Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I made the comment (several times) I don’t care what you call me (relative to the discussion in the moment or my reference to philosophy); the bottom line is I don’t believe in a god, fate, spirits, evil/the devil, reincarnation and so on. That it matters enough for you to bring it up a few years later is the ‘elephant in the room’. :-)
That you refer to posters as ‘allies’ (or not) and being on their side (or not) speaks volumes. You have continually expressed such when folks don’t get in line with your ‘hate religion’ narrative as evidenced by the numerous times in which you’ve hilariously/childishly called me a theist in disguise, so-to-speak, as if atheists aren’t allowed to have a different opinion than you - particularly relative to knowledge, philosophy or the ‘human spirit’ i.e. the mind/consciousness (which doesn’t have anything to do with ‘spirits’, a god, or how a theist perceives spirituality). That said, the thread asked for our thoughts as atheists - not just yours. Yet, you’re always armed and ready to attack and speak for atheism, as a whole, primarily by speaking against religion (even in a thread that doesn’t have anything to do with theists or spirits, lol). I find it to be a disturbing attempt to control the narrative and stifle others; in fact, I’ve noted posts in which you have gloated relative to your success in doing so. The only thing you and I have in common is we don’t believe in a god, but you won’t (even) agree to that, heh.
Bottom line, I respect (and am willing to fight for) others’ rights as well as my own. I believe Constitutional Law is our best/only weapon to fight religion, as a whole, and protect our rights as atheists.
As I recall the 'theist in disguise (which i would certainly suspect) was an early response to your 'agnostic' claim while you were ferociously bashing atheism. When you (grudgingly) admitted atheism was what 'agnosticism' actually was, you carried on the bash. 'Theist in disguise' was long since abandoned, and it shows your debate - methods are still theistic (1) even if your beliefs are not, that you drag out something long gone to bash me with now.
Blah, blah, blah. Again, it’s downright bizarre you attempt to (angrily) control my perspective as an atheist (and a lawyer, for that matter) because it doesn’t fall in line with your antitheism.
Blah, blah, blah. Again, it’s downright bizarre you attempt to (angrily) control my perspective as an atheist (and a lawyer, for that matter) because it doesn’t fall in line with your antitheism.
Ok Remind me not to hire you. But then you'll know that Lawyers don't care about what's true, but how they can win their case because they are paid to. Your pro bono atheism bashing isn't getting you anywhere. So after fingers in the ears ("Blah Blah"), accusing me of anger (I've been having fun), appeal to your own authority (as a lawyer ) and a final attempt to play the bias card, I'd say we are done.
I'd prefer (always did) we were on the same side. But the hostility is yours, and was from the start.
Ok Remind me not to hire you. But then you'll know that Lawyers don't care about what's true, but how they can win their case because they are paid to.
Hence my previous (and ongoing) point relative to Constitutional Law. It’s the best/‘true’ weapon we have to fight for our rights as atheists.
(Btw, not all lawyers are attorneys.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Your pro bono atheism bashing isn't getting you anywhere.
Obviously, I’ve never bashed atheism; your problem is that, as an atheist, I’ve never bashed religion. Hence your manipulative attempt to control the narrative (and my opinion) again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
I'd prefer (always did) we were on the same side.
If this were true, you’d stop suggesting I’m an ‘theist in disguise’ who ‘bashes atheists’.
stop suggesting I’m an ‘theist in disguise’ who ‘bashes atheists’.
I don't think you're a covert theist, but at times, it's understandable why some might wonder.
What I think you are is an iconoclast with respect to what you see as cherished atheist misconceptions, particularly about the harms of religion. Also you have a charming belief that the law can solve way more than it probably can.
