I can feel your anger

[CliveStaples]

I'm glad you've decided to abandon this horseshit, maybe the discussion can move along now.

It was never about whether his beliefs were accurate. That was just you misunderstanding what I was talking about.

No, you realized how pathetically worded your statements were and attempted a bait and switch, but I don't hold grudges..lol.

???

I haven't changed any definitions or changed my line of questioning in this thread. I don't know where you think I've tried a "bait and switch".

Christ, you're gonna break your arm if you keep reaching like that...... (pro-tip "people who aren't christians" is also an "atheistic belief" by your crippled metrics)

"People who aren't christians" isn't a belief, because it isn't a proposition. It's not even a sentence.

What substance? Yes Clive, I tend to hold people responsible for what they do and why they do it. I know, I know, it seems pointless

No, it doesn't seem pointless. It seems worth thinking about. That's why I'm trying to get at precisely how you decide which beliefs are truly motivational.

Which, if any, of the following systems are atheist:

{Killing CliveStaples is good}
{No gods exist, killing CliveStaples is good}
{No gods exist, People who believe in God deserve to be killed, killing CliveStaples is good}
{People who believe in God deserve to be killed, killing CliveStaples is good}

None of them. Strange, because just a minute ago you knew exactly what atheism meant...

Well, according to the definition that I've used consistently through this thread--which is entirely consistent with your own definition--all of those belief systems are atheist. None of them include the believe "At least one god exists"; none of them are theist, therefore they're all atheist.

If they aren't atheist, why aren't they atheist? If atheism is the lack of theism, and they aren't atheist, wouldn't that make them theist?

---

God's regime. derp. See how easy this is? Meanwhile you still haven't been able to imagine a way to connect A-C with regards to atheism.

Connect A-C? What are you referring to? Atheism and communism? The people in my hypothetical?

[Ace Otana]

I've completely given up on the guy. I'm off.

LOL quite the loony, isn't he?

Very much so. There's only so much I can take. I'm watching some symphony of science to counter the stupid. Works rather well.

[CliveStaples]

Very much so. There's only so much I can take. I'm watching some symphony of science to counter the stupid. Works rather well.

You know, for a "man of science" and "Reason", you're really not very good at working with abstractions or drawing logical inferences. Kinda funny that you're such a fan of stuff you're so inept at.

[Ace Otana]

Very much so. There's only so much I can take. I'm watching some symphony of science to counter the stupid. Works rather well.

You know, for a "man of science" and "Reason", you're really not very good at working with abstractions or drawing logical inferences. Kinda funny that you're such a fan of stuff you're so inept at.

Funny, I thought that was you. You seem completely clueless.
I'm going to be frank, I think you're a complete loony who hasn't the slightest idea of what the fuck he's talking about.

[The Grand Nudger]

I haven't changed any definitions or changed my line of questioning in this thread. I don't know where you think I've tried a "bait and switch".

Exactly where and how I've indicated it.

"People who aren't christians" isn't a belief, because it isn't a proposition. It's not even a sentence.

"People who are jews" isn't a belief, because it isn't a proposition. It's not even a sentence. I knew I could count on you to respond to your own statements if I just provided you with the opportunity.

No, it doesn't seem pointless. It seems worth thinking about. That's why I'm trying to get at precisely how you decide which beliefs are truly motivational.

Easy, when people say "I did this because" whatever follows is motivational. So, when we hear "I did this because GodWillsIt™", that falls under the header of motivational.

Well, according to the definition that I've used consistently through this thread--which is entirely consistent with your own definition--all of those belief systems are atheist. None of them include the believe "At least one god exists"; none of them are theist, therefore they're all atheist.

If they aren't atheist, why aren't they atheist? If atheism is the lack of theism, and they aren't atheist, wouldn't that make them theist?

Well, at least one of the three statements at the start must be entirely incorrect then huh?

