[Serious] Atheist Dogma

[LastPoet]

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.

When I was staff, I came up with the idea of staff quorum, id est, that for staff rulings, one needed a number of votes to action. Like, to give a warning, x votes were needed, to temporary ban y votes were needed and for bans more z votes were needed (spammers banned on sight OFC).

What I didn't antecipate was the growing legislation that turned an idea into that we need to be lawyers to do something.

As result we have both atheists and theists abusing eatchother and the conundrum of rules, subjective, avoid moderators to do what they are meant to do, to moderate discussion.

Back then atheists or theists wouldn't dare to break the purpose of this or any other forum, to discuss. Sure insults were throwed both ways, but always in the company of some sort of reasoning against the other. The forum needs leadership, not bosses that cower under the whining of the culled. Eh, I had the balls to warn Minimalist because he created a thread called "its like skullfucking a 4 year old", he even called my mother a bitch, something he would have to take up with her, probably getting a deserved arse kicking.

No wonder the quality of the forum has decreased. At any rate, google the OP nickname and you will know about him.

[Prof.Lunaphiles]

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

It is really very difficult to believe that you have never encountered a debate or discussion that includes an atheist’s claim that theists have to be indoctrinated to believe in the existence of a god, and it is further difficult to understand why you think someone would somehow generate the belief in the existence of gods if they were not informed of the description of a supernatural being - that is all that doctrine needs to be, a description.

It would be extremely difficult to conceptualize the existence of a supernatural being causing the experience of the isolated individual.

It just does not make sense. There is an error in the definition of “theism” that you champion to be valid and indisputably true. Your failure to recognize the error is what dogma is.

The definitions of words are a subclass of doctrine, and sibling class to rules and law - they are related, they are not unrelated, or distant in semantic relevance. Errors in definitions are the symptoms of the lack of a valid knowledge classification system to organize the semantic structure of the relativity of the existence of entities, including abstract entities for organizing people’s behavior.

You do not know the biased crony qualification standards for employment at dictionary editing businesses. To you, because you do not know, you believe it is a very well controlled review process of experts who are not biased somehow. You should notice that American Atheist publications does issue a notice that past dictionary editions have published some egregious definitions of atheism. And it is understandable that you are unable to formulate an argument challenging the authority of American Atheists to determine that the definition that they approve of is a valid definition. You, are just not skilled enough in semantics and ontology - where as, I am.

It would be extremely difficult to conceptualize the existence of a supernatural being causing the experience of the isolated individual.

You are in lala land, because your perception of truth is being challenged, and you are afraid that it will cause the demise of something, further challenging your perception of reality, rather than recognizing that the correction guides towards a better perception. Which is where I am - enhanced critical thinking skills.

I am the only person able to recognize that the three-part separation of government theory is erroneously deployed in our governing system, and that such an error, causes several blatant problems, one of which, leads to the perpetual partisan strategies for power that leave large portions of the citizenry dissatisfied, or otherwise misinformed of the reasoning for regulations, causing their inability to reason, which leads to the social disorderliness we endure, rather than the approach to domestic tranquility that our federal government is commissioned to pursue.

How about you? What has your sense of critical thinking and reasoning lead you to recognize as the problem with society, and the corrective measures to resolve the problem?

I suggest that you avoid the suggestion of the dismantling of theism, because you have had plenty of opportunity to make suggestions, and it is obvious that independent atheists cannot formulate a campaign any better than that which the established atheist activities have pursued, otherwise we would know about it. Furthermore, such ideas are going to require you to recognize the inevitable indoctrination processes, which you do not want to experiment with.

What do you suggest to make this a better world?

[Prof.Lunaphiles]

Moderator Notice
Deleted duplicate post

---

When I was staff, I came up with the idea of staff quorum, id est, that for staff rulings, one needed a number of votes to action. Like, to give a warning, x votes were needed, to temporary ban y votes were needed and for bans more z votes were needed (spammers banned on sight OFC).

What I didn't antecipate was the growing legislation that turned an idea into that we need to be lawyers to do something.

Good effort, you are to be commended for trying.

There needs to be a system of rules generated that lead people to form juries, and litigation teams based on defending organizational doctrines. It is difficult to do with mediocre Internet forum members who are more inclined to be casual posters without abiding by strict rules of dialectics that would be ultimately necessary. But it is eventually coming - the first person to figure out how to compose such a system of rules will probably be the next Mark Zuckerburg, because that is what people are unwittingly believing is possible to be conducted on the Internet.

[The Architect Of Fate]

 is really very difficult to believe that you have never encountered a debate or discussion that includes an atheist’s claim that theists have to be indoctrinated to believe in the existence of a god, 

Weather he has or has not is irrelevant 

and it is further difficult to understand why you think someone would somehow generate the belief in the existence of gods if they were not informed of the description of a supernatural being (that creates reality).

