Because I want to, Dick!
But no one here believes you. If you’ve ever been to court before, you can’t sit there and continue with a bullshit defense towards the jury once the verdict has been passed. And seeing as you feel “attacked” and need to “defend” yourself, a defense only matters when everyone buys your defense and no one here is doing that either.
You are challenging a common rhetorical device in an effort to demonstrate a superior control on the dialectics of any discussion.
How can you speak for all, and how are you all in agreement, if there is only one thing atheists have in common?
Nonsense, you made up a lie, and are now making up bs to pretend it was not a lie, but it clearly was. Sweeping hyperbole is always going to get called on here. Now though I have seen some atheists drift through here, and some claiming to be atheists, who make arrogant and sweeping claims, this doesn’t support your original assertions about “atheists”, and certainly not about Cyber, who never remotely made claimed to be superior, what you have quoted simply doesn’t support your assertion at all, it’s disingenuous word salad.
3 Likes
I don’t think you now what all means, and this is at the root of your error here. So FYI if every atheist here disbelieved your dubious assertion to be an atheist, that would not mean all atheists disbelieved you. Also when it was asserted that all atheists have only one thing in common, clearly they meant we can only know they have one thing in common based on the fact they are atheists. It is axiomatic we cannot know what all atheists think beyond that, to make such sweeping claims is ludicrous hyperbole.
4 Likes
And, you claim I write “word salads.”
Nope, I pointed out that a particular post used word salad. No offence, but is English your first language? Assuming this was directed at me of course, since you neither quoted nor replied directly to my post?
You have no problem figuring out an answer to my posts.
And look at this, I have been promoted a “trust level.”
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.