You had atheism pegged maybe 4 posts ago, why ask me questions when you've already demonstrated that you know the answers? Maybe you should spend more time dissecting your own thoughts and comparing them to each other?

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

[quote='Taqiyya Mockingbird' pid='306584' dateline='1341589562']You obviously missed the part about Stalin and Pol Pot being their own "objects of worship", whelp.

Right, a decidedly mundane and anthropic brand of worship.
[/quote]

Yes -- Very much like xtardism!

---

You know, for a "man of science" and "Reason", you're really not very good at working with abstractions or drawing logical inferences. Kinda funny that you're such a fan of stuff you're so inept at.

Pot. Kettle.

---

[quote='Taqiyya Mockingbird' pid='306595' dateline='1341590190']

LOL what a fucking retard. And oh, by the way, Hitler wad a chistard.

chistard? Missed an "r", methinks.

Easy to do on a pod, pedantiderp.

[quote]Oh, and that chain of inferences was done using definitions of 'atheist' used by other people in the thread. So if you don't like the conclusion, blame the atheists whose reasoning justified it.

Yet another example of your preposterous and sad attempts at sophistry. Just making more of a fool of yourself.

---

Well, according to the definition that I've used consistently through this thread--which is entirely consistent with your own definition--all of those belief systems are atheist. None of them include the believe "At least one god exists"; none of them are theist, therefore they're all atheist.

Disingenuoys fucktsrd, because all of them contain a clause that is not necessarily atheistic. All of them are "and" statements. You should give up semantic prestidigitation. You suck at it.

---

Well, according to the definition that I've used consistently through this thread--which is entirely consistent with your own definition--all of those belief systems are atheist. None of them include the believe "At least one god exists"; none of them are theist, therefore they're all atheist.

Disingenuous fucktard. All of those "and" statements fail because they contain clauses that are outside of atheism. You KNOW that, and you are just being a verbose asswipe. Give up the semantic prestidigitation -- you suck at it

[CliveStaples]

Exactly where and how I've indicated it.

All you did was say "bait and switch" after I asked you how you would identify things. I don't see how trying to understand your analysis is a "bait and switch".

"People who are jews" isn't a belief, because it isn't a proposition. It's not even a sentence. I knew I could count on you to respond to your own statements if I just provided you with the opportunity.

I never said "People who are Jews" was a belief.

Easy, when people say "I did this because" whatever follows is motivational. So, when we hear "I did this because GodWillsIt™", that falls under the header of motivational.

So people don't lie? People don't ever misunderstand their own motivations?

So let's suppose someone says "I did this because X", where X is some reasoning that involves the existence of God. Isn't X theistic?

Let's suppose someone says "I did this because Y", where Y is some reasoning that doesn't involve the existence of God. Isn't Y atheistic?

Well, at least one of the three statements at the start must be entirely incorrect then huh?

Which statements? Where? The statements in the section of the post you're responding to? The statements in the belief systems that I had asked you to identify as atheist/not atheist?

You had atheism pegged maybe 4 posts ago, why ask me questions when you've already demonstrated that you know the answers? Maybe you should spend more time dissecting your own thoughts and comparing them to each other?

Because you keep changing your mind about what atheism is. First you say that any belief system that isn't theist is atheist. Then you say that {"Killing CliveStaples is good"} isn't atheist, even though it doesn't include the belief "At least one god exists", violating your previous definition.

So that's why I keep asking you. You're giving me contradictory answers.

---

Funny, I thought that was you. You seem completely clueless.
I'm going to be frank, I think you're a complete loony who hasn't the slightest idea of what the fuck he's talking about.

Do propositions seem "loony" to you?
Does set theory seem "loony" to you?
Does modeling beliefs with propositions seem "loony"? It seems normal to me--we usually say that we believe something is true, or we believe it is false, or we don't believe it; this is well-modeled by propositions.

I mean, I guess math seems pretty 'loony' to you. I mean, sets? Negation? Implements? Crazy talk!

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Well, according to the definition that I've used consistently through this thread--which is entirely consistent with your own definition--all of those belief systems are atheist. None of them include the believe "At least one god exists"; none of them are theist, therefore they're all atheist.

Disingenuous fucktard. All of those AND statements contain elements that are not intrinsically atheistic (in fact they much more closely resemble xtardian thinking). You KNOW that, and you are just being a verbose asswipe. Give up semantic presitidigitation, you suck at it.

---

Let's suppose someone says "I did this because Y", where Y is some reasoning that doesn't involve the existence of God. Isn't Y atheistic?

Oh, and a false dichotomy to stuff up your ass, too. You can't be unaware of this. Which means you are simply trying (and FAILING) to play semantic shell games here. What a prick.

[CliveStaples]

Disingenuous fucktard. All of those AND statements contain elements that are not intrinsically atheistic (in fact they much more closely resemble xtardian thinking). You KNOW that, and you are just being a verbose asswipe. Give up semantic presitidigitation, you suck at it.

I don't even know what "semantic prestidigitation" is. Makes sense that I'd be bad at it.

What does it mean to be "intrinsically atheistic"? Where are my definitions wrong?

Is the following belief system atheist? If not, why not?

{"Causing harm is wrong", "Killing someone causes harm", "Killing someone is wrong"}

To my thinking, since the system doesn't include (or imply) the belief, "At least one god exists", then the system is atheist. If that's wrong, can you point out where?

Let's suppose someone says "I did this because Y", where Y is some reasoning that doesn't involve the existence of God. Isn't Y atheistic?

Oh, and a false dichotomy to stuff up your ass, too.

I didn't present any dichotomy. I asked if Y is atheistic; maybe it isn't. Maybe the question isn't answerable, because you aren't given enough information. I know how I'd answer it, given my definition of 'atheist'/'atheistic', but I'd like to know what the answer is according to your guys' thinking.

I'm honestly trying to have a productive conversation about which beliefs you guys describe as 'atheist'. I thought my definition was good, but apparently it's leading to wrong conclusions. So if you could help me out, I'd appreciate it.

[The Grand Nudger]

I never said "People who are Jews" was a belief.

In fairness, no, you didn't, but you did characterize the existence of jews as an "atheist" belief, of course the existence of people who aren't christians is also an "atheist" belief -again by your crippled metrics-, but that didn't stop you from making a comment about murderous anti-semitism requiring such beliefs, nor did it compel you to mention that zealous christian slaughter of non-christians required the same -again...by your crippled metrics-.

Garbage in, garbage out.

So people don't lie? People don't ever misunderstand their own motivations?

Of course they do, where would you like to take this, that everyone who kills in the name of god is lying? Good luck with that one. Personally, it doesn't matter to me whether a person truly believes that god willed this or that, both the delusional and the manipulative are invoking the same pretense.

So let's suppose someone says "I did this because X", where X is some reasoning that involves the existence of God. Isn't X theistic?

Sure, if X depends on that persons theism.

Let's suppose someone says "I did this because Y", where Y is some reasoning that doesn't involve the existence of God. Isn't Y atheistic?

Sure, if Y depends on that persons atheism.

Which statements? Where? The statements in the section of the post you're responding to? The statements in the belief systems that I had asked you to identify as atheist/not atheist?

You're a big boy, I'm confident that you'll be able to figure this out, especially since you already posted the answer.

Because you keep changing your mind about what atheism is. First you say that any belief system that isn't theist is atheist.

Pretty sure that's your song and dance, not mine.

Then you say that {"Killing CliveStaples is good"} isn't atheist, even though it doesn't include the belief "At least one god exists", violating your previous definition.

I believe that you're inserting your own definition and calling it mine there amigo.

So that's why I keep asking you. You're giving me contradictory answers.

I think it's more likely that you "keep asking" in order to avoid elaborating upon some "atheistic" justification for killing someone.