[Serious] Atheist Dogma

[downbeatplumb]

I cheddar to think that the OP was serious.

I camembert to think he was. But wensleydale have they ever been right. Brie.

[Fireball]

I cheddar to think that the OP was serious.

I camembert to think he was. But wensleydale have they ever been right. Brie.

I Stilton can't figure that guy out.

[arewethereyet]

Cheez Wiz, give the guy a break.

[Prof.Lunaphiles]

I don't know. This guy comes in like he has all the answers but clams up for days after posting. It is beyond annoying.

I sympathize with your grievance, but I am doing it, because I have gone through it several times, already - the arguments are no different.

The arguments indicate that the respondents are not reading and comprehending that the definition of theism is incorrect. It does not make sense for atheists to accept a definition that does not assign doctrine to the definition to theism. Atheists prove this when they argue that theists have to be indoctrinated to believe in something that does not exist. The use of "believe," in a definition is flimsy, and gets absurd when referring to "disbelief," and "non-belief," and the like.

Why is it annoying? It's standard issue AF fare, without trolls this place is nothing.

Again, I'll point out that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. This place was great without trolls and could be great again.

This place was never great. I never read any reviews of any atheist forum that recommended atheists, and/or theist, to participate, because the forum was deliberating truth and advancing the participants expectations.

What was it about this place that leads you to have described it as great, and what happened - trolls disrupted the greatness???

---

I can guarantee you that I am right.

The track record of people who make that claim is pretty pathetic. I would never say it. People can figure out for themselves from what I say whether I'm right about something, I don't expect them to take my word for it. I'd actually like it if they can destroy my ideas; I'm better off the fewer ideas I have that can't stand up to scrutiny, I think.

I would bet that I am of very few that you are suggesting actual are, and probably the only person who is making the claims that the definitions of the words significant to the atheists' sense of atheism are inaccurate and adversely effecting the reasoning abilities of individual atheists and the organizational ambitions of atheist activities.

[The Architect Of Fate]

The arguments indicate that the respondents are not reading and comprehending that the definition of theism is incorrect.

"belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe,"
 
Not seeing a problem 

 It does not make sense for atheists to accept a definition that does not assign doctrine to the definition to theism.

Theism is a belief in god it doesn't require a doctrine 

 Atheists prove this when they argue that theists have to be indoctrinated to believe in something that does not exist. 

No they don't one can simply accept that theists are simply wrong and accept the one can believe in a god with no doctrines attacted 

The use of "believe," in a definition is flimsy, and gets absurd when referring to "disbelief," and "non-belief," and the like.

Nope 

Do you believe in god ?

Yes Theist 

No Atheist 

Simple as that anything more is an aside to that question

[Mr Greene]

Guess it's slow in Houston.

[Belacqua]

This place was never great. I never read any reviews of any atheist forum that recommended atheists, and/or theist, to participate, because the forum was deliberating truth and advancing the participants expectations.

What was it about this place that leads you to have described it as great, and what happened - trolls disrupted the greatness???

There's kind of a funny paradox on forums like this one. 

Anyone who isn't 100% in agreement will be called a troll and insulted until he leaves the forum, which is considered a victory. On the other hand, such people are called "chew toys" and if no one like that is here there's not much to do. 

On the old Amazon atheist forum they actually succeeded, through insults and vile nicknames, in getting rid of all dissenting voices for a while. Within about a week they were discussing inviting some Christians onto the forum to argue with. 

I would bet that I am of very few that you are suggesting actual are, and probably the only person who is making the claims that the definitions of the words significant to the atheists' sense of atheism are inaccurate and adversely effecting the reasoning abilities of individual atheists and the organizational ambitions of atheist activities.

I don't know if you're the ONLY person addressing this kind of thing. 

But I agree with you that there are some fuzzy definitions in use, and it's often helpful to clarify them. 

So that we can focus the discussion, and maybe make some progress, what specific definition would you like to work on?

[The Architect Of Fate]

There's kind of a funny paradox on forums like this one. 

Nope 

Anyone who isn't 100% in agreement will be called a troll and insulted until he leaves the forum, which is considered a victory. On the other hand, such people are called "chew toys" and if no one like that is here there's not much to do. 

None of his is the case 

 if no one like that is here there's not much to do. 

Considering this forum has multiple kinds of threads this does not ring true .

[Simon Moon]

I don't know. This guy comes in like he has all the answers but clams up for days after posting. It is beyond annoying.

I sympathize with your grievance, but I am doing it, because I have gone through it several times, already - the arguments are no different.

The arguments indicate that the respondents are not reading and comprehending that the definition of theism is incorrect. It does not make sense for atheists to accept a definition that does not assign doctrine to the definition to theism.

Again, you are just wrong, as I previously pointed out in post #40 on this thread.


The standard definition for "theism" is: belief in the existence of a god or gods (Webster dictionary). Full stop. There is no doctrine to assign to the belief in the existence of gods.

Deists, those the believe in a god as 'first mover' and nothing more, do not have any doctrine. Pantheists (Spinoza's god) and panentheists, believe in the existence of gods, but don't have any doctrine.

Religions have doctrines, theism does not. It happens, the the vast majority of theists do follow some religion, and therefore do have doctrine, but dontrine is not a necessary part of theism.

Atheists prove this when they argue that theists have to be indoctrinated to believe in something that does not exist. The use of "believe," in a definition is flimsy, and gets absurd when referring to "disbelief," and "non-belief," and the like.

Where are you getting the idea that atheists claim that theists necessarily have to be indoctrinated in order to be a theist? Please quote an atheist making this claim.

Anyone who believes in a god or gods, whether indoctrinated or not, are theists. Does not matter how they came by their belief. The only thing that defines one as being a theist, is answering "YES" to the following question: "do you currently believe that at least one god exists?".

Maybe you are confused as to the definition of "belief"?

I would bet that I am of very few that you are suggesting actual are, and probably the only person who is making the claims that the definitions of the words significant to the atheists' sense of atheism are inaccurate and adversely effecting the reasoning abilities of individual atheists and the organizational ambitions of atheist activities.

As far as your definitions, you have been wrong at every turn.

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods [no doctrine necessary to be a theist]
Atheism: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods [no opposition to specific religion dogma necessary]
Anti-theism: is the belief that theism and religion are harmful to society and people [oposition to religious dogma and dogma as being dangerous]

When you define atheism, you seem to be referring to the definition of anti-theism

Not all atheists are anti-theists. I have a good friend who is an atheist, but not an anti-theist. He does not believe any gods exist, but he believes that for many people, religion is necessary for them.

[Rhizomorph13]

I'm not good at editing quotes so to your question, "What was it about this place that leads you to have described it as great, and what happened - trolls disrupted the greatness???"

There were a few really thoughtful theists that frequented here and they weren't unilaterally shouted down and insulted because the membership back then was seemingly more receptive to counterpoint. It might have been because I was learning a lot so the posts were new and vibrant but I think it is because there were more thoughtful members. There are still several here but it seems more acceptable to just troll each.