The atheist gods of 'Lack', the only true religion?

[Disir]

What I am hearing is that there is a fear of atheism because they don't believe in some cosmic spanking when they die.

Atheists are held accountable by the laws that govern the nation-state they live in, their jobs, their interpersonal relationships and their local communities.

 

[Disir]

Try again.

You mean because history shows militant atheism has led to communism ever single time and the founding fathers of communism said it would?

Try again.

I don't need to reason and experience back up that militant atheism leads to communism.

You don't have a case.

A YouTube video is not a case. You don't have a case.

 

[ding]

What I am hearing is that there is a fear of atheism because they don't believe in some cosmic spanking when they die.

Atheists are held accountable by the laws that govern the nation-state they live in, their jobs, their interpersonal relationships and their local communities.

No. What I am telling you is that the natural progression of humanism is towards communism.

 

[Disir]

What I am hearing is that there is a fear of atheism because they don't believe in some cosmic spanking when they die.

Atheists are held accountable by the laws that govern the nation-state they live in, their jobs, their interpersonal relationships and their local communities.

No. What I am telling you is that the natural progression of humanism is towards communism.

No.

 

[ding]

You mean because history shows militant atheism has led to communism ever single time and the founding fathers of communism said it would?

Try again.

I don't need to reason and experience back up that militant atheism leads to communism.

You don't have a case.

A YouTube video is not a case. You don't have a case.

But the facts listed inside it are. Here are some more facts for you.

 

[Disir]

Try again.

I don't need to reason and experience back up that militant atheism leads to communism.

You don't have a case.

A YouTube video is not a case. You don't have a case.

But the facts listed inside it are. Here are some more facts for you.

You don't have a case.

 

[ding]

I don't need to reason and experience back up that militant atheism leads to communism.

You don't have a case.

A YouTube video is not a case. You don't have a case.

But the facts listed inside it are. Here are some more facts for you.

You don't have a case.

You keep saying that and I keep making it.

 

[Disir]

You don't have a case.

A YouTube video is not a case. You don't have a case.

But the facts listed inside it are. Here are some more facts for you.

You don't have a case.

You keep saying that and I keep making it.

But, you don't. You don't have a case.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

Not the first lie nero spun to cover his ass LOL

so sad to confuse 1st century beauty with 4th century revulsion ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Since when is the default 'setting' not to accept?

Since forever, for the rational person.

Obviously you are not too particular about the accuracy of your definitions.

Actually, I am, but thank your for the vapid, cheap complaint. By your working definitions, I would be an agnostic. However, I find those definitions you use to be lacking, because I am agnostic merely by technicality. While I do not know qith certainty if there are gods and spirits and fairies and unicorns, I am just as agnostic about gods as I am about dragons and mermaids. And unicorns, and fairies, etc. It seems to me the definitions you use are outdated.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Since forever, for the rational person.

Do you really think its rational to claim a newborn has a clue about God such that they can claim atheist?

This default condition being atheist is a thoughtless and patently ridiculous argument. It might sound good but when examined one can only laugh.

Actually, I am, but thank your for the vapid, cheap complaint.

Fine show me one newborn on the planet that is capable of speaking, much less comprehending the anything about God. As I said newborns have no knowledge, and if one wanted to assign a default condition it would have to be agnostic, neither believe nor disbelieve.

By your working definitions, I would be an agnostic.

Most people claiming to be atheist would most likely fall under that cataegory

However, I find those definitions you use to be lacking, because I am agnostic merely by technicality.

That what definitions are for why would you want anything less?

While I do not know qith certainty if there are gods and spirits and fairies and unicorns, I am just as agnostic about gods as I am about dragons and mermaids. And unicorns, and fairies, etc. It seems to me the definitions you use are outdated.

For the purpose of definition the rule is if you believe in one God you are a theist, if you believe in no Gods atheist if you believe in neither agnostic. and that does not mean an onlooker cant legitimately assign a G/god to you based upon what you worship.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Do you really think its rational to claim a newborn has a clue about God such that they can claim atheist?

No, I am merely saying that a newborn has not adopted a belief in gods. I made that pretty clear.

That what definitions are for why would you want anything less

And there are often competing definitions. The ones I am using are more clear, for the reasons I stated. If it will make you more comfortable to call me agnostic, go right ahead. But you do an intellectual disservice not to distinguish the degees of agnosticism. Sure, it may be convenient for your rhetoric, but that tactic is for the simple minded.

 

[KokomoJojo]

No, I am merely saying that a newborn has not adopted a belief in gods. I made that pretty clear.

Speaking of intellectual serviced its downright dishonest to say a newborn has not developed a belief in gods without also saying neither has the newborn developed a disbelief in gods. You are falsely represented the actual condition with your political spin, telling 1/2 the story to deceive people.

