Atheists Admit Defeat - Video Atheists don't want you to see

[VaultZero4Me]

Excuse me? Did you note that "theistic" is the root word of "deistic" and "pantheistic"? The Belief in ANY god, whether one, two, or many, is, by definition, "theistic".

The Christian God is "monotheistic", as opposed to deistic or pantheistic...

Since people seem to like the dictionary as a reference tool, lets look at it


de·ism
1.
belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).
2.
belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.


the·ism
1.
the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).


American Heritage Dictionary
de·ism
n.   The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

YHWH is "MONOTHEISTIC". And "deistic" beliefs do not necessitate that their gods do not act within nature. You are confusing English Deism with true deistic religions, esp. those found in ancient oriental places (dualistic religions).

Note the above.

Now, I am not one to rely too heavily on any dictionary for reference since they are surely subject to change with time.

So let me define that when I speak of deism, I am refering to how the American Heritage Dictionary establishes it. Something quite different to theism.

And with that usage of theism, the analogy stands true that wavy used. It would not hold in view of the usage of deism as laid out above.

have explained in several posts why it fails.

And yet again, "theistic god". Please note all beliefs of god are theistic... Definitions have meaning and without them, further conversation is futile. You continue to ignore that, and I just don't have time to play these games where words change meanings.

The definition I established above is the definition I have been referring to throughout the posts. I have ignored nothing.

Not all beliefs in gods hold to the theistic definition as established above.

I will restate the question in regards to wavy's example

If the unicorn had the property of being able to not let itself be known in any fashion, would you consider yourself a non-believer in that unicorn or just agnostic.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Re: Literal Bible reading vs making up whatever you wish

Explain to me how it begs the question, other than your assertion that it does?

What happens after death? You tell me.

I disagree with a few of those statements.

Which ones do you agree with?

I thought about this one and the best way to explain why assuming atheism, or the lack of belief in God/gods is not able to be maintained because it cannot answer these questions.

Think of it this way, lets say Joe and Fred were watching a volcanoe explode and destroy there village 10,000 years ago.

In the brief momments of time before being destroyed, Fred says to Joe, "There is a powerful being inside the mountain. We made him mad because we are supposed to set an offering of fruit at the base of the mountain, and we forgot. Now he is punishing us. That is why the mountain is spewing fire upon us."

Now Joe replies, "I do not believe that to be true."

Fred asks, "Well then why does it explode."

Joe replies, "I do not know."

Now, would it be logical for Fred to say that since Joe can not fully explain the mountain exploding nor prove that there isn't anyone inside, he can not hold the position that there is not? Or that he is obliged to believe in it or defend his position for not believing in it?

Do you see this any different than me not comprehending what death fully means philisophically?

 

[francisdesales]

Since people seem to like the dictionary as a reference tool, lets look at it

the·ism
1.
the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).

This definition wouldn't cut the mustard in a comparitive religion class. :P

How about this one...

mono·the·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈmä-nə-(ˌ)thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1660
: the doctrine or belief that there is but one God

or this one...

the·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1678
: belief in the existence of a god or gods.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/

Note the root "theism" used in "monotheism" to differentiate between "poly" theism and "mono" theism. The prefix determines whether we are discussing a belief in one god or many gods.

Deism really doesn't fall within the spectrum of this discussion, because properly speaking, it refers to a 19th century English movement and has nothing to do with the numbering of how many gods there are, as a dualistic system would have two gods, poly more than 2, and mono having one god.

No doubt, the American Heritage Dictionary represents the common definition in use, because its audience is indeed monotheistic - believing in one god. Thus, theism is equated with monotheism by useage. Technically, it is wrong, as theism is a root of poly and mono...

So let me define that when I speak of deism, I am refering to how the American Heritage Dictionary establishes it. Something quite different to theism.

I agree. Deism generally has nothing to do with the root word of theism, which is what I said before. Note there is no "theism" in the word "Deism".

And with that usage of theism, the analogy stands true that wavy used. It would not hold in view of the usage of deism as laid out above.

Sorry, it doesn't. Again, I have already addressed this.

First, there is not a definition of "god" that states he MUST react with creation. Deism is the prime example - it is the belief that there is a god, it is theistic. Naturally, God is immanent, but it is not necessary for Him to be empirically measurable to be knoweable. That is your mistake. You presume that the only way to know God is by empiricism. God is knoweable, immanent, but not through direct empirical methods. This is no secret, as the Bible itself says that no one has seen God - an anthropomorphic way of saying God transcends creation.

