JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, this clown is certainly full of shit(himself). I prefer to remain one of the “common folks” than sound like an arrogant asshole, which you seem to be very good at.
You can’t fix stupid apparently.
2 Likes
Well, there’s me blocking him. Comedy show over.
This guy is a genius in his own mind apparently.
3 Likes
Too bad the mods didn’t keep him blocked either. He’s been nothing but a headache.
This is why I can’t make friends
LOL… I’ve been waiting three days. Good luck to you. He just makes assertions and repeats his presuppositionalist script.
1 Like
What argument, that atheism is an ideology or doctrine or world view? If so then no, they’d be doing what you are doing, and equating the views of some atheist with atheism. If an atheist collects stamps this doesn’t male philately atheistic, yet the pursuit would be atheistic for an atheist.
Atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, and nothing else.
Doctrine
noun
- a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.
It is a doctrine, by definition.
Nope, I don’t think doctrine means what you think it means.
He has used it as an absolute, I am going to be gracious and assume this was lazily composed, and he meant to use it as a sweeping generalisation about atheists. However atheistic behaviour and beliefs in in any general sense, assuming he could validate this, does not change the fact that atheism is simply the lack or absence of a belief in any deity or deities, it is not a doctrine, nor does it have any doctrinal teachings, those are what atheists themselves develop.
I know, a very poorly constructed assertion used to support a very poorly contracted assertion. I guess it’s easier on the ego to make a second false claim than admit they said something they did not mean, and correct themselves. “I didn’t mean to say all”, makes sense. Whereas the assertion “all doesn’t mean all” is as idiotic as claiming to know what all the atheists think, beyond disbelieving in deities.
Firstly that is one group of atheists, but lets assume this was true of all atheists, all you’ve done is show that atheists and atheism are not the same thing, so a straw man, since I doubt anyone here would disagree.
You mean that is what you subjectively believe humanity needs.
He seems adept at making sweeping grandiose claims.
1 Like
Well there’s your problem, the meaning of words are compiled from common usage, did you not know this? Atheists like theists must adhere to those or their use of words becomes inaccurate and maybe even meaningless. Maybe you could start a dictionary of your own, though I fail to see what you’d gain if I’m honest.
Seem unlikely as all anyone would have to do is Google such words, and their commonly used definition would expose such inaccuracies.
Distinguish what from theists? Did you miss a word out there?
Nope, theists do this when the hold a belief that is predicated on faith and spiritual doctrine, rather than any objective evidence.
What a spectacularly stupid claim, the word belief is actually in the definition of doctrine, you really need to learn what these words mean.
It’s bizarre, but every time you tell me what I think, you are completely and utterly wrong. Given you don’t know me though, that’s hardly surprising as you are in no position to tell me what I think, beyond the fact that calling myself an atheist demonstrates, that I do not believe in any deity or deities.
Again they are synonymous, the word belief is in the definition of doctrine. You are talking utter nonsense. A belief is simply the affirmation of a claim that something is true, that not all beliefs are equally valid is axiomatic.
Try a dictionary?
Belief
noun
- an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
Note the word especially, as if this is not universally the case for all beliefs see. Thus a spectrum of beliefs could easily be predicated on the preponderance of objective evidence that exists to support it. Ranging for example, from a belief based solely on subjective unevidenced personal experience, to a scientific fact like species evolution or the shape pf the earth.
no one is disputing that, what they’re disputing is your incorrect assertion that the views of those groups universally represent atheism, or even all atheists come to that. Atheism is simply the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. What atheists do say or believe doesn’t change that.
No it isn’t, and not it isn’t. A newborn baby is an atheist, it cannot be otherwise.
1 Like
Word definitions are based on common usage, that you are unhappy with those definitions is of little significance or meaning to anyone else. Your sweeping absolutes about atheists are risible, you know one thing about any individual atheist and nothing else until they tell you. Generalisations based on some objective evidence might be acceptable depending on the context in which they are used, but you’re using absolutes like all atheists, and that won’t fly sorry.
You are challenging a straw man you’ve created, by assuming he has such. However this misses the point, that atheists adhere to doctrine does not make atheism a doctrine, or even mean atheism involves any doctrine.
Even were that risible nonsense true, it would not make atheism a doctrine, or support the claim atheism involves a doctrine. The claim itself speaks for itself, you’re either on a massive delusional ego trip, or you’re trolling. I’m 50/50 at this point.
The definition demonstrates it to be true. belief
noun
- an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
Not the caveat of the word especially, this demonstrates that it need not be the case that all beliefs are “unproved”, for want of a better word.
1 Like
You are making the specific mistake that I am trying to explain to you all.
The person needs to be exposed to both doctrines in order to distinguish what doctrine the person supports to be true. The newborn baby is secular - tabula rasa.
Why did you make that mistake?
As you know, I am not too smart. I need you smart people to expose me to the full spectrum of believing as was argued by your cult member.
