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.
Is this ask an atheist a question.. You do not know if Mensaguy is an atheist. Or is only your thread that deserves the repect to stay on topic?
God should be defined by those who believe in it. Atheism should be defined by atheists not by a theist.
Not all lyrics in a song ars literal. None of the Beatles were ever a walrus and Puff the Magic Dragon was not real. Do you know for a fact that Billy Collins did believe he was a God. Sources please.
regarding the claim in bold above, it is well documented on CD that atheists here on CD do not agree on definition of atheist and atheism. it is also documented in threads on CD that atheists also disagree regarding the contents of the sticky note in the Atheism forum, including those who contributed to the sticky note. So even going by what the sticky note in the Atheism forum says, has atheists on CD arguing and claiming no it is not correct.
a few examples of the voluminous documentation of atheists disagreeing are: "Atheism just another belief system?" (44 pages of posts), "This forum seems to be slowly dying" (22 pages of posts), "Different moral" (36 pages of posts), "How do you know your religion is the right religion" (108 pages of posts), "Atheism as a rejection of not disbelief in" (641 pages of posts),"The fascination with atheism" (35 pages of posts), "Atheists do you want to end or stop religion" (43 pages of posts), "The need to believe or not" (43 pages)
and that is just the most recent sampling, there are more threads too. Transponder and I discussed this at length here, it was quite entertaining, having an atheist blame theists for "misinterpreting" the atheist sticky which was created by the atheists themselves on CD. Good times for sure, I do miss Transponder.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-05-2022 at 03:42 PM..
regarding the claim in bold above, it is well documented on CD that atheists here on CD do not agree on definition of atheist and atheism. it is also documented in threads on CD that atheists also disagree regarding the contents of the sticky note in the Atheism forum, including those who contributed to the sticky note. So even going by what the sticky note in the Atheism forum says, has atheists on CD claiming no that is not correct.
Yes...we need better clarity.
QUESTION FOR ATHEISTS:
Do you view the doctrine of the Atheist Religion to be that the existence of God is a "delusion", a "fairytale", a mental illness that afflicts Aholes/fanatics/anal retentive/>insert vulgar insult<....or simply a idea that lacks evidence?
Because we have seen it fervently proselytized both ways here by the Atheist Adherents, for years now.
regarding the claim in bold above, it is well documented on CD that atheists here on CD do not agree on definition of atheist and atheism. it is also documented in threads on CD that atheists also disagree regarding the contents of the sticky note in the Atheism forum, including those who contributed to the sticky note. So even going by what the sticky note in the Atheism forum says, has atheists on CD claiming no that is not correct.
Sorry that I was not clear enough for you.
The term atheism should not be defined by theists who know little or nothing about atheism. Also theists should not be the ones sayibg what atheists think especially if those theists know nothing about atheism.
In addition my references to atheists and theists does not necessarily cover every theist and atheist alivevir has ever lived or will be birn in the future. I am also using the standard definitions for atheist, theist, think, know and every word used in this post.
My you sure are easily offended. What obscenities or vulgarities? Have you never seen an ass wearing a hat?
When our house was constructed, there was a moderately long list of mostly minor problems that I discovered, to the point that I hired a house inspector to flush out any others. There were several, including the revelation that the fence around our back yard was held together with INTERIOR nails and could be expected to fall apart in another year or two. I called a meeting with the builder and my inspector. The builder, who happened to be a Mormon, was very defensive. One of the items we looked at was some missing trim on the back of the garage. The builder opined that it was up to code. The inspector opined that it looked like crap and was not good workmanship or up to accepted standards. The builder's last defense was very much like a Christian's last defense in conversations like these: if your'e going to use such FOUL language (language so foul, mind you, that even the City-Data naughty-filter is unconcerned with it in my retelling of it), this conversation ends here and now. I just told him to get the broomstick out of his patootie and address the actual workmanship issue, because he was going to address it willingly or not, stay or leave.
Christians and sometimes other theists love to pretend that their tender sensibilities have been violated when it allows them to deflect from addressing an actual point or evidencing their views. It is of no consequence. It is not just profanity (as if I were swearing like a sailor to begin with, lol) but it is anything that they can manage to be offended by and believe me they are easily butthurt. Also, their god is evidently so weak he needs THEM to defend him, I guess. If god can't be bothered to strike a cussing person with a handy lightning bolt, it evidently isn't any great concern to him, and so shouldn't be to his children.
