Why do American Atheists Believe in the Constitution?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Yes it does - genius.

You are just trying to "split the hair." You, like most atheists, do not "see" it correctly, because it shifts your understanding of the definition of theism and atheism, because the dictionaries use the ambiguous term "belief" in the definitions. Theists like the term, because it suggests a supernatural phenomenon that has to occur in cognitive processing. And that is what atheists like to use to counter by suggesting that the cognitive phenomenon does not occur in them. Atheists are correct when they explain that belief in god is indoctrinated, but fail to understand that that means that it is a doctrine that the theist really "believe in" - support of the doctrine.

SEE?

Put on your critical thinking hat!

Do you believe your rudeness is endearing?  Or do you just believe in being a complete asshole?

Well, I certainly find his rudeness endearing. It’s adorable that he thinks he get under my skin.

Boru

[Alan V]

Do you believe your rudeness is endearing?  Or do you just believe in being a complete asshole?

Well, I certainly find his rudeness endearing. It’s adorable that he thinks he get under my skin.

Boru

We've seen it all too many times before.  It's like a sequel of a sequel of a sequel.

And it's not like the internet is a new invention, that people should be surprised when their own "brilliant ideas" are not shared by others.

As they say, everyone has a plan that won't work.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Someone wanna tell the mook what *plonk* means?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Someone wanna tell the mook what *plonk* means?

Not me. I’m still trying to get him to understand what ‘believe’ means.

Boru

[Nay_Sayer]

So I'm guessing mom and dad couldn't get enough together for summer camp, so you've got a boring summer ahead?

I suggest nature walks or the local library

This is an example of trolling. This shithead is not considered a troll because he has advanced his standing in the oligarchy of this forum's community - you are friends, and have the privilege of challenging newbies, like me.

By the way. The Dewey Decimal and Library of Congress classification systems are lousy tables of contents to the 
Time

Well, a few things. One, I didn't say you were a troll. I would say your posting is highly erratic and nonsensical, which is indicative of either being a bored troll on summer vacation or mentally unwell, possibly both. (Neither are mutually exclusive options)

If your knee-jerk reaction to being told to have an enjoyable outdoors walk is to call people names, I suggest you might need to get off the internet for a while.

As for my forum standing. I am subject to the same rules you are, of which you have broken many and continue to do so.

Continued thoughts and prayers. RAmen.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Well, I certainly find his rudeness endearing. It’s adorable that he thinks he get under my skin.

Boru

We've seen it all too many times before.  It's like a sequel of a sequel of a sequel.

And it's not like the internet is a new invention, that people should be surprised when their own "brilliant ideas" are not shared by others.

As they say, everyone has a plan that won't work.

‘It’s a shame that everyone who knows how to run the country is busy driving cabs or cutting hair.’ - George Burns

Boru

[arewethereyet]

This is an example of trolling. This shithead is not considered a troll because he has advanced his standing in the oligarchy of this forum's community - you are friends, and have the privilege of challenging newbies, like me.

By the way. The Dewey Decimal and Library of Congress classification systems are lousy tables of contents to the 
Time

Well, a few things. One, I didn't say you were a troll. I would say your posting is highly erratic and nonsensical, which is indicative of either being a bored troll on summer vacation or mentally unwell, possibly both.  (Neither are mutually exclusive options)

If your knee-jerk reaction to being told to have an enjoyable outdoors walk is to call people names, I suggest you might need to get off the internet for a while.

As for my forum standing. I am subject to the same rules you are, of which you have broken many and continue to do so.

Continued thoughts and prayers. RAmen.

Snookums thought he found a rapt audience here that would swallow his schtick whole.

Ooops...maybe he should have picked door number 3.

[Secular Heckler]

Ok. Keep your three branches as they are, but limit them. The Executive proposes legislation,

I'm certain that that was the original intention of the creation of the secretaries of the security departments, but ultimately, why shouldn't anybody in the democracy be denied the opportunity to propose legislation?

. . . the Legislative creates bills,

That would be no different than the subsisting problem of competing interests of the congress representatives' horsetrading, and everything else that people despise about "politics" to promulgate legislation.

and the Judicial decides what is or is not constitutional.

Seems easy enough, but as it is the partisanship permeates into the judiciary.

Through a group of secure websites and servers, everyone over the age of 14 (‘universal’ suffrage was an exaggeration) gets to vote. Bills receiving a 2/3 majority will become law.

And that seems easy. I think if you were to continue thinking this through, maybe wasting some time trying to compose the directive systems, you would recognize that the suffrage is the legislature in a direct democracy.

I’ll take my money in cash, please. Small, unmarked bills.

You need to do a lot more work than that - devise a charter system. You need to learn how to compose the directive systems that create the security department entities and the judiciary, so it can be set up for a ratification election before you get paid. And be prepared to be disappointed, because even if your charter system is sound, the people who have the credetial power are going to be jealous that you figured out how to do it.

[Secular Heckler]

So before you hit the sewer SH. What are your actual beliefs? Are you too afraid to discuss them?

Thoughts and prayers. RAmen

When it comes to the theist-atheist dichotomy, I am an atheist. I do not support the doctrine of the existence of a god or a supernatural dimension of human existence. I thought that was listed on my identity profile on each post. Yes, it is the "Religious Views" caption. I see you have used someone else's joke for your explanation of your religious views, so why the fuck do you care about anyone's actual beliefs? Do you believe that beliefs form the principles for the individual's formulations of reason?

The subject of this discussion reveals my beliefs about the reliability of the Three-part Separation Theory. And there is no doubt you have never encountered a reasoned criticism of it before, except from the theist religions. I can guarantee that I am the only American atheist who is not subservient to the Constitutional dogma that you believe in.

The discussion has also revealed that I am the only atheist willing to contest the efficacy of the Dewey Decimal and Library of Congress classification systems.

And I am willing to contest the definitions of religion, belief, theism, and atheism.

What are your actual beliefs? You should be too afraid to discuss them, because they are faulty. Littered with dogma.

[Secular Heckler]

Snookums thought he found a rapt audience here that would swallow his schtick whole.

Ooops...maybe he should have picked door number 3.

You should, because the schtick you have swallowed is faulty dogma.