See, I did it that time. I distinguished myself as different. And you want me to do it every time - right??? Because you are searching for any mistake in my reasoning. Some of you are so weak that you are searching for anything to accuse me of being a theist.
It is as if you have not noticed that the theists that do come here to argue, very soon in their postings, refer to the Bible, or references to creationism, or whatever. You are not getting that from me. You are getting full on reasoned arguments.
Now how about you guys support your cult member who claimed to have already encountered my arguments, and show me examples of those previous arguments.
Who, other than me, has claimed that atheism is a political doctrine?
Who, other than me, has claimed that theism is an ontological doctrine?
Who, other than me, has claimed that belief is the simplest form of worship, therefor, the definition of religion cannot be “belief and worship,” because it is redundant?
Ad hominem, eh?
Hahahahaha … there’s more than one way to spot a theist. Your “reasoned arguments” give you away.
YOU are not original. Not even close.
Blah blah blah
4 Likes
Are atheists generally in your experience connected with religious or spiritual matters? Or did you not mean to imply that atheism and secularism are mutually exclusive? Now does the newborn baby lack belief in any deity or deities? Do take your time…
I made no mistake, you have a remedial grasp of language and are madder than a box of frogs, I don’t see myself as culpable for this in any way.
Or you could Google the definitions yourself, maybe move your finger more slowly across the screen?
Oh I think it was pretty clear from the start, I mean the bizarre trait of putting full stops in the middle of sentences for example.
Why would this scepticism necessarily denote weakness, and in what sense?
Not even slightly true.
Do your own lifting champ, he happens to be right. You may be an atheist, I could care less personally, your ideas seem little more than ill-conceived grandiloquent grandstanding. Though your penchant for putting full stops in the middle of sentences is one I have noticed many religious apologists use, male of that what you will. It will be redundant line breaks next. like this for example:
Many religious apologists have made the first claim. Though the uniqueness of your claims might have as much to do with them being nonsensical bs as you being a closet theist of course. The last claim for example is utter nonsense, I could care less if you invented such idiocy, but the definition of belief is not your personal toy to play with.
I just did this, and you ignored the evidence of the dictionary definition of belie. Try again:
Belief
noun
- an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
Note the word especially, as if this is not universally the case for all beliefs see. Thus a spectrum of beliefs could easily be predicated on the preponderance of objective evidence that exists to support it. Ranging for example, from a belief based solely on subjective unevidenced personal experience, to a scientific fact like species evolution or the shape of the earth.
1 Like
…and throwing in the odd out-of-place capital letter… hahahahaha
1 Like
Well this is wrong straight out of the gate. I for one have been connecting belief to doctrine for several years in various other places. Indeed,I’ve defined “belief”, as practised by mythology fanboys, as uncritical acceptance of unsupported assertions, and doctrines are based upon unsupported assertion, again, by definition.
Which might have much to do with the fact that atheism, in its rigorous formulation, is nothing more than suspicion of unsupported mythology fanboy assertions. And as a corollary, by not presenting assertions itself, is the very antithesis of doctrine, once again by definition.
You’re doing nothing of the sort, you’re simply seeking to impose your errors upon us. NOT treating unsupported mythological assertions uncritically as fact, is again the very antithesis of a “doctrine”.
Once again, wrong. Because a doctrine implies uncritical acceptance of assertions. Suspicion of assertions is the antithesis of “doctrine”, once again, by definition.
Again, wrong. This isn’t “atheism”, it’s anti-theism. Which is a separate and well-defined position.
Again, laughably and hopelessly wrong. See above.
Oh, and requiring policy to be based upon postulates supported by evidence isn’t a “doctrine”, it’s the proper application of the rules of discourse to said policy making process. Do learn the elementary concepts applicable here, before further embarrassing yourself before a global public audience.
4 Likes
You are incorrect. Man is born in sin. “Separation from God.” Your problem is that you do not understand the word Atheist, which is synonymous with “Non-believer.” No one needs to be exposed to anything to not believe in something. Non-belief is not an action one takes. A baby is born into a state of non-belief "Original Sin.’
Atheist is synonymous to "Heathen, non-believer, apostate, infidel, doubter, skeptic, disbeliever, and more. The name was pinned on early Christians for their lack of belief in the pagan Gods. It was pinned on us for our lack of belief in the Chrsitan god (in most cases). This has resulted in us adopting the term, agreeing with it, and wearing it as a badge of honor. I am proud to be an atheist. Your etymology lies with the Church and nor your ignorant unfounded pulled out of your ass assertions.
7 Likes
Yes. I believe/support the doctrine that describes that the Easter Bunny does not exist. Chances are I was exposed to a description of an Easter Bunny and then the doctrine that explained that it was a fairy tale or something.
Then how can you describe yourself to be an atheist, if you do not know what theism is?