This is different from the unicorn. A unicorn is empirically knoweable. The analogy collapses because God and unicorns are measured by different means.

Not all beliefs in gods hold to the theistic definition as established above.

I will restate the question in regards to wavy's example

If the unicorn had the property of being able to not let itself be known in any fashion, would you consider yourself a non-believer in that unicorn or just agnostic.

I fail to see the point of this question. Nor do I answer such sort of hypothetical questions that have no bearing on the issue. Letting oneself be known doesn't require it be done by empirical means.

In the future, please consider "theism" as the belief in god/gods. "Atheism" is the belief there are no god/gods (the letter "a" in front of "theism" means opposite or contrary to). Monotheism means the belief that there is one God. And polytheism is the belief in more than one god.

Regards

 

[VaultZero4Me]

This definition wouldn't cut the mustard in a comparitive religion class.

How about this one...

mono•the•ism
Pronunciation: \ˈmä-nə-(ˌ)thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1660
: the doctrine or belief that there is but one God

or this one...

the•ism
Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1678
: belief in the existence of a god or gods.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/

Note the root "theism" used in "monotheism" to differentiate between "poly" theism and "mono" theism. The prefix determines whether we are discussing a belief in one god or many gods.

Deism really doesn't fall within the spectrum of this discussion, because properly speaking, it refers to a 19th century English movement and has nothing to do with the numbering of how many gods there are, as a dualistic system would have two gods, poly more than 2, and mono having one god.

No doubt, the American Heritage Dictionary represents the common definition in use, because its audience is indeed monotheistic - believing in one god. Thus, theism is equated with monotheism by useage. Technically, it is wrong, as theism is a root of poly and mono...

I have had comparative religion classes, so I do understand what does and doesn’t “cut the mustardâ€Â.

At which point did we begin discussing the difference between monotheism, and theism? I recall speaking of deism and theism. Of course monotheism is still considered theism, with just one god and polytheism is many gods.

My point earlier was that the deism is a non-interacting, non personal god. Mono and Polytheism are in regards to personal god(s).

I am unsure where you misunderstood me citing monotheism not to be theistic. But I did not. I do not actually need a discussion on the prefix use of mono and poly in that regard.

Sorry, it doesn't. Again, I have already addressed this.

First, there is not a definition of "god" that states he MUST react with creation. Deism is the prime example - it is the belief that there is a god, it is theistic. Naturally, God is immanent, but it is not necessary for Him to be empirically measurable to be knoweable. That is your mistake. You presume that the only way to know God is by empiricism. God is knoweable, immanent, but not through direct empirical methods. This is no secret, as the Bible itself says that no one has seen God - an anthropomorphic way of saying God transcends creation.

This is different from the unicorn. A unicorn is empirically knoweable. The analogy collapses because God and unicorns are measured by different means.

again I think you are getting confused as to what I am saying, or either I cannot follow your logic.
Deism means a god not involved with his creation. A non-personal god. Therefore, the analogy would be false.

Theism, as laid out in common usage (it doesn’t matter what the root of the term started with, as you know, the beginnings of words many times has little relevance with current usage) means personal god(s), therefore IS involved with creation in some manner.

Once you cross the boundary of having a diety involved with his creation, you must therefore open up to scrutiny through naturalistic means.

Such as we see in the Bible with Christ, the early Israelites, Exodus, Genesis, etc.

In the future, please consider "theism" as the belief in god/gods. "Atheism" is the belief there are no god/gods (the letter "a" in front of "theism" means opposite or contrary to). Monotheism means the belief that there is one God. And polytheism is the belief in more than one god.

I am really confused at which point you got off track. I never argued that monotheism is not one god and polytheism is not many gods.

I have spoken of theism (which I was assuming you realized I mean mono or poly) and deism.

My sections dealing with atheism being defined as a belief that there is no god(s) deals with how that definition is treated unnecessarily different than any other non-belief.

I refer you to where I asked if you consider your self to not believe in elvis being alive versus to believe elvis is not alive. There is a slight sematic difference, and that difference is unjustly used to say that atheism is an untenable position. It necessarily suggests that an atheist is 100% sure that there are no God, god, or gods. You can not be 100% sure of anything’s non-existence.


