@CyberHiker, what in the fuck dictionary are you using?
1 Like
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.
Has this guy been banned again yet?
Ummmm… Does that mean your disbelief in the Easter Bunny is a doctrine?
Nope 
(And the necessary words)
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.
They (atheists) all agree to be true…
Didn’t you say you are atheist?
1 Like
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?
Now that was damn funny, right there.
1 Like
Wow - it really hurts doesn’t it???
I can’t count the number of times I’ve been told by crackpots (many of them here) that: all doesn’t mean all. 
1 Like
@CyberHiker how about you answer CyberLN
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.
2 Likes
Oh fuck, This was addressed yesterday and the asshole is still repeating the same bullshit. How long do we have to put up with this nonsense?
1 Like
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.
Weak, I REALLY had high hopes here.
Cog, you don’t have to put up with any of it. I, however, am interested in getting my questions answered so will continue to prod him.
I am proposing the formula for collating the reliable ontology, and the general categories, thereof. I cannot determine all of the subcategories - way too many calculations in way too many subject areas that I am not familiar or interested in deliberating.
I have no formal credentials in library science, which would be the most likely scholarly discipline. I am able to soundly explain and classify entities because of my extensive research and exercise of the collation formula that I was able to detect upon initial research and ambition to construct a “scientific” classification system.
I am not intent on asking the common folks to trust me. I am intent on challenging all fields of scientists to seek to construct a reliable ontology, because that is what humanity needs. To that I am offering my incomplete classification system as the starting point.
The general categories of my classification system is much easier to memorize than the Dewey Decimal or Library of Congress classification systems, and that is a really good starting point.