And there are often competing definitions.

There are no competing definitions, atheists want to muddy the water and violate the rules of grammar in the process. You dont use a word that tells a fictitious story, and that is what atheists have done.

The ones I am using are more clear, for the reasons I stated.

More clear? Pulease! That means:
If I believe in 1 G/god, that I am a theist
If I disbelieve in 100 other G/gods, that I am an atheist to those G/gods.
If I am neither believe nor disbelief in 3 other G/gods, that I am a agnostic,

which makes me a theist-agnostic atheist, do you have any idea how totally ridiculous your so called 'clearer' style is?

But you do an intellectual disservice not to distinguish the degees of agnosticism.

as I said its ludicrous!

Sure, it may be convenient for your rhetoric, but that tactic is for the simple minded.

Looks more to me like its the atheology that severely wanting and simple minded.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Speaking of intellectual serviced its downright dishonest to say a newborn has not developed a belief in gods without also saying neither has the newborn developed a disbelief in gods.

I only didn't mention that because it is not relevant to what I am saying. I am not speakng to anyone who claims with 100%certainty that there are no gods. You are. So no, it was not dishonest of me, nor is it my job to pander to your points or to make them for you.

That means:
If I believe in 1 G/god, that I am a theist
If I disbelieve in 100 other G/gods, that I am an atheist to those G/gods.
If I am neither believe nor disbelief

Wrong. I will try this again,and please pay attention:

I am considering the definition of athesit to be one who does not take a belief in gods. The default setting here is an agnostic atheist, who does not claim with certainty that God does not exist. The special case of this Atheism is gnostic atheism, i.e., being certain that Gods do not exist.

Yes, it is much more clear, as it distinguishes agnostic atheists from simple agnostics, who may think gods do exist, may even believe they do, but just are not sure.

 

[ding]

A YouTube video is not a case. You don't have a case.

But the facts listed inside it are. Here are some more facts for you.

You don't have a case.

You keep saying that and I keep making it.

But, you don't. You don't have a case.

 

[KokomoJojo]

A YouTube video is not a case. You don't have a case.

But the facts listed inside it are. Here are some more facts for you.

You don't have a case.

You keep saying that and I keep making it.

But, you don't. You don't have a case.

Hey that is precisely what has been going on in the US since its inception. What is fed to the public is 98% all bullshit, in fact I had a nice conversation with a Phd history major last night about that very subject, but you cant get anyone who is struggling for their daily survival to comprehend such things, they have to think about where their next meal is coming from of kissing their bosses ass to make sure their meal ticket isnt taken away and have no time to do any serious research.

Wrong. I will try this again,and please pay attention:

I am considering the definition of athesit to be one who does not take a belief in gods. The default setting here is an agnostic atheist, who does not claim with certainty that God does not exist. The special case of this Atheism is gnostic atheism, i.e., being certain that Gods do not exist.

Yes, it is much more clear, as it distinguishes agnostic atheists from simple agnostics, who may think gods do exist, may even believe they do, but just are not sure.

Just because you consider it a particular way does not mean it has any legitimately syntactic connection, and you certainly would fail any grammar test given to you when you think you can haphazardly flip words and meanings around any way you choose and in any combination without regard to muddy the understanding of several words to support your political agenda or need for self edification and come out here and preach it as some sort of fact when its purely nonsense.

Atheism is commonly understood as rejection of theism in the broadest sense of theism, i.e. the rejection of belief in God or gods.[5]

The claim that the existence of any deity is unknown or unknowable is agnosticism.[6][7]

Fine if you are trying to find yourself, most people do at some point in their lives, however you dont need to butcher everything in your path to do so.

What you are doing is totally non-sequitur.

Atheist is all out, theist is all in, agnostic neither.

You cannot be all out and neither at the same time.

This isnt rocket science you know.

What you are trying to describe is 'weak' atheist.

I only didn't mention that because it is not relevant to what I am saying. I am not speakng to anyone who claims with 100%certainty that there are no gods. You are. So no, it was not dishonest of me, nor is it my job to pander to your points or to make them for you.

Again the 'proper' method and usage to describe th4e condition you are claiming is 'weak' atheism, not agnostic-atheism which is as ridiculous as the flat earth nutters we have running around now days.

 

[ding]

A YouTube video is not a case. You don't have a case.

But the facts listed inside it are. Here are some more facts for you.

You don't have a case.

You keep saying that and I keep making it.

But, you don't. You don't have a case.

The case is made from history. Don't take it personal.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Just because you consider it a particular way does not mean it has any legitimately syntactic connection

I do not care. I prefer those definitions. I already tried to soothe your delicate sensibilities by telling you that you are free to refer to me as agnostic and to continue using your preferred definitions, if you so choose. And here you sit, still whining.