In fact I have been quite confused. Can you explain the difference in these two sections, as I feel they are contradicting each other:

Excuse me? Did you note that "theistic" is the root word of "deistic" and "pantheistic"? The Belief in ANY god, whether one, two, or many, is, by definition, "theistic".

I agree. Deism generally has nothing to do with the root word of theism, which is what I said before. Note there is no "theism" in the word "Deism".

Maybe an explanation will enlighten me as to what you have been trying to convey to me with the discussion of theism and deism.

 

[dadof10]

It is not an atheist mantra, nor do I care to go over it point by point and show what I agree with, nor is it the least relevant to the thread.

Now, if you want to know some of my personal beliefs, create a thread listing personal questions and I will answer them.

You just can't do it, can you? You MUST stay in the "attack" position. You can't give me ONE positive statement because then you'll have to DEFEND it, and you don't know how. Even though (probably) millions of atheists subscribe to the AA DOCTRINE, you don't, and therefore don't have to defend not even one point. Isn't that convenient.

That was my point.

This is why it's so frustrating discussing theological issues with atheists. Wavy and I went round and round about whether "ism"'s are necessarily doctrinal (which they are). You and Joe are going round and round about definitions of words, all because you won't admit that atheists have positive beliefs that should be defended, that atheism contains DOCTRINE.

I'm going to enjoy my long weekend now.

Mark

 

[VaultZero4Me]

It is not an atheist mantra, nor do I care to go over it point by point and show what I agree with, nor is it the least relevant to the thread.

Now, if you want to know some of my personal beliefs, create a thread listing personal questions and I will answer them.

You just can't do it, can you? You MUST stay in the "attack" position. You can't give me ONE positive statement because then you'll have to DEFEND it, and you don't know how. Even though (probably) millions of atheists subscribe to the AA DOCTRINE, you don't, and therefore don't have to defend not even one point. Isn't that convenient.

That was my point.

This is why it's so frustrating discussing theological issues with atheists. Wavy and I went round and round about whether "ism"'s are necessarily doctrinal (which they are). You and Joe are going round and round about definitions of words, all because you won't admit that atheists have positive beliefs that should be defended, that atheism contains DOCTRINE.

I'm going to enjoy my long weekend now.

Mark

Well if you want to argue a strawman in order to claim some triumph go for it.

I do not believe in any deities. What more do you want me to say?

I will have to say that so far this thread has been full statements that claim to know some ones intentions, and those intentions some how fit your preconceived ideas about that person.

ie - It couldn't be because you like to stay on OP, it has to be that you are hiding something!

Get real. Create a thread and ask for my positions on key issues and I will give you that. You do not want to take the time to create a thread so this one doesn't get garbled then don't ask. I am staying on OP.

This thread was created because another one got off OP. I am not about to get into a debate with you about MY OWN personal views on various life questions, when we are all obviously not talking about that.

 

[Free]

Why can't we all just get along?

 

[francisdesales]

Vault,

Sorry, I have officially lost interest in this conversation... I have no desire to knit-pick over such matters as unicorns and the definition of theism...

Regards

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I did not knit pick over any definition. You started the challenge and I defended the definition of deism that I was using. (which some how got transformed into an argument that mono and polytheism are not theisms, which I certainly never argued.)

The point still stands, and is unanswered in regards to how the definition of atheism can be treated in a way that makes it untennable, while any other non-belief system is not treated in the same manner.

 

[Free]

I haven't been following the debate but I'll throw my two cents in.

The point still stands, and is unanswered in regards to how the definition of atheism can be treated in a way that makes it untennable,

To affirm with absolute certainty that there is no God (atheism) is untenable. To say that one doesn't believe in God due to a lack of evidence isn't atheism, it's agnosticism, since at it's root are skepticism and doubt. I think that most modern atheists aren't really atheists but agnostics.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I haven't been following the debate but I'll throw my two cents in.

The point still stands, and is unanswered in regards to how the definition of atheism can be treated in a way that makes it untennable,

To affirm with absolute certainty that there is no God (atheism) is untenable. To say that one doesn't believe in God due to a lack of evidence isn't atheism, it's agnosticism, since at it's root are skepticism and doubt. I think that most modern atheists aren't really atheists but agnostics.

That is the root of the debate.

I understand this to be technically true though I would not call it agnostic, as from what I commonly understand to mean that you don't care one way or the other.

