or yellow, more diversion and frivolous off point meaningless garbage. PLONK

So when you gonna stop running away and hiding out?

Hows that "I dont know" working for ya?

When are you going to address that? Never?

 

Now that we are done with your failures at basic color theory, we can move on to the next topic. I did so in the last post. You failed to respond. Shall I repeat myself?

 

Your claims are frivolous, did nothing to change the nature of my proposition. I explained it most certainly does work to produce just need to adjust the ratios, are you deaf?

Yellow = red and green.

this is not reducible.
Agnostic is not reducible.

My proposition is not defective when argued 'ON POINT'.

So when you gonna stop running away and hiding out?
Hows that "I dont know" working for ya?

When are you going to address "I dont know" nonsense, never?

 

Red and green are not propositions, Koko. Do you understand that?

 

I dont need to provide a source, you dont like it counter it

wtf are you talking about?
do you understand wth you are even saying
yellow = red and green
based on any verbage that means the same
cant wait to hear your strawman for this one!

since all his arguments have frivolous strawmen anyone expecting anything different with this one? LMAO

 

The conjunction elimination involves CONJUNCTIONS. As in a CONJUNCTION of two or more PROPOSITIONS. A and B. P and Q. "Red and green" isn't a logical conjunction. It doesn't involve two or more propositions, bud. A represents a PROPOSITION. So do B, P, Q, etc. Red does not. Green does not. If you'd like to use them to represent a proposition, then by all means, tell us what proposition you would like each of them to represent, then we could actually talk about it.

But it is cute when you demand that everyone else needs to provide a source but that you have special immunity. Yet another one of your contradictions.

 

validate with citation, not your narrative.

Here we go with another narrative he wont be capable of validating with a citation!

 

yep I have immunity until you start posting your source for your wacky "I dont know" to answer a proposition which you have been dodging now for over 400 pages. I posted my sources proving your pigment argument was off topic a side track and frivolous.

So when you gonna stop running away and hiding out?
Hows that "I dont know" working for ya?

When are you going to address "I dont know" nonsense, never?

 

You need a citation . . . that logic involves propositions . . . that those letters represent T/F propositions? You ****ing serious? This coming from the guy who BRAGS about not providing citations? I guess start here if you are really so far behind that you can't even tackle chapter 1 of any logic text.

 

You never proved that acknowledging that a question has T/F answer means that you must know the answer . . . and you have, in fact, acknowledged that there are T/F questions that you don't know the answer to. Many times. For years.

 

prove its not a proposition

 

Prove that "Yellow" is not a proposition? Sure. So "Yellow" is not a statement that can be true or false. So, no, it isn't a proposition in logic. It makes no sense to say "Yellow is false" or "Yellow is true."

 

that does not answer the proposition, it might be your truth but is not the truth of the proposition being presented to you. PLONK
dood you cant come up with something a little less lame?

 

You haven't provided a proposition for me to answer, bud. PLONK.

 

I said yellow = red and green
not "yellow" ffs

 

you havent demonstrated yellow = red and green is not a proposition, except by that nonsense narrative.

 

"Yellow = red and green" is a proposition, meaning that THE ENTIRE ****ING THING would be represented by a letter like A. The whole thing. Not the individual ****ing elements. And, as I've already proven, even that depends on if you are talking about light or pigments. If you are talking about light, then that proposition is true. If you are talking pigments, it is false.

 

You tried to use letters to represent things like "red" and "green" individually. That doesn't work. You can, of course, use a single letter to represent "yellow = red and green" if you want. But the entire thing is one proposition. It does not contain any conjuncts. It contains no propositions.

 

Not my problem if your knowledge of the subject matter is so limited that it wasnt apparent to you

 

Lol, buddy, I was the one who explained this to you, all while you were still claiming that yellow light and blue light make green light instead of white. You just learned that fact today, and I taught it to you. Now you are attributing your lack of knowledge to me.

 

red and green is a conjunction

 

Not to people who know what "conjunction" means in logic. A conjunction in logic has conjuncts . . . one or more PROPOSITIONS. "Red" is not a proposition. "Green" is not a proposition.