This is pointless, you'be bashed atheism (wrong Kind of atheism) from the start. And you show you are doing it wrong by flogging the time i suspected you were a theist in disguise, when I wasn't familiar with the anti atheist irreligious, usually for political reasons, which seems to be only in the US. But it is certainly a theist method to dig up something said in the past and refuse to allow a Move On from there, not to mention repeating dogma (let the constitution and law do it all) when that is shown to be at risk when theism aims to alter Law and Constitution to remove the separation of church and state. We've already seen religious advisors in the White house. And if the previous President didn't have one it is because he doesn't care tuppence about the Bible other than it gets him votes if he pretended to be religious, and the Religious are glad to vote for him as he will allow them to do whatever they like if he wins in 2024.
This is why we have to keep being heard, as what you rely on to save everyone's rights is itself in the sights of religion. Can you wonder if I wonder that isn't what you'd like? You wouldn't be the first non - believer who wanted to see Christianity (even Catholicism ) win because of fear of the Liberals.
I think you have a (not so charming) belief aggression/arguments/insults in CD (or antitheism) can solve (or stifle) anything, particularly relative to the ‘human spirit’/the mind.
If I believed that, I would be making insulting aggressive arguments against theists. I am simply disagreeing with them and pointing out what I see as logical fallacies in their reasoning. That many theists (and you, hm ...) see simple disagreement as an insult or at least impertinence would not be my problem.
I think you have a (not so charming) belief aggression/arguments/insults in CD (or antitheism) can solve (or stifle) anything, particularly relative to the ‘human spirit’/the mind. Atheism does not equate to uniformity or a belief we’re better than anyone else (or above the law).
Clearly the 'angry' accusation applied more to you. The accusations are overdone, to put it mildly, and one has to ask why. I saw you accept that 'agnostic' non believer really meant atheist and I dropped any idea of covert theism. Though you won't let it go and move on. But what is your beef? The accusations are pretexts for atheist bashing not reasons, and bashing is what it is, whether you admit it or not.
Look, I agree - Constitution and law is vital and primary in supporting a humanist US society. But does it hurt to give reasons why we need it and why national policy and legislation should not be based on Bible, Christianity and whatever a Christian government get in their head?
I wish you could say what is your problem with atheism that speaks out, as the accusations you trot out are not good reasons. I'd love to know what your problem really is, (ok, it isn't hidden theism, and I suspect it's Political) but I doubt you'd tell us even if you realised.
Ok Remind me not to hire you. But then you'll know that Lawyers don't care about what's true, but how they can win their case because they are paid to. Your pro bono atheism bashing isn't getting you anywhere. So after fingers in the ears ("Blah Blah"), accusing me of anger (I've been having fun), appeal to your own authority (as a lawyer ) and a final attempt to play the bias card, I'd say we are done.
I'd prefer (always did) we were on the same side. But the hostility is yours, and was from the start.
If I believed that, I would be making insulting aggressive arguments against theists. I am simply disagreeing with them and pointing out what I see as logical fallacies in their reasoning. That many theists (and you, hm ...) see simple disagreement as an insult or at least impertinence would not be my problem.
That you’ve turned a thread for atheists (in which we are asked our individual opinion) into a personal diatribe/argument against (or even relative to the mention of) theists is strongly indicative of your anti-theistic perspective i.e. what do their ‘logical fallacies in reasoning’ (lol) have to do with the thread. That, in and of itself, is a logical fallacy i.e. an irrelevant point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Remind me not to hire you. But then you'll know that Lawyers don't care about what's true, but how they can win their case because they are paid to. Your pro bono atheism bashing isn't getting you anywhere. So after fingers in the ears ("Blah Blah"), accusing me of anger (I've been having fun), appeal to your own authority (as a lawyer 
) and a final attempt to play the bias card, I'd say we are done. 
) win because of fear of the Liberals. 
Clearly the 'angry' accusation applied more to you. The accusations are overdone, to put it mildly, and one has to ask why. I saw you accept that 'agnostic' non believer really meant atheist and I dropped any idea of covert theism. Though you won't let it go and move on. But what is your beef? The accusations are pretexts for atheist bashing not reasons, and bashing is what it is, whether you admit it or not.