To say there is no deity with 100% surety is untennable.

My point was, that if you hold atheism to that technicality, you are forced to be consitent with any other non-belief system. You must not allow anyone to be a non-believer in any idea. Period.

There are no longer people who do not believe in ghosts. They are agnostic.

There are no longer people who do not believe in Elvis being dead.

There are no longer people who do not believe that there is a black hole inside the bermuda triangle.

You can no longer not believe that there are martians, or a that there is not a race of beings living on the moon.

What I am looking for is a logical construction of an argument that shows why atheism as a non-belief system, can be held to a more strict criteria than ANY non-belief system. Basically, the reasoning behind why it can be treated differently.

 

[dadof10]

Well if you want to argue a strawman in order to claim some triumph go for it.

Asking for you to take a stand on ONE issue is not a strwaman, and I never claimed "triumph", only frustration.

I do not believe in any deities. What more do you want me to say?

How this belief system shapes your worldview on tangable things. That's what the AA website advances, their worldview, at least partially. That is what I want you to respond to. And I don't think that's an unreasonable request considering I'm sure you have one.

I will have to say that so far this thread has been full statements that claim to know some ones intentions, and those intentions some how fit your preconceived ideas about that person.

ie - It couldn't be because you like to stay on OP, it has to be that you are hiding something!

My only "preconceived idea" is that you are a normal, thinking human being. Every person, 100%, has a worldview shaped by their belief system, that's what the AA website is all about, how atheism shapes the worldview of a group of like-minded people. Therefore, your intention has been to hide your worldview from me by basically calling it irrelevant to the OP. I don't think you are being dishonest, only not forthcoming.

Here is the OP by Wavy.

"You seemed to maintain an open-minded and admirable decorum throughout this thread until this post. There is no such thing as 'doctrine of atheism', since atheism has no stated propositions."

It's not the definition of Theism, deism, etc...It's not whether unicorns exist or if a volcano exploded 10000 years ago. You seem to be just fine with going off the OP when it suits you.

This thread was created because another one got off OP. I am not about to get into a debate with you about MY OWN personal views on various life questions, when we are all obviously not talking about that.

This entire tangent has been about your "OWN personal views " or view (singular). When have you even tried to engage in debate about a system or set of beliefs?

I love the NFL and my team is the St. Louis Rams. During football season a bunch of football fans sit around on Monday morning in the breakroom discussing the action from the day before. If the Rams lose, I take a lot of ribbing, as does everyone else who's team loses. There is a guy who comes in, sits down and joins in with the ribbing. The only problem is he doesn't even like football, and has no team. His criticisms fall short because there is no love. He puts nothing out there, risks NOTHING, like you.

All the people of faith on this forum have something to lose. We truly LOVE our faith, our belief system, so we risk maybe being proved publically wrong on a point of doctrine and eating a little crow. You risk nothing, which is frustrating. It's also tiresome, because by not putting forth any positive views all your opponent can do is defend. Imagine that. A game where you can't score, can only keep the other person FROM scoring. Not much fun, which is why I'm here, I enjoy this.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Well if you want to argue a strawman in order to claim some triumph go for it.

Asking for you to take a stand on ONE issue is not a strwaman, and I never claimed "triumph", only frustration.

I do not believe in any deities. What more do you want me to say?

How this belief system shapes your worldview on tangable things. That's what the AA website advances, their worldview, at least partially. That is what I want you to respond to. And I don't think that's an unreasonable request considering I'm sure you have one.

[quote:2q2w411k]I will have to say that so far this thread has been full statements that claim to know some ones intentions, and those intentions some how fit your preconceived ideas about that person.

ie - It couldn't be because you like to stay on OP, it has to be that you are hiding something!

My only "preconceived idea" is that you are a normal, thinking human being. Every person, 100%, has a worldview shaped by their belief system, that's what the AA website is all about, how atheism shapes the worldview of a group of like-minded people. Therefore, your intention has been to hide your worldview from me by basically calling it irrelevant to the OP. I don't think you are being dishonest, only not forthcoming.

Here is the OP by Wavy.

"You seemed to maintain an open-minded and admirable decorum throughout this thread until this post. There is no such thing as 'doctrine of atheism', since atheism has no stated propositions."