People could draw the conclusion of god any number of way that were not informed 

It would be extremely difficult to conceptualize existence of a supernatural being causing the experience of the isolated individual.

Then that's your problem .Because i can easily.

It just does not make sense. There is an error in the definition of “theism” that you champion to be valid and indisputably true. Your failure to recognize the error is what dogma is.

Yes it does and no such error exists 

The definitions of words are a subclass of doctrine, and sibling class to rules and law - they are related, they are not unrelated, or distant in semantic relevance. Errors in definitions are the symptoms of the lack of a valid knowledge classification system to organize the semantic structure of the relativity of the existence of entities, including abstract entities for organizing people’s behavior.

None of this is the case 

You do not know the biased crony qualification standards for employment at dictionary editing businesses. To you, because you do not know, you believe it is a very well controlled review process of experts who are not biased somehow. You should notice that American Atheist publications does issue a notice that past dictionary editions have published some egregious definitions of atheism. And it is understandable that you are unable to formulate an argument challenging the authority of American Atheists to determine that the definition that they approve of is a valid definition. You, are just not skilled enough in semantics and ontology - where as, I am.

So conspiracy theories then 

It would be extremely difficult to conceptualize existence of a supernatural being causing the experience of the isolated individual.

No it wouldn't 

You are in lala land, because your perception of truth is being challenged, and you are afraid that it will cause the demise of something, further challenging your perception of reality, rather than recognizing that the correction guides towards a better perception. Which is where I am - enhanced critical thinking skills.

Your not a mind reader 

I am the only person able to recognize that the three-part separation of government theory is erroneously deployed in our governing system, and that such an error, causes several blatant problems, one of which, leads to the perpetual partisan strategies for power that leave large portions of the citizenry dissatisfied, or otherwise misinformed of the reasoning for regulations, causing their inability to reason, which leads to the social disorderliness we endure, rather than the approach to domestic tranquility that our federal government is commissioned to pursue.

This is unfounded 

How about you? What has your sense of critical thinking and reasoning lead you to recognize as the problem with society, and the corrective measures to resolve the problem?

To avoid crackpots like you  

I suggest that you avoid the suggestion of the dismantling of theism, because you have had plenty of opportunity to make suggestions, and it is obvious that independent atheists cannot formulate a campaign any better than that which the established atheist activities have pursued, otherwise we would know about it. Furthermore, such ideas are going to require you to recognize the inevitable indoctrination processes, which you do not want to experiment with.

Not a word you have written here stands as truth

[Prof.Lunaphiles]

At any rate, google the OP nickname and you will know about him.

That is amazing - why would you believe that reveals sufficient information for making a informed decision of whatever you are suggesting?

[The Grand Nudger]

Theists certainly do have to be indoctrinated. Theism's claims are complex and regionally specific. It's much more plausible for a person to have some natural amenability to god beliefs, than to be a born theist.

A near perfect analogy would be the idea of my having been -born- an aggressive american patriot. I say near perfect..because at least america exists.

[Sal]

OP is just another fool who wants to redefine words to suit his needs.

[arewethereyet]

Can we talk about ABBA?

Seems as productive as reading the snarky walls of text and seeing the attempts at skirting the rules.

[The Grand Nudger]

Or, like plenty of people in western culture, he equates theism with god belief, and god belief with abrahamic flavor. Pretty much drips out.

A person can believe in gods and not be a theist, a person can be a christian and a humanist, and no atheist needs be secular or an anti-theist.

[Prof.Lunaphiles]

Looky what I found.

The great majority believe due to childhood indoctrination.
Others due to societal pressures.
Others due to blank sheet impressed by some traumatic event in their lives.
And there are many other reasons... but the main gist is: if that bulk of indoctrinated people didn't exist, the others would very likely not follow suit so easily.
Hence, indoctrination seems to be the main cause for all believers, even if indirectly.

Nobody challenges pocaracas assertion - why not?
What other possibilities are there? How does an isolated individual generate the idea of a supernatural deity by one's self??? The mere basic generation of a god is going to require a group effort.

---

Or, like plenty of people in western culture, he equates theism with god belief, and god belief with abrahamic flavor.  Pretty much drips out.  

A person can believe in gods and not be a theist, a person can be a christian and a humanist, and no atheist needs be secular or an anti-theist.

What? How do you square that with your previous post?

Theists certainly do have to be indoctrinated.  Theism's claims are complex and regionally specific.  It's much more plausible for a person to have some natural amenability to god beliefs, than to be a born theist.

A near perfect analogy would be the idea of my having been -born- an aggressive american patriot.  I say near perfect..because at least america exists.

Reads as if you agree that theism requires indoctrination.