The point I actually made still stands: if god is asked in all sincerity for more faith, he would be (if he were real) an asshat if he pretends that person asked instead for more trouble in life. That people think in these ways just shows how much they suffer from Stockholm Syndrome, always defending their abuser / captor even when his behavior is contemptible, insincere, or deliberately obtuse. Or all three.
Is this ask an atheist a question.. You do not know if Mensaguy is an atheist..
Nope. Good catch that i don’t know if Mensaguy is an athiest. That is correct.
It is asking for a clarification on how god, or God, is defined according to the poster in the context of THAT post. Because god, or God, is defined in many, many, many ways.
God should be defined by those who believe in it. Atheism should be defined by atheists not by a theist.
Not all lyrics in a song ars literal. None of the Beatles were ever a walrus and Puff the Magic Dragon was not real. Do you know for a fact that Billy Collins did believe he was a God. Sources please.
QUESTION FOR ATHEISTS:
Do you view the doctrine of the Atheist Religion to be that the existence of God is a "delusion", a "fairytale", a mental illness that afflicts Aholes/fanatics/anal retentive/>insert vulgar insult<....or simply a idea that lacks evidence?
Because we have seen it fervently proselytized both ways here by the Atheist Adherents, for years now.
If I answer this question, will it be taken as an admission that what you've loaded into this question (atheism is a religion that has a doctrine) is how I in fact view an atheism?
Because I don't view it this way.
Also, I consider loaded questions to be a sophistry.
Do you?
and i agree. a most excellent point, section below in bold
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
Is this ask an atheist a question.. You do not know if Mensaguy is an atheist. Or is only your thread that deserves the repect to stay on topic? God should be defined by those who believe in it. Atheism should be defined by atheists not by a theist. Not all lyrics in a song ars literal. None of the Beatles were ever a walrus and Puff the Magic Dragon was not real. Do you know for a fact that Billy Collins did believe he was a God. Sources please.
God should be defined by those who believe in it. Atheism should be defined by atheists not by a theist.
But what if I I have a definition of god that 100% comports to reality?
I don't need to believe in this god. I know it exists.
Can I use this definition in a argument?
When our house was constructed, there was a moderately long list of mostly minor problems that I discovered, to the point that I hired a house inspector to flush out any others. There were several, including the revelation that the fence around our back yard was held together with INTERIOR nails and could be expected to fall apart in another year or two. I called a meeting with the builder and my inspector. The builder, who happened to be a Mormon, was very defensive. One of the items we looked at was some missing trim on the back of the garage. The builder opined that it was up to code. The inspector opined that it looked like crap and was not good workmanship or up to accepted standards. The builder's last defense was very much like a Christian's last defense in conversations like these: if your'e going to use such FOUL language (language so foul, mind you, that even the City-Data naughty-filter is unconcerned with it in my retelling of it), this conversation ends here and now. I just told him to get the broomstick out of his patootie and address the actual workmanship issue, because he was going to address it willingly or not, stay or leave.
Christians and sometimes other theists love to pretend that their tender sensibilities have been violated when it allows them to deflect from addressing an actual point or evidencing their views. It is of no consequence. It is not just profanity (as if I were swearing like a sailor to begin with, lol) but it is anything that they can manage to be offended by and believe me they are easily butthurt. Also, their god is evidently so weak he needs THEM to defend him, I guess. If god can't be bothered to strike a cussing person with a handy lightning bolt, it evidently isn't any great concern to him, and so shouldn't be to his children.
The point I actually made still stands: if god is asked in all sincerity for more faith, he would be (if he were real) an asshat if he pretends that person asked instead for more trouble in life. That people think in these ways just shows how much they suffer from Stockholm Syndrome, always defending their abuser / captor even when his behavior is contemptible, insincere, or deliberately obtuse. Or all three.
it is not about being offended. nowhere did i say it was offensive, nowhere did i say i was offended. that does not apply to me, nor does it apply to what i said in my post.
what I said was the ongoing use of vulgarities and obscenities precludes reasonable rational discussion.
"butthurt" "get the broomstick out of his patootie" "asshat" are the latest examples from post above. if that is where someone verbally resides, then that is their choice. However i decline to go there. That is my choice.
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.
