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

[VaultZero4Me]

Vault zero 4 U, Your entitled to defend the Atheist, I myself see Atheists in a different light. I realize what you mean but when someone makes light of Jesus and his sacrifice I take offense at it. He knows about the gospel message it isn't his cup of tea, he makes his own home brew. Besides, let him defend himself, come on wavy I'm waiting :smt045

Well if anyone was talking with disrespect for Christ then I would understand. I would have no right to come on a Christian forum and attack any of the Christian beliefs. I would not do that, though I am sure if you read my posts on atheist sites, you would see heated debates there that I would not have here out of respect of this being a Christian site.

Which posting are you refering to? I do not see how he could defend himself when no specific charge has been made.

As far as the Platos_Cave link goes, I think there is a bit of irony in using it to argue against religion if you understand what the Allegory of the Cave means.

You would have to have the assumption that you are one of the guards who sees reality, when the example is actually telling you that it is impossible to do. You are just seeing your set of shadows.

 

[turnorburn]

Then what about her, you won't bring it to a Cristian forum but she brought this to our nation, now isn't this special.. I can wait for wavy you be acting spokesman here, did you support this woman?

Madeline Murray O'Hare Letters

First Letter: Madeline Murray O'Hare, an atheist, whose efforts successfully eliminated the use of Bible reading and prayer from public schools fifteen years ago, has now been granted a federal hearing in Washington, D.C., on the same subject, by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Her petition, No. 2493, would ultimately pave the way to stop any reading of the Gospel of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, on the airwaves of America. She took her petition with 287,000 signatures to back her stand.

 

[dadof10]

If you feel mud has been thrown by me, please point it out. I will formally apologize if I went beyond the scope of attacking someones argument and attacked their person, indirectly or directly.

If wavy attacked someone in that way, show me as well. I do not recall him doing that.

Remember, it has to be attacking the person.

You know, something like "spin master", " Why are you trying so hard to use 10 dollar words?", "Please don't bother making such statements... They make you look silly - "since the advent of the term"? Such wild bluster is pitiful." (which I do hope everyone sees something a bit ironic in the last sentence)

Something personal along those lines.

I have not been personally attacked by you, but I have by Wavy. Here are a few of his ad homs.

I think you need to find something better to do with your time.

Seems I've made an impression on you since you feel the need to enter in other threads to regurgitate the same arguments which were addressed and exposed for the straw men and and examples of intellectual dishonesty that they are.

This is why it's so hard to discuss things with people who have no idea what their talking about and who unfortunately ignore what is said to them only to end up incurring chagrin while they 'LOL' at their opponent because of their own initial misunderstanding.

I'm sorry you wasted your time googling answers on the internet. How long did it take you to find that, I wonder?

Numerous people throughout the course of history believed many things. People who were, otherwise, reasonable.

You were trying to define it and you were wrong. Now you're in denial

Your *hastily generalization* is fallacious no matter how many times you ask this silly question. Got that?

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.

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.

But you've made yourself out to be a joke when you say things like 'atheists KNOW that God does not exist'. That's just a lie, plain and simple. You can repeat it till your fingers bleed, but it remains untrue.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt then if that's what you want. Fine, you weren't trying to define atheism.

Thank you again. 'dadof10' was trying to prove atheism (not just certain atheists like the AA) holds doctrine that requires defense. After shown to be incorrect, he changed up his argument by claiming that he was just trying to prove that certain atheists hold doctrines which wasn't the point of this entire conversation anyway.

I must assume you're just parroting rhetoric that you don't even understand

I answered this. Perhaps in your dishonest attempt to point out a contradiction you somehow overlooked it:

Your sarcasm only makes you look silly because I gave you the reasons for my opinion that god/s do not exist

How many trains have I started here by now? Anyway, whatever makes you feel better.

Then there are these from another thread:

Your whole case is built off of a fallacy: hasty generalization/unrepresentative sample. Please learn what that means...or you can choose not to and run with your 'doctrines' of atheism that you apparently googled on the internet. I have a feeling, nonetheless, that you'll make the wrong choice.