It's not the definition of Theism, deism, etc...It's not whether unicorns exist or if a volcano exploded 10000 years ago. You seem to be just fine with going off the OP when it suits you.

This thread was created because another one got off OP. I am not about to get into a debate with you about MY OWN personal views on various life questions, when we are all obviously not talking about that.

This entire tangent has been about your "OWN personal views " or view (singular). When have you even tried to engage in debate about a system or set of beliefs?

I love the NFL and my team is the St. Louis Rams. During football season a bunch of football fans sit around on Monday morning in the breakroom discussing the action from the day before. If the Rams lose, I take a lot of ribbing, as does everyone else who's team loses. There is a guy who comes in, sits down and joins in with the ribbing. The only problem is he doesn't even like football, and has no team. His criticisms fall short because there is no love. He puts nothing out there, risks NOTHING, like you.

All the people of faith on this forum have something to lose. We truly LOVE our faith, our belief system, so we risk maybe being proved publically wrong on a point of doctrine and eating a little crow. You risk nothing, which is frustrating. It's also tiresome, because by not putting forth any positive views all your opponent can do is defend. Imagine that. A game where you can't score, can only keep the other person FROM scoring. Not much fun, which is why I'm here, I enjoy this.[/quote:2q2w411k]

I do not see what is so difficult to comply with my request that you create a new thread for your request.

You asked, and I said I'd be happy to discuss it on a new thread. So create it if you want to discuss it.

 

[dadof10]

I do not see what is so difficult to comply with my request that you create a new thread for your request.

You asked, and I said I'd be happy to discuss it on a new thread. So create it if you want to discuss it.

OK, here you go...

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=33297

 

[wavy]

Re: Literal Bible reading vs making up whatever you wish

I didn't make up doctrines about atheism. Here is what I posted:

Most athiests hold to MANY positive propositions, whether formalized or not, so therefore must defend them.

"Scripture contains errors."
"The world would be better off without organized religion."
"Religion was invented to help people deal with death."

These are just a few of the positive statements I've heard through the years, and must be defended.

These were just examples of "statements I've heard through the years", I wasn't trying to define atheism. That's your Atheist organization's job, which they did.

You were trying to define it and you were wrong. Now you're in denial. In any case, your fallacious hasty generalization has been exposed for what it is.

I showed you "what the 'doctrine' of atheism is", now, instead of doing the honorable thing conceding the point, I get this:

No, you showed me that you have no compunction about committing logical fallacies...either that or you're not very familiar with what they are.

So, show me an "ism" which does not contain doctrine. Sheesh, defend SOMETHING, or admit error.

How about 'sophism'? You should be familiar with them sophisms. Your arguments are saturated in them.

It seems like the only statement you'll defend is: "I should not have to defend any doctrine."

You have not provided me with what the 'doctrine' of atheism is (your fallacious hasty generalization notwithstanding). Until you do, my defense stands and I rest my case.


Thanks,
E.L.B.

 

[Free]

I understand this to be technically true though I would not call it agnostic, as from what I commonly understand to mean that you don't care one way or the other.

That is apathy. Agnosticism is that we can't know a certain thing to be true, which would lead to apathy.

My point was, that if you hold atheism to that technicality, you are forced to be consitent with any other non-belief system. You must not allow anyone to be a non-believer in any idea. Period.

There are no longer people who do not believe in ghosts. They are agnostic.

There are no longer people who do not believe in Elvis being dead.

There are no longer people who do not believe that there is a black hole inside the bermuda triangle.

You can no longer not believe that there are martians, or a that there is not a race of beings living on the moon.

What I am looking for is a logical construction of an argument that shows why atheism as a non-belief system, can be held to a more strict criteria than ANY non-belief system. Basically, the reasoning behind why it can be treated differently.

Well, I think part of the problem in this discussion is that atheism, as a non-belief system, is essentially a complete belief system, a worldview, just as Christianity is a complete belief system. The examples you gave are sinlge ideas, not belief systems, that both theists and atheists can agree on. To make your argument you would have to provide another non-belief system and show that it is treated differently than atheism.

Not sure if I'm competely following what you are getting at, so let me know if I missed your point.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Well, I think part of the problem in this discussion is that atheism, as a non-belief system, is essentially a complete belief system, a worldview, just as Christianity is a complete belief system. The examples you gave are sinlge ideas, not belief systems, that both theists and atheists can agree on. To make your argument you would have to provide another non-belief system and show that it is treated differently than atheism.

