I am not defending theism, nor distorting atheism. I am challenging the definitions of the words that you need to form your doctrinaire.
Your word is good enough for me.
You could probably stop using presuppositionalist Christan nonsense. That might do the trick. You are a presuppositionalist Christian using presuppositionalist nonsense on an atheist forum. You refuse to argue honestly. You insist on your definitions, and you have no foundation for any of them.
3 Likes
Personally…I’m withholding belief of your claim. Leaning towards “no confidence” given your lie in the other thread. Perhaps one of your personas were suspended? oops 
What do you need to prove you are an atheist?.. 
… Aw, hell, that’s EASY! Simply post a pic of your Atheist Authenticity Certificate (AAC), along with your birth certificate and two forms of official picture I.D. (A driver’s license and passport are usually best.) If you have not yet received your AAC due to delays in the background check (Those guys are very thorough.), then just bring in notorized affidavits from three preachers from local churches of different denominations. Those affidavits should state the priests did interview you in such a manner that led them to be fully convinced you no longer believe in any god(s). Oh, and during those interviews, you must be hooked to a polygraph device monitored by a certified polygraph technician. And the evaluations of that technician should be presented with the affidavits.
See? No problem. Honestly, I’m amazed they even allowed you on the site without first seeing your qualifications.
1 Like
You’re slightly out of date here. The latest regulations (§3.1.4, ref §2.7.1) states that express handling also requires social security number and a picture of a valid credit card (including CVV), and its PIN.
2 Likes
What the fuck do you want? A pat on the back? A gold star?
Why does one need to “prove” they are an atheist? That is a very Christian notion. Xtians are always trying to demonstrate how “devout” they are to their fellow theists on Wednesdays and Sundays. It’s always “Oh look at me! Oh look at me!”
3 Likes
Wow, the United Atheist Authorities are really cracking down now. Glad I got godfathered in on that requirement.
Ooohh gold stars! I remember gold stars! Can I can I can I pleeese have some???
A nice ribbon would be REALLY GREAT!
Perhaps a tattoo on my forehead would be available?? (Check for authorization requirements with the validation department for authenticating validation authorizing.)
Edit: Whizzo button
2 Likes
That is really breathtakingly stupid. Challenging the definitions of the words you need? What in the hell are you blathering about? Here’s a definition for you…go ahead and challenge this one:
doctrinaire in American English
-
a person who tries to apply some doctrine or theory without sufficient regard for practical considerations ; an impractical theorist. adjective. 2. dogmatic about others’ acceptance of one’s ideas; fanatical.
-
You are a theist
-
You are a liar
-
You are a Troll
-
You are afflicted with batshitterinson’s syndrome
-
You have a brain disorder
-
You are desirous of being slapped
-
You have found yourself adrift in a morass of stupidity and are flailing about, hoping for a lifeline of semantical ambiguity.
Check all that apply and proceed to slap yourself.
Edit to abbreviate list
4 Likes
I do not remember ever learning of “Presuppositionalism,” and upon reviewing the Wikipedia article I do not recognize how you apply it to describe me! I do not believe in gods, nor do I trust the legend of Jesus.
I am arguing honestly. You have problems arguing honestly. You have claimed to have encountered my arguments from other people. You have claimed that there are more “ways to believe,” than what I am guarding as the erroneous presumption that atheists believe “belief” to be. And then, you have been bullying me using vulgarities.
If my arguments seem non-sensical to you, then ignore them like you ignore all of the other discussions that you ignore. I am not pestering you to participate. I am trying to respond to as many arguments as I can. It is difficult being the artificer of a scientific paradigm.
The foundation of my arguments is based on ontology. The problem that atheists, and the political realm of society, are encountering is due to the absence of a reliable ontology to correctly sort the categories of entities and subsequent semantics.
Nobel Prize in Economics.
Because I am being accused of being a Christian. You cannot figure that out, because I am challenging the doctrine that atheists are supposed to guard: atheism is the lack of belief in gods.
That is an informal definition, but it forms your primary doctrine for defining what you believe to be true.
Theism is an ontological doctrine that claims that a supernatural deity is the creator of reality.
Atheism is a political doctrine that opposes theist doctrine as the basis for public policy, because atheism cannot be an ontological doctrine, as theism is.
Edit: sniffle sniffle
1 Like
And you are providing this reliable ontology? Please help me understand what credentials you have enabling you to soundly explain and classify entities. What is it about your efforts to do so that should convince folks to trust you as reliable in this arena?
1 Like
@Cognostic Well, Cog, he’s got you now. He just used the unbeatable “Nuh-uh! I’m-not-you-are” defense. Sorry, ol’ buddy, but there is no way to counter that.
Cog?.. Using vulgarity?.. No fucking way! Surly you jest! Don’t worry, though, C.H., I’ll handle this. Stand by while I go slap the shit out of him real quick.
What the fuck?!? Since when the hell did we start having guard duty? Nobody ever gives me the memo for these things. Y’all can kiss my shiny metal ass on that bullshit, though. I did my share of guard duty with the military and police. Ain’t standing any more watches no damn more. My name better not be on the roster. 
2 Likes
You have not challenged a single word. You have made an unfounded and unevidence assertion. Atheism is a dogma. You have not shown me the evidence for the claim. YOu assert atheists believe something. You have not indicated what that belief is. You have challenged nothing. All you have done is make the same inane assertion over and over and over and now someone needs to remove you from the site,.
You are a dishonest Christian apologist using a presuppositional position to troll the atheist forum. Your position has been debunked and all you can find to do is repeat your idiocys.
Can we remove this person?
I have never written that. I have written that atheists have a dogma - the informal definitions of atheism and theism, and the incorrect definition of religion. And then atheists believe/use those erroneous definitions (champion) to test the moral bearing of candidates for membership in their peer groupings.
And I proved it. @Cognostic refuses to prove that he and the rest of the good atheists have encountered my arguments previously. Why don’t you help him?
And he has failed to prove that there are multiple ways of “believing.” Again, why don’t you help him?
My definition of belief is “support of a doctrine.” Your definition of belief is a magical switch in the brain.