I suggest taking some kind of formal logic course, or if that's too much for you, then you seem to be good at googling random information off of the internet...so google it.

I shouldn't have been condescending, true.

Vault, before you start pasting my "ad homs" let me just say, I know they're there. We ALL did it, not just the Christians, which is what you are alleging by saying this "You know, something like "spin master", " Why are you trying so hard to use 10 dollar words?", "Please don't bother making such statements... They make you look silly - "since the advent of the term"? Such wild bluster is pitiful." .

Everyone's at fault here, which is why I'm not participating in the merry-go-round anymore. It's not because I haven't proven the OP wrong. I'm not here to see how many shots I can get in before they lock the thread. It's just a waste of time.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Everyone would also include me.

If I have posted ad hom, then list them. I am not saying I did not for sure, but I tried not to. If I did I would like to retract them and apologize.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Then what about her, you won't bring it to a Cristian forum but she brought this to our nation, now isn't this special.. I can wait for wavy you be acting spokesman here, did you support this woman?

Madeline Murray O'Hare Letters

First Letter: Madeline Murray O'Hare, an atheist, whose efforts successfully eliminated the use of Bible reading and prayer from public schools fifteen years ago, has now been granted a federal hearing in Washington, D.C., on the same subject, by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Her petition, No. 2493, would ultimately pave the way to stop any reading of the Gospel of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, on the airwaves of America. She took her petition with 287,000 signatures to back her stand.

And she is able to write anything she pleases as long inciting someone to violence.

Be happy she has the right to bring such actions to the court. It is a free nation and she is excersizing her right to challenge what is established. Many countries do not allow that freedom.

For removing religion from the air waves, I hardly doubt that would be successfull. And if they remove the right to read the gospel on a radio show, I will go hand and hand with anyone to protest, or contest that law.

Reading the Bible in public schools by the teachers, and Christian prayer being lead by the teacher is hardly freedom of religion.

Are kids not able to read their own Bible, or pray on their own?

Would you approve of your kid going to public school and every morning the teacher read from the Koran, or prayed to a hindu god?

Also, what does it gain in asking anyone if they support her? What would I gain if I asked you if you support the ugliness of Fred Phelps?

That is something we should learn from each others postings, and if you have followed many of mine you would see that I am fairly libertarian.

 

[wavy]

It's not because I haven't proven the OP wrong.

Wishful thinking.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[turnorburn]

Thinking wishfully :wink:

 

[dadof10]

It's not because I haven't proven the OP wrong.

Wishful thinking.

Thanks,
Eric

Since we are unable to speak civilly to each other, why don't we simply "let the reader decide", as you suggested in an earlier post to Francisdesales?

Here is the OP:

"There is no such thing as 'doctrine of atheism', since atheism has no stated propositions."

And here is reply:

From the American Atheist website:

"Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super†natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.

The following definition of Atheism was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), to remove reverential Bible reading and oral unison recitation of the Lord's Prayer in the public schools.

“Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.

He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.â€Â


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While many Atheists have an intense interest in religions, enjoy debating theists, and can intelligently discuss the various holy books, Atheism can be discussed and celebrated for its own sake.

The first entry in this section is a transcript of a speech given in 1962 by Madalyn Murray O’Hair. It has a short and simple title: Atheism."

My question to "the reader" is, Does this definition from the American Atheists satisfy the requirements for the debunking of the OP?

 

[turnorburn]

Definition of an Atheist "He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god"

If you want to know your fellow man rather than Jesus Christ why not join a ball club :smt045

 

[wavy]

Since we are unable to speak civilly to each other,

Perhaps you consider yourself 'unable'. I am not.

Here is the OP:

"There is no such thing as 'doctrine of atheism', since atheism has no stated propositions."

And here is reply:

From the American Atheist website:

....

My question to "the reader" is, Does this definition from the American Atheists satisfy the requirements for the debunking of the OP?

We were talking about atheism in general. At least I was in response to your sweeping claim, which had no qualification:

It's a shame. Lying is the only way to get people to believe the laughable doctrine of Atheism. It definitely can't stand on it's own, people have to be indoctrinated with no opposing arguments or it'll fall.

