(September 8, 2011 at 8:10 pm)Rhythm Wrote: How would you know how he does on the field? You've never been in the stadium.

Well then it must have been a street game, all I know is I have schooled him at least twice now. He always runs off crying and then starts talking trash from the bench again. :-)

(September 8, 2011 at 8:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Naturalism is an atheistic worldview. So you are wrong.

No, you are trying to be a word wizard and failing. Just because naturalism is an atheistic worldview does not mean atheism is a worldview. That is pretty fucking basic shit, Stat.

(September 8, 2011 at 8:24 pm)Rhythm Wrote: An atheist is free to believe that the world floats on the back of a cosmic turtle, and that faeries do all the heavy lifting in what we see around us, not any natural law.

What are you even talking about?

Trying to raise the collective IQ of the thread.

(September 8, 2011 at 8:25 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(September 8, 2011 at 8:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Naturalism is an atheistic worldview. So you are wrong.

No, you are trying to be a word wizard and failing. Just because naturalism is an atheistic worldview does not mean atheism is a worldview. That is pretty fucking basic shit, Stat.

When I say "atheistic worldview" I mean exactly that. The worldviews such as naturalism and post modernism that are by defintion atheistic in nature. Make sense?

---

(September 8, 2011 at 8:27 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Trying to raise the collective IQ of the thread.

How is that working out for you? lol

Apparently not very well, I'm starting to think that we'll have to wait you out before we see any motion on the graph.

(September 8, 2011 at 8:28 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: When I say "atheistic worldview" I mean exactly that. The worldviews such as naturalism and post modernism that are by defintion atheistic in nature. Make sense?

Still being willfully obtuse?

Let me dumb it down a bit. An atheistic worldview is a worldview that has atheism as a part of it. It isn't atheism itself that is the worldview, but rather the rest of that belief system that makes it a worldview.

Even simpler:

Let's say atheists are wogs and atheists who adhere to a specific worldview, say naturalism, are pogs.

All pogs are wogs, but a wog can be a wog without being a pog. Just because pogs have a worldview does not mean that it applies to all wogs. Wogs can have any worldview they want and they are very diverse.

Now that we have removed the dreaded A word, can you understand this fifth grade logic concept or are you still insisting that because some worldviews have atheism in the center that makes atheism a worldview?

ETA: Don't bother with your backtracking. You clearly went from "atheism is not compatible with these things they steal from my worldview because . . . look at these atheist worldviews" to "I'm not talking about atheism, just atheistic worldviews, dummy." I wasn't talking about fucking naturalism, so either you cannot follow the conversation or you are inserting those atheistic things you need to support your argument on a whim, despite the fact that they do not apply to me, who you were initially saying stole from your Christian bullshit, implying that you have a monopoly on morality.

An admirable attempt, you failed to account for the fact that their are only two basic worldviews Shell. His own, and those that are incorrect.

(September 8, 2011 at 8:39 pm)Rhythm Wrote: An admirable attempt, you failed to account for the fact that their are only two basic worldviews Shell. His own, and those that are incorrect.

The real problem is thinking anything that is okay with some atheists is atheistic. I don't give a fuck if he thinks I am wrong. What I do care about is him applying some fictional worldview to all atheists because he can't seem to fucking grasp that a shared notion does not equal a worldview. The very hugeness of the word "world" seems to be utterly lost here.

I hate to do this, but I'm seriously walking away from this conversation. That man/boy has been on repeat for what I feel like is about a year and there is obviously nothing I can say to stop the dishonesty, backtracking and invalid application of meaning to words that do not apply. I was stupid to respond. I regret it every time.

I always operate under the hope that if I give him cause to repeat himself over and over, at some point something will click, and he'll be mid response on the other end thinking "wait, wtf am I saying?".