That's a Fact!

exactly, that is why we refer to Christians, Muslims, Mormons and Jewish folks by name, we do not just call them theists as all theist do not believe the same thing


.

 

Then you admit that Atheism does in fact have a 'doctrine', thus qualifying it as a 'religion'? Cool. There is another argument settled.

 

I know you have been away for a long time, but the atheist you are responding to has been rejected by virtually all the other atheists on these boards. None of them agree with him on this topic, so nothing is settled except you agree with an outlier that has no support.

 

On the contrary. That poster represents him/her self as an atheist, therefore, that poster has all the rights in the world to speak in behalf of the Atheist community. Are you now attempting to place a restriction on the right of a person to his/her freedom of speech? Are you attempting to censor the freedom of speech? Whether or not you or others disagree with him, the poster has stated what the poster believes to be true. Now it is up to you to prove him wrong if in fact you are so highly opposed to what the poster has stated.

 

Atheism is a political doctrine that opposes public policy justified by theist religious doctrine. It is not a religion unless you consider political organizations as religions - which I do.

I have an obligation to lead atheists, and theists, towards the truth.

He is not trying to do that, he is trying to make you aware of the unorganized peer review that he believes is more accurate than my reasoning.

they cannot see it my way, because their dogma of inaccurate terminologies is well ingrained in their thinking, and reinforced because it is somewhat necessary to deal with a world that is dominated by theist errors in social organization; although theists are better at organizing community than atheists.

But that is going to change, because of my deliverance of a more accurate ontology of reality.

 

Then by all means... welcome to the politically religious section of this forum... Therefore, Atheism (even according to you) rightly belongs in the religious listings. Atheists do engage in politics therefore, they are (like other religious people) are exercising their politically correct religious notions.

 

I was just bringing you up to date.
No one is infringing on anyone's rights. Don't get ridiculous right away.
No one has the right, however, to speak on behalf of anyone that doesn't bestow that right to them.
Do the Westboro Church folks speak for you, a Christian? If not, why not? Don't they have the right to speak for you, according to your logic?
You are getting very excited very quickly.
And very illogical in your argument.
I just thought you might want to get caught up on some of the new cast of characters.
Sorry your so ready to fly off the handle. I thought I was responding to you respectfully.
I should have known better.

 

Though I voted Yes in this poll.....there is a stipulation to my reply.

Atheists likely have a morality, as do most humans. But, as there are as many versions of being Atheist as there are Atheists it cannot be defined.

I can therefore answer "Yes"....but it is likely from the wording you were asking if there is a uniform moral code, then my answer would be "No".....just as it would be were this asked of the faithful.

 

I'm not sure what you are trying to reason, but I will humor your arguments until I understand your argument to be inaccurate. It sounds kind of complicated when you sting the terms "politically correct religious notions."

To explain my belief with more detail, I believe that atheists need to segregate themselves from theists and build their community as autonomously as possible, in order to cultivate the better society of humanism. Atheists make it sound like they are intellectually and emotionally abused living in a secular society that they have to share with theists. I think atheists need to learn that they do not trust each other, and do not know how to organize a less corrupt government than the Christians know how to do.

It should not be that difficult for the atheist to recognize that our constitutional system is inadequate, because it is based on philosophical information a hundred years prior to the establishment of the social sciences, and has perpetuated corruption to the point that the racist system put a black man in the driver's seat to crash it.

It should not be that difficult for people who were taught that the United States was founded by unjust slave owners, to realize that a just constitution needs to be written. It should not be that difficult for elite intellectual secularists to recognize that corrupt politics is the result of inadequacies of the social contract system. It should not be that difficult for humble pragmatic conservatives to recognize that the government, like a business, needs to be reorganized, so as to deploy efficient techniques developed during the course of its evolution. It should not be that difficult for political pundits to recognize that "political gridlock" is the result of the politicians' need to be known doing something; otherwise, the constituents would realize that the politicians are over-compensated. It should not be that difficult for the sophisticated citizen to recognize that if the Founders of the United States were tasked with authoring a constitution enriched with the communications systems that we have today, that they would probably write it differently.

 

I don't recall expressing a need for anyone to bring me "up to date". Are you hallucinating again?

The comments you have made, make it appear that you might be attempting such an action. Are you?

Never have been ridiculous... but a lot of your lies have been ridiculous because you still have not proven that first set of lies that you admitted to telling.

On the contrary. Everyone has that right. It is called the Freedom of Speech clause of the Constitution.

They have the right to say whatever they desire to say, whether it be for me or anyone else. That right to express such things does not however make those expressions binding upon me. Yet they have the right.

Irrelevant question.

Another irrelevant question as the question has already been addressed above.

You are getting sillier very quickly... asking so many irrelevant questions.