Explain why you feel those non-beliefs are any different than the non-belief in God(s). That is what I am getting out.

 

[dadof10]

Re: Literal Bible reading vs making up whatever you wish

I didn't make up doctrines about atheism. Here is what I posted:

Most athiests hold to MANY positive propositions, whether formalized or not, so therefore must defend them.

"Scripture contains errors."
"The world would be better off without organized religion."
"Religion was invented to help people deal with death."

These are just a few of the positive statements I've heard through the years, and must be defended.

These were just examples of "statements I've heard through the years", I wasn't trying to define atheism. That's your Atheist organization's job, which they did.

You were trying to define it and you were wrong. Now you're in denial. In any case, your fallacious hasty generalization has been exposed for what it is.

WOW. You really have a haughty view of yourself, don't you? Not only do you think you are the sole arbitar and keeper of the holy and pure definition of atheism, you also know what I mean when I write, even though I've explained how you misunderstand me. Are you also omniscient?

I may not have taken any "formal logic classes", but I have taken English classes and what I wrote can in no way be taken as a definition of atheism, unless you are willing to contort my words completely out of their obvious meaning. They teach basic English at many community colleges across the country, why don't you google it and....oh, that's right, the internet is beneath you too.

You have not provided me with what the 'doctrine' of atheism is (your fallacious hasty generalization notwithstanding).

Why won't you accept the AA definition? Why won't you at least accept the dictionary definition that atheism is a doctrine? You know more than everyone else including 2200 other atheists (the AA membership)? Aren't you relatively new to atheism, converted within the last year? What makes you think your definition is more accurate than AA's?

Until you do, my defense stands and I rest my case.

Defense??? LOL, defense of what??? You will not defend ANYTHING, that's the whole point. This just gets better and better.... :

 

[wavy]

Re: Literal Bible reading vs making up whatever you wish

WOW. You really have a haughty view of yourself, don't you? Not only do you think you are the sole arbitar and keeper of the holy and pure definition of atheism, you also know what I mean when I write, even though I've explained how you misunderstand me. Are you also omniscient?

You wrote:

Most athiests hold to MANY positive propositions, whether formalized or not, so therefore must defend them.

What followed was:

"Scripture contains errors."
"The world would be better off without organized religion."
"Religion was invented to help people deal with death."

These are just a few of the positive statements I've heard through the years, and must be defended.

You made it specifically clear that atheists needed to defend these propositions. I showed you that these propositions were not peculiar to atheists, therefore you were wrong.

Why won't you accept the AA definition?

Two things (and this will be the last time I repeat them)

i) Your *hastily generalization* is fallacious no matter how many times you ask this silly question. Got that? *Hasty generalization*. It is a named logical fallacy and therefore wholly irrelevant as an argument.

ii) What the 'AA' says does not apply to me, nor to many atheists (daresay most) for the simple fact that I don't agree with it and you can't make me or any other atheist accept it no matter how much you want it to apply to us. My analogy with Mormonism stands.

Why won't you at least accept the dictionary definition that atheism is a doctrine?

I do, at least the second one that you so aptly ignored. Even taking the first one there's more than one way the word 'doctrine' can be used. You built your case off of this one word but could not tell me what this 'doctrine' was. So what did you do? You went on google and returned with a--need I say again--logically fallacious argument (namely, *hasty generalization*)

You know more than everyone else including 2200 other atheists (the AA membership)? Aren't you relatively new to atheism, converted within the last year? What makes you think your definition is more accurate than AA's?

This is not a question of 'knowledge' this is a question of preference. Atheism has no center of authority that defines what all atheists should specifically believe or 'teach'. As you can plainly see, some atheists codify their beliefs and make positive assertions about there beliefs specific to their atheism...and others do not. Your apparent inability to grasp this simple fact, or your blatant unwillingness to acknowledge it (I can't tell which one) does not make your case any more plausible, nor will it make what I keep telling you go away.

Defense??? LOL, defense of what??? You will not defend ANYTHING, that's the whole point. This just gets better and better.... :

Your childish, endeavored ridicule does not and cannot obscure your fallacious arguments, nor the fact that I've exposed them and dispelled them to the wind. 'LOL' all you like. It's only you who loses in the end on account of a closed mind.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[Free]

This thread will get locked very soon if things don't settle down.