(November 2, 2021 at 5:05 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(November 2, 2021 at 4:55 pm)GaryAnderson Wrote: Okay so basically here’s what we have so far in this topic:

1. We have atheists - the dictionary definition of the word. Some of them are a bit confused as to what their definition allows them to say in regards to existential questions linked to God(s).
2. We have agonist atheist - the dictionary definition of the words. These folks are open minded.
3. We have meat machines - these are atheists who are also known as materialists and deny VERY HARD the existence of anything immaterial or spiritual.
4. We also have one guy who says “Atheism is a belief in Gods” 😂

First of all, those aren't different sects.

By your use of the work sect, someone who is not convinced bigfoot exists, and those that say bigfoot definitely does not exist are different sects of
"a-bifootism".

All of the first 3 of your 'sects' are all people who are unconvinced gods exist. They have slightly differing epistemologies, they don't belong to different 'sects'.

Number 4 on your list was either, someone pulling your leg, or a theist, or you completely misunderstood some point they were making.

My questions are not related to bigfoot or unicorns for the 100th time!

Yes, number 4 can be removed because Nudger and I finally understand each other now. And sects do exists here because the commonality that you all share is the word “Atheism”.

---

(November 2, 2021 at 5:07 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(November 2, 2021 at 5:03 pm)GaryAnderson Wrote: All right if you’re saying that atheism is lack of belief in Gods, I also take back my comment that you’re a special case.

Welllll...ish?   That is all that it means, and I am an atheist - but I'm far more religious than most of these other atheists here on the board..a fact that they they've always recognized and have gone to length to register. A fact that I once argued against, but..since, have accepted as a component of intellectual honesty.

Ok but here’s the thing my friend, if you’re “more religious” than maybe you should call yourself an Agnostic Atheist because it’s about staying true to our definition. Otherwise I’d call myself an Atheist and pray to Jesus Christ. The words will then lose meaning.

That would just be dishonest, is the problem, because I'm not an agnostic atheist. I know.... that your god.... for example, is hilarious bullshit.

-But lean into the thing you just said. If whatever you do believe is like whatever I believe...well..friend..you're an atheist too! Maybe you should be amplifying that viewpoint?

(November 2, 2021 at 4:44 pm)GaryAnderson Wrote: Ladies and gentlemen, please don’t devolve this thread into “unicorns “ again. It’s a tired cliche so stick to definitions for now.

(November 2, 2021 at 1:22 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: @GaryAnderson are you asserting that souls cannot exist absent a god or gods? You’re going to need to demonstrate that assertion or else that’s all it is; a bare assertion about two separate claims which also need to be independently demonstrated. Otherwise, you’re just talking out your ass.

What I’m saying is that the answer to the soul and afterlife question come from religious beliefs which include God. So this means that a definition of a true atheist cannot have an opinion on this question because their definition doesn’t allow them to.

Which is nothing more than a meaningless, bullshit assertion unless you can demonstrate that gods and souls exist in the first place, and that one cannot exist with out the other. See, you have to ground your beliefs in reality before you can tell people what is or isn’t logical to think about them. Which, by the way, has nothing at all to do with the definition of atheism. Care to try again?

Low-effort troll is obvious, lol

(November 2, 2021 at 5:07 pm)GaryAnderson Wrote: ... it’s about staying true to our definition.

(November 2, 2021 at 5:12 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: That would just be dishonest, is the problem, because I'm not an agnostic atheist. I know.... that your god.... for example, is hilarious bullshit.

Yes but if you wanna call yourself ‘more religious’ and claim to be a true atheist in the strict dictionary sense …. Then you’re not being true to what you really are.

(November 2, 2021 at 5:12 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(November 2, 2021 at 4:44 pm)GaryAnderson Wrote: Ladies and gentlemen, please don’t devolve this thread into “unicorns “ again. It’s a tired cliche so stick to definitions for now.

What I’m saying is that the answer to the soul and afterlife question come from religious beliefs which include God. So this means that a definition of a true atheist cannot have an opinion on this question because their definition doesn’t allow them to.

Which is an utter bullshit assertion unless you can demonstrate that gods and souls exist in the first place, and that one cannot exist with out the other. Try again?

Low-effort troll is obvious, lol

And here we go. The troll card has been thrown when you’re not willing to respond in a logical manner.

This topic in not going to demonstrate the existence of gods or souls, it’s about clarifying what you’re allowed to say or not based on your position.

Well, I mean, wouldn't he have to establish that unicorns arent a thing, in contradiction to his magic book? Which he believes is a thing, and a true thing...?

(November 2, 2021 at 5:06 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(November 2, 2021 at 4:51 pm)brewer Wrote: OMFG. How about Leprechauns? Superman? Aliens? Fairys? Zeus?

Glad you're enjoying it though surprised that intellectually it takes so little.

You know of course, that you are making a category error between various beings and Being-Itself.

Not as far as I'm concerned. Your (his, anybodies) god(s) do not get special consideration.

(November 2, 2021 at 5:17 pm)GaryAnderson Wrote:

(November 2, 2021 at 5:12 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: That would just be dishonest, is the problem, because I'm not an agnostic atheist.   I know.... that your god.... for example, is hilarious bullshit.

Yes but if you wanna call yourself ‘more religious’ and claim to be a true atheist in the strict dictionary sense …. Then you’re not being true to what you really are.

Ummm...do you have any idea what happens around here in my house? 

Trust me, I'm true to the apprehensions of my amusing mind.........right or wrong - and everyone else here is forced to be the same through my insistence on ritual and the unwillingness to take me out of that comfort zone? They could argue, but that would just mean that they're argumentative..... meanwhile, I'm downright murderous......and wont give any justification for it.

It simply has to be accepted as a fact, which it manifestly is by the mere example of my existence. Which isn't in doubt...at all.

(November 2, 2021 at 5:16 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(November 2, 2021 at 5:07 pm)GaryAnderson Wrote: ... it’s about staying true to our definition.

(November 2, 2021 at 4:55 pm)GaryAnderson Wrote: Okay so basically here’s what we have so far in this topic:

1. We have atheists - the dictionary definition of the word. Some of them are a bit confused as to what their definition allows them to say in regards to existential questions linked to God(s).
2. We have agonist atheist - the dictionary definition of the words. These folks are open minded.
3. We have meat machines - these are atheists who are also known as materialists and deny VERY HARD the existence of anything immaterial or spiritual.
4. We also have one guy who says “Atheism is a belief in Gods” 😂

Thank you for making your position/ideas plain.  

However.

"1. We have atheists - the dictionary definition of the word. Some of them are a bit confused as to what their definition allows them to say in regards to existential questions linked to God(s)."

This is not how or what dictionarys are for. This is not how language works. You telling people how they 'Should' be thinking is wrong and your should, perhaps, stop doing it.

"2. We have agonist atheist - the dictionary definition of the words. These folks are open minded."

You seem quite hung up on how you think people should be using dictionarys. The dictionary is describing the people's actions/thoughts/beliefs, not the other way around.

"3. We have meat machines - these are atheists who are also known as materialists and deny VERY HARD the existence of anything immaterial or spiritual."

Again, you are indicating that you are the arbiter of what others should think. Many on this board and in this thread have explained to you that they are not denying things but have seen no evidence of the things being proposed.

If you have evidnce of anything 'Immaterial' then it'd be great for you to present it or links.

If you have evidence of anything 'Spiritual' then it'd be great for you to present it or links. 

Cheers.

Not at work.