Your notion of someone being illogical is caused by your presumptuous nature.

"characters",,, you mean demon oppressed individuals?

Another display of your presumptuous nature.. I am not on a handle and I cannot fly... so you are obviously hallucinating again.

I seriously doubt that you even know the meaning of the term 'respectfully'.

Yes... you should have known better than to be so presumptuous.

 

Well thank you for that indulgence.

Then why do you bring yourself into a forum where you know that you will encounter Theists?

I certainly will not argue that point with you.

That could conceivably be true with some of them, but not necessarily true when pointing at the entire community of Atheists.

That is an interesting perspective but I will have to wait for the final outcome.

Well, it appears that your closing paragraph has ventured extremely distant from the topic of 'religion' unless of course you are maintaining the notion of politics being a form of religion.

 

So what have we learned by your calm and insightful post.
The First Amendment gives us all the right to speak on anyone else's behalf without their knowledge or consent, the Westboro Church speaks for you and Cyber Cynic is "demon oppressed".
Good start. Welcome back.

 

I have spent a lot of time in the atheist forums, and met the same opposition that I am receiving here - there is no autonomous atheist community that I can involve myself with. Mt mission here is to try to convince theists that we need a new constitutional system and that ideological segregation is a necessary component for the future, until the social systems are evolved to their mature economies.

 

The problem with atheism is that it is arbitrary based on what one wants to believe is rational or ethical. It is based on what one wants to believe is scientific. It is based on what one wants to believe is religious policy. The list goes on.

Those who believe in nothing will fall for anything.

 

So your ideas have been rejected everywhere you have gone?!
Shocking.

 

It means none of these things. It doesn't suggest that it wants to believe any replacement for God but simply that the God postulate is not plausible to them. Nothing more.
Those that believe in one of the traditional religions have already fallen for something.

 

I believe my ambition is justified. I am still developing the system that I have devised from the theory that I deliberated, and I accept that the system cannot be fully developed by my own efforts. The analogy would be like suggesting that Einstein should have to build the bomb. or Newton to design a vehicle to land on the Moon to prove the worth of their theories.

I understand the inaccurate dogma atheists have developed, and they bind to it just as Christians bind to their inaccurate doctrines. And just as atheists never give up trying to convince the theists that they are wrong, I am not going to give up trying to convince everyone that they are all wrong, and I am right - you need to standardize the scientific ordering of human knowledge, and update the practical applications of the social contract theory.

Eventually, I win; because you cannot possible believe that the United States Constitution is adequate for the next billion years of human society - do you???

 

I would say that is how most atheists understand it - it is their independent liberator

Not exactly. They have an inaccurate dogma that they do not want to recognize that keeps them in sync with the overall community that has a Christian inaccurate dogma - they are not segregated from each other. Atheists, and Christians alike, believe the United States Constitution is an excellent instrument for guiding Mankind into the future; although it was written a hundred years before the establishment of the social sciences.

You got to have faith.

 

"IT" cannot believe anything. It is the Atheist that can tailor his beliefs to what suits him at the moment. That is no direction at all.

 

No. Nor do I believe you have the answers.
Your arguments and logic are demonstrably flawed.

 

No, that's an agenda driven understanding.
All atheism determines is that what influences their beliefs does not include a deity.
Nothing more.

 

How about we set up the venue to properly review my theory - certainly, you do not believe you are of the world's clearest minds - do you?

I'm pretty sure I can put forth a good argument - you want me to write a book so the theory is buried under a lot of examples of flawed arguments to help you along, like: if atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color.

Have you ever heard that argument? You believe in that argument - do you think it is sound? It was the first argument rammed down my throat. I knew it was wrong, but the atheists insisted that it was a sound argument, and I did not know the descriptions of the logic fallacy list very well.

6,890 posts, Bruce - that's quite a few. I don't think I have made that many post total, and I recognized a long time ago that these forums and Wikipedia are not doing what they lead us to believe they should do for us.

 

By all means, waste no more time here either.
Add PF to your list of venues that you could build no traction in.
As for the argument you posit re: baldness, it is as valid as conflating a concept with organizations that seek to politicize it.

 

That is probably true - I exercise it. But I would argue that a lot of people who claim to believe in God do not apply the morality consistently in their lives, and ultimately surrender to the morality that is enforced by law, and then we have a lot of people who allow themselves to believe that the law is to be violated to serve the greater good of Mankind.

You are going to have to segregate a Christian state in order to test the theory that Christians know how to perpetuate society better than atheists, Lutherans, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and so on.

 

Did Stormfront kick you out for some reason?
Pity, as your disguised segregationist fetishism seems like a perfect fit.
That is the underlying theme in all your posts, isn't it? The through line that knits it all together?