I haven’t spoken for all Atheists. If anything I was referring to my fellow atheists here. Our most active members here have already posted and told you how full of shit you are and will continue to do so. So to answer truthfully, they’ve already spoken for themselves.
Some of those answers were to point out they were poorly constructed, and misrepresented what they were responding to, hence the question as to whether English is your first language.
So what?
How do they believe that I am lying, if there is no doctrine for identifying an atheist?
Why would they need a doctrine? Do you know what doctrine means? They can just weigh your other claims and posts against that one claim, and make an inference as to the likelihood you are as you claim to be. I don’t know if you are or not, but some of your other claims do seem to be at odds with that one.
There isnt. A great example is that most Christians believe everyone they meet are Christians until that person like myself tells them they’re an Atheist. Pretty simple really.
I set up a discussion about this, but they shut it down. Why?
Because of your pattern of being constantly offended and attacking the person, dodging questions, and your lack of a cohesive argument.
Has nothing to do with doctrine, it’s your actions. This is all extremely similar to theist behaviors we have seen in the past. So if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, what would you most likely assume it is?
1 Like
You were told why. READ.
Why would anyone want a thread for you to dispute common usage of words? It’s hard to imagine anything much more pointless than that tbh. It’s also a lie of course, as atheism does not have a doctrine, though atheists might of course.
1 Like
The definitions of the -isms are doctrine.
There is just no way. Theists do not spend this much time arguing an issue with atheists. Theists do not spend this much time arguing an issue and not refer to Bible verses, or some theory with creationism. No theist has argued that atheism is a political doctrine. It is way too complicated for them. Theists would have to admit that theism is a doctrine, and they do not want to do that for the same reason atheists do not want to do that; because atheists believe it will adversely effect their ambition to promote atheism.
But atheists unwittingly argue such when they claim that a child is born an atheist and has to be indoctrinated into a theist by religious organizations.
10 seconds on a search engine shows that statement to be obviously false, troll.
5 Likes
So no then, you don’t know what doctrine means, thought so.
noun
- a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.
Since atheism is defined as disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods, it is clearly not a doctrine, and you were pointedly wrong. Your Wikipedia link is utterly irrelevant to those facts?
2 Likes
I am claiming that the definition for “atheism” is wrong. The definition was composed and perpetuated because of a lack of a reliable ontology to properly categorize abstractions.
Well, that settles that.
All of those claims seem dubious to me.
I see three claims, they are all demonstrably incorrect. Again this level of dishonesty when the definition of doctrine obviously refutes your claim is not helping you build credibility here. It has been explained already, we are all born atheists, since we are all born lacking beliefs, and since a doctrine is a set of beliefs, this axiomatically means your claim that atheism is a doctrine is simply wrong. repetition won’t change these facts.
That argument proves your claim wrong? Unless you’re asserting babies are born with beliefs, in which case please do present some objective evidence to support this bizarre notion. Otherwise all babies would be born atheists, by definition, and they would lack any doctrine, by definition.
1 Like
Yes I know, and as hilarious as that claim is, it is equally irrelevant, since what you think has zero relevance to its definition, which like all words is derived from common usage.
Nope, that is not how definitions are derived. You are simply wrong, and wrongheaded if you think your personal opinion is a better way to define words that common usage. More importantly why would anyone give the furry crack of a rat’s arse that you think a word definition is wrong? I may decide wrong is incorrectly defined and it now means right or correct, now would that sway you? dear oh dear but this is either very idiotic or trolling.
2 Likes
The definition of “atheism,” is the atheists’ base doctrine; but it is flawed, because of poorly guided semantic organization which is dependent on a classification system, which is the application aspect of ontology.
That is the tool humanity is missing - a reliable ontology. More specifically, an ontology of abstractions.
No it isn’t, atheists are a minority for a start you muppet.
1 Like