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
Word salad again, and it’s hard to believe you can make arrogant assertion like “the toll humanity is missing”, while simultaneously falsely accusing others of claiming they are superior, and not see the irony.
5 Likes
And there is no “ism” in Atheism. Don’t blame us for the stupidity of theists. Atheist and Atheism are words the theists used to describe us. We have done this before. The word is synonymous with “non-believer.” The fact that 'theists" did no know what they were talking about is just par for the course. We are using their definition. "Yes, we are non-believers, “Atheists.”
NOW (PAY ATTENTION INEPT ONE)
The word doesn’t consist of the parts “athe-” and “-ism” Seeing it this way is causing you to make an equivocation fallacy and use the word incorrectly. There is no Greek,. Latin, French or German prefix “Athe” It’s not a word. “ism” is from Greek and is used to mean ‘condition : property’
The word Atheist contains the prefix ‘A’ which is a Greek prefix that means, “away from, opposed to, without.” The other half of the word is Theism. From the Greek “Theos” meaning ‘GOD.’ And used as a ‘Condition or Property of believing in God or gods.’
An A-theist (Atheist) therefore is a condition of not believing, away from belief, opposed to belief, in god or gods. (There is no ‘ism’ in Athsim.) You are just ignorantly reading the word incorrectly, breaking it apart in the wrong way and pretending you know something that is factually incorrect.
Just very typical of the bullshit you keep posting.
4 Likes
Very nice long list. Which description applies to me?
Why use the derogatory descriptor if you are not trying to challenge intellectual superiority?
Now you see, that is a claim to be intellectually superior. A pretty fucking hilarious one of course, since you don’t even understand how word definitions are compiled.
2 Likes
@CyberHiker If you don’t mind, I’m really curious about that ontology of abstracts, how exactly would that help “us” be more socially acceptable, or whatever you proposed earlier.
I don’t want to jump into conclusions so I have to ask (it’s been asked already, I think) where are you from?
I’m from Serbia (South Europe, Balkan peninsula).
Here I’m dealing with different sort of the same thing, orthodox christianity.
Edit: to add a recipient 
Definitions aren’t true/false, they aren’t right or wrong, troll.
4 Likes
LOL. The forum software does that automatically, based on the statistics of your interaction with the forum. Number of posts, number of replies, number of mentions, number of mentionings, etc. They all play into the equation. No moderators or other users have any say in this. But if this gives you an ego boost, well…whatever floats your boat.
2 Likes
Not anymore 
.
Thanks for pointing that out.
7 Likes
WHAT??? Man, my self image just collapsed like a punctured balloon. I was so proud that I was strutting about the house crowing like a rooster when I got my gold medal of trust…Just goes to show, you can’t trust anyone…fuckers…
Edit: In Skriten We Trust
I am not blaming atheists for the “stupidity of theists.” I am blaming atheists for not correcting the semantic errors committed by apologist theists, as atheists have done against the Church for failing to recognize that science has disproved most, if not all, of the biblical teachings about the creation of reality.
Those words are not synonymous. You are not a non-believer that the Sun will appear to rise in the morning. Atheism has a very specific semantic root. The doctrine that gods create and/or maintain reality is unique to “theism,” and subsequently, “atheism.”
Why do you bother? A dozen posts ago, you wrote that you were done with me. Why don’t you ignore my discussions and arguments just like the hundreds of discussions you have ignored in the past?
The word has a prefix and a suffix. You are the one that is “breaking it apart” incorrectly.
A - theo - ism
My argument is that atheism is a political doctrine, because it cannot be an ontological doctrine, as Theism is. Theism has to be an ontological argument for the existence of god. But atheism cannot be an ontological argument, because ontologies cannot be constructed from the antithesis of an ontology. Every entity defined in the theism ontology would have to be the opposite, and subsequently, most, if not all, of the words to define the entities for the atheism ontology would have to have the prefix “a-”.
My supporting argument is that the use of “belief” in the traditional definition, which you have recognized to have been promoted by the “stupid theists,” is erroneous and has an adverse effect on the general campaign to rid the world of superstitious explanations of reality.
That keeps you vigilantly focused on guarding an erroneous definition of atheism - Why?
Why can’t you just ignore my discussions and argument just like you have with the hundreds of other discussions you have ignored?
No shit. You don’t think I can figure that out? You think, I’m thinking there is some moderator cheering me on?!?!?!
You really believe that?
I could not possibly be keen enough to be as sarcastic as you, guys - right???