Or this one:

If it is not a "doctrine", then it's not an "ism" either. You told me you were an athiest, therefore hold to the propositions of athiesm.

'The laughable doctrine of atheism'. 'The propositions of atheism'. There is no such thing as 'the' doctrine of atheism. Since the AA does not represent 'atheism', then you were either:

A) 'Debunking' a straw man because, as I said, I was responding to your sweeping claim about atheism. You didn't qualify it. Your responses could easily be taken as painting all atheists with the same broad brush.

B) Engaging in hasty generalization because you thought what the AA said held true for atheism in general. You deny it (true or not), but again, one could easily assess that that's exactly what you thought based on comments of yours like these:

I didn't make up doctrines about atheism...That's your Atheist organization's job, which they did.

I showed you "what the 'doctrine' of atheism is"...

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?

Again, these remarks can very easily be taken to mean that you were trying to impose the views of the AA upon all atheists, and even me specifically. You called the AA 'your organization'. You asked me why I didn't accept what they said. You even went on for a while with me and Vault asking us to 'defend' it.

C) Shifting the goal posts because after being shown that the AA does not represent atheism, you denied that you were ever trying to do that in the first place and that you really only wanted to show that 'some' atheists do hold doctrines. I never claimed that 'some' atheists don't hold their own personal doctrines. I was defending atheism in general in response to your sweeping claims.

One of above things is taking place. I'm not here to argue how honest or dishonest you are, but I know what *I* meant. There is no such thing as 'the' doctrine of atheism or 'the' propositions of atheism that apply in general to all atheists. So if you were arguing specifically and not generally (although I don't think you were) then quoting the AA does not 'debunk' anything. It's attacking something I never denied in the first place, and this becomes just one big misunderstanding on both of our parts.

That's all I'm going to say about it. I rest my case.

Thanks,
E.L.B.

 

[turnorburn]

Just admit De Feet Or open your bible "I know you have one" to Isaiah Chapter Six
and then..

 

[Veritas]

You can not absolutely claim that the greek gods do not exist, yet most if not everyone, believes they do not exist.

I think the greek gods represent a dilution (human caused) of what/who God is

It does not matter what we think may or may not have caused them. The question was do you think they exist?

In the general sense, in that it is a type of theism, I can agree to the existance of "God/gods". But specifically, no, I don't think greek gods exist. I'm trusting someone who I believe can confirm the non-existance of something absolutely.

 

[wavy]

Just admit De Feet Or open your bible "I know you have one" to Isaiah Chapter Six
and then..

lolno.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[turnorburn]

I feel bad that you've been going through life with this around your neck, believe this; just as the sun rises in the east Jesus will remove it from you.

Then you said lolno only one time, why? No bible? No don't lock the thread? No you haven't read that chapter? No you don't want to?

Btw I can't lock this thread :-D

 

[VaultZero4Me]

The only time I ever feel like a ball and chain is on my shoulder is when I am at work. But then, at closing time, I feel much lighter

 

[dadof10]

Since we are unable to speak civilly to each other,

Perhaps you consider yourself 'unable'. I am not.

Wrong. See above and below. Insinuating someone is lying is not considered "civil", unless you have a new made-up definition of the word, which is likely if past history is any indication. Questioning someones integrity about THEIR OWN VIEWS EVEN AFTER THEY HAVE CLARIFIED THEM is simply bullying. I hope you're happy with yourself.

We were talking about atheism in general.

Wrong, again. The only things we were talking about was the definition of atheism, and whether a "doctrine of atheism" existed. Should I question YOUR integrity for this seeming falsehood?

At least I was in response to your sweeping claim, which had no qualification

If I were you, I would immediately start questioning the honesty of the person who posted THIS ridiculous statement, after all I KNOW MORE ABOUT WHAT YOU MEAN BY YOUR OWN WORDS THAN YOU DO, EVEN AFTER YOU CLARIFY THEM. Where did you and I discuss ANYTHING except the definition of atheism, and whether a "doctrine of atheism" existed? We never went into the Natural Law, the conscience, the theories on our origins, etc.

A) 'Debunking'...Blah blah blah... and this becomes just one big misunderstanding on both of our parts.

