Fooled you too?
{edited to fulfill character minimum}
Based on your inane scribblings in here and the fact that you wrote about your “promotion” in gloating terms: No, I do not.
FTFY:
If you didn’t, why bring up such a bizarre thing in the first place, out of place?
There is an extraneous comma in there.
1 Like
It will secure our descriptions of things, and therefore, provide the “help” needed to negotiate public policy between the different ideological groupings. I can provide examples of the problems we are encountering in United States (domestic) policy, but I doubt if you would be able to understand it without having to describe a lot of underlying issues from the past (culture)
Direct me to that post, and I will see if I can clarify anything I may have overlooked.
Perhaps you can direct me to, or provide, a further description of the problem that you are encountering, and I will try to provide a more specific answer.
Oh, God, help me - what do I do?
@CyberHiker dude you are so confused yet full of yourself and quite a bit more.
I wasn’t asking for help, I was trying to play along.
I think I got my answer here, tho first part of the statement is … well empty.
Atheists are not “The group” that needs representation, we are “all but the group”, as someone said a minority.
At this point I’m almost certain that you are just trying to trick someone into “gotcha” moment with doctrines and policies. I don’t think you’ll get your moment here.
3 Likes
ROFLMAO ------------
2 Likes
How does that work? What am I going to do - publish it for mass embarrassment???
Nah, just your personal satisfaction.
Because, it was juxtaposition with the onslaught of posts questioning my honesty.
Older dictionaries define atheism as “a belief that there is no God.” Clearly, theistic influence taints these definitions.
It’s called social evolution. Language usage also evolves. Definitions can and do change… BUT guess what???
When they are IN USE by a majority to communicate an idea or thought to one another.
YOU don’t have to accept our usage of “atheist” and it’s accepted meaning.
Re-define it all you want. 
We don’t accept it. En masse.
Enjoy talking to yourself… really - only you understand what the fuck you are saying and advocating. A very stable genius.
5 Likes
The only error in semantics are yours.
1 Like
You forgot clairvoyant also
1 Like
Can have, but does not need to have, babies are all born lacking theistic belief. What’s the “semantic root” for a babies lack of theistic belief? Come one mate, your arguments can’t ignore facts like this and retain any credibility.
Completely at odds with the common usage, no one cares, if one were to accept your arbitrary disregard for common usage words would lose all meaning.
No, you are similarly disregarding the commonly accepted meaning of belief is all. No argument can be lent any credence when it starts with “I think the dictionary is wrong”, which is what you claimed.
So what, language evolve over time did you think no one here knew this? This fact makes dictionary definitions and common usage all the more important, but it does not in any way shape or form, support your claim. Atheism is neither a belief or a set of beliefs (doctrine). Etymology, whilst fascinating doesn’t justify making up definitions for words that do not reflect common usage. One might as well refuse to speak anything but Latin.
2 Likes
Has anyone seen the goalpost? I lost track of it at this point.
2 Likes
This discussion was about the Constitution and my argument that the Three-part Separation Theory is inadequate. I jumped through your hoops, but you were all focused on categorizing me a theist, rather than the subject of the discussion.
I will start another topic that may be easier for you to recognize the goal post.
Ok boomer, first off no one gives a rats ass about your ramblings on the American government. Secondly you have done nothing but move the goalpost when you get questioned on your quackery.
1 Like
You cut the crap.
Why not just cut the crap?
2 Likes
Babies are born “tabula rasa.”
Persons have to be exposed to the doctrine and supporting reasoning (doctrines), but you deny the necessity for doctrine, because the common definition for atheism and theism do not refer to doctrine.
I just read the last 64 responses to this clown’s insane ramblings, what a waste of time.
What’s the definition of insanity again?
2 Likes