You all convinced me, I'm now an Atheist!!!

[Drich]

You all have sucessfully blurred the lines of belief enough for me to call myself an atheist! You all have convinced me with your endless arguements that despite what 'rule' a given affiliation may have they mean little to nothing compared to what a person 'feels' or claims for himself.

So... I feel like I have spent enough time around atheists to identify myself as one by proxcimity (Not by core belief) But as you all say core belief is just a formality. Who are any of you to say I am not an atheist if i say that I am?

So from now on I wish to be identified as a God loving Atheist!


...That is unless you all can conceed that there are indeed rules to being affiliated with a given group, other than a verbal proclaimation stating that one is indeed apart of said group.

[FatAndFaithless]

Did it just get stiflingly intellectually dishonest in here, or is it just Drich?

[robvalue]

What on earth are you talking about?

[Faith No More]

Did it just get stiflingly intellectually dishonest in here, or is it just Drich?

I didn't realize there was a difference.

BTW, couldn't this have been done in the other thread?

[robvalue]

I refuse to post in this thread, it would just make me look stupid.

[Napoléon]

I've used this one before, but it's still pretty appropriate:

---

---

[Drich]

this is my 'comming out' thread. Nothing here is up for discussion. I am simply announcing my change in faith.

From now on I want you all to refer to me as a God loving Atheist.

[Esquilax]

...That is unless you all can conceed that there are indeed rules to being affiliated with a given group, other than a verbal proclaimation stating that one is indeed apart of said group.

There are rules associated with being a part of some groups, but not others. Atheism, definitionally, requires disbelief in god, meaning that despite your breathtakingly inane thread, you aren't one.

Christianity, on the other hand, is defined by belief in the christian god, for which a statement of belief is sufficient for me, at least, to take the claimant at their word. You and so many other christians, enamored with the No True Scotsman fallacy, try to append additional rules onto the religion by way of your own personal interpretation of a book that has thousands of the damn things, never once considering that what you believe isn't the be all and end all of your religion, or even that you'd have to demonstrate that your proposed rules are a part of the author's original intent. Surprisingly, nobody else is required to assume your conclusions just on the basis that you hold them, out of convenience.

Lastly, those rules are very inconsistently applied, too; criminals don't follow the rules and are therefore out of the group, in your mind, but minor sins are just a part of being a human with a sinful nature, and no big deal. So, there's a threshold, which I assume you get to decide yourself, for whatever reason, of which sins get you disassociated from the group for convenience's sake, and which are just things that happen.

In short, the argument is based on special pleading, even if we accept it as true based on your assertions alone.

[robvalue]

I'm scared Should... I call someone?

[Cato]

Drich,
Do you recall in your feedback thread when I made the suggestion that you stop being obtuse? You took issue with the observation.

This thread isn't doing you any favors.