Irrelevant to the OP.

That's all I'm going to say about it. I rest my case.

Good. Let's see if you can stick to this statement.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Wrong, again. The only things we were talking about was the definition of atheism, and whether a "doctrine of atheism" existed. Should I question YOUR integrity for this seeming falsehood?

Dad, the OP was discussing if atheism has a doctrine.

See your post

If it is not a "doctrine", then it's not an "ism" either.

The very much implies you are talking about atheism holding a doctrine. The AAs doctrine is not atheisms doctrine.

We made it very clear that an atheist can have a doctrine, but that does not make it the doctrine of atheism. Just like a catholic doctrine does not make it a Christian doctrine.

The OP was never about atheists being able to have a doctrine. It would be ridiculous to argue against that. Who would?

You misunderstood the OP, and the arguments against yours were assuming you understood the OP. No one would argue that an atheist could not hold a doctrine.

Lets drop it.

 

[dadof10]

We made it very clear that an atheist can have a doctrine, but that does not make it the doctrine of atheism.

Vault, I'll try it one more time.

The OP was "There is no such thing as 'doctrine of atheism', since atheism has no stated propositions."

"There is no such thing" means that IT DOESN'T EXIST. As soon as I posted the "doctrine" from the AA website I proved that there IS a doctrine of atheism, at least to some. There is a group of people who have "codified" their belief, which, according to the definition from Wiki that you posted, satisfies the requirement for the word "doctrine".

The doctrine doesn't have to be held by "most" or "all" people who call themselves "atheists". It doesn't have to be "universal", all it has to do is EXIST to debunk the OP. Whether you or Wavy or anyone else holds those docrtines doesn't matter to the OP. The propositions listed are a codified belief system and therefore qualify as "doctrine".

Just like a catholic doctrine does not make it a Christian doctrine.

That's not a proper analogy. It would have to be "Catholic" and "Catholic". If I claim "there is no such thing as Catholic doctrine", all you have to do is point me to the Catechism. If I responded, "I don't hold all those alleged doctrines, and it doesn't speak for ALL people who call themselves "Catholic", therefore it's not universal and does not count as Catholic doctrine", I don't think you would accept that explanation, and neither do I.

Lets drop it.

O.K., Lets.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Vault, I'll try it one more time.

The OP was "There is no such thing as 'doctrine of atheism', since atheism has no stated propositions."

"There is no such thing" means that IT DOESN'T EXIST. As soon as I posted the "doctrine" from the AA website I proved that there IS a doctrine of atheism, at least to some. There is a group of people who have "codified" their belief, which, according to the definition from Wiki that you posted, satisfies the requirement for the word "doctrine".

The doctrine doesn't have to be held by "most" or "all" people who call themselves "atheists". It doesn't have to be "universal", all it has to do is EXIST to debunk the OP. Whether you or Wavy or anyone else holds those docrtines doesn't matter to the OP. The propositions listed are a codified belief system and therefore qualify as "doctrine".

And what you still do not seem to understand is that document is the doctrine of AA, not atheism.

"There is no such thing as 'doctrine of atheism', since atheism has no stated propositions."

That's not a proper analogy. It would have to be "Catholic" and "Catholic". If I claim "there is no such thing as Catholic doctrine", all you have to do is point me to the Catechism. If I responded, "I don't hold all those alleged doctrines, and it doesn't speak for ALL people who call themselves "Catholic", therefore it's not universal and does not count as Catholic doctrine", I don't think you would accept that explanation, and neither do I.

Which was exactly my point. That would make it a doctrine of Catholicism.

That last sentence, if to be used against me, is a strawman. I stated exactly as such earlier. I said that if someone did not follow a Christian doctrine, the argument would not ensue that the particular doctrine is not doctrine anymore, the debate would be if the person is still Christian.

If I do not follow the AA’s doctrine, are you going to say that I am not atheist, or that I do not adhere to the AA doctrine?

That is the determining factor here.

The analogy is proper.

There are atheists with varying doctrines, but the doctrines are no the doctrine or a doctrine of atheism.

 

[platos_cave