Here is why you got suspended: you are unwilling to listen and arguing dishonestly. You are in fact a presuppositionalist Christian claiming to be an Atheist.
As previously stated, “YOU NEED TO KNOW MY EPISTEMOLOGY FOR THE REJECTION OF GOD CLAIMS TO GET ANYWHERE NEAR A DOCTRINE.” The reason for the rejection is not ATHEISM. Atheism is the rejection. Many atheists and many reasons not to believe in God or gods.
I do not believe based on the simple fact that the God claim has not met the burden of proof. This is an epistemology. NOT ATHEISM. The burden of proof is directly related to philosophy and science. These are the foundations of the claim. Belief in the epistemology of science is the foundation of my disbelief. Other atheists may have other reasons. And the fact of the matter is this. To prove me wrong, you must also use my epistemology. There are no god claims that can stand up to scientific inquiry. Ergo, no reason to believe in a god. Now you have a belief system of belief. It falls short of a dogma as it is willing and able to change, unlike dogmas. Provide evidence for the change and science unlike dogma is malleable. So why not argue honestly?
You are a presuppositionalist pretending to be atheist. You are arguing dishonestly and my friend, you will be banned from the site again by continuing your dishonesty. Not that I will ban you , Frankly, I would let you hang around a bit and let some of the other Atheists take a bite out of your ass. But there comes a point where we all tire of your presuppositionalist nonsense and you will certainly be invited to leave.
As soon as you demonstrate, my opting to look both ways while crossing a street is a dogma.
I’m actually done with this idiot. I have treated him with as much respect as I can muster. He has responded to nothing in my posts. He has a presuppositionalist script and he is sticking to it. This is useless bullshit and a conversation not worth having.
If we were taking a vote, you know which way I would go.
Atheist is not a political doctrine. Atheists tend to believe in the constitution of the United States and the “Doctrine” not clearly stated in that document but attested to by one superior court after another; “Separation of Church and State.” Separation of Church and state is your ‘doctrine’ and it is believed to be useful by most atheists, I imagine,’ but also by a huge number of theists.
Religions that believe in separation of church and state.
Separation of Church and State - Jewish Action Center
The separation so church and state ensures the freedom of religion as well as the freedom not to believe in religion. IT IS NOT AN ATHEISTI IDOLOGY OR AN ATHEIST POLITICAL AGENDA.
This is a typical example of how atheists use the doctrine that they all agree to be true:
If the theists recognized that theism is an ontological doctrine, and that atheism is a political doctrine that opposes theist doctrine for public policy, then their argument would be valid. But they are not keen enough to do that, because it eventually deteriorates their ambition. Christians unwittingly suggest theism is a doctrine when they quote the Bible verse that about believing in Jesus to get to everlasting life in heaven.
Why is this idiot still here? Same fucking hidden assertion as a question over and over and over.
CyberHiker: did your mother have any children that lived? 'It’s just a question?" Have you always been a completely ignorant piece of shit? I was just wondering?
Why do you keep dodging her questions here and in other threads? For such a massive intellect and your obvious ego that says your “correct”, it should be a simple rebuttal.
I’ve already said what I needed to say, but he keeps going about the same crap in the hopes several of us will change our answer and agree with him which is an Argument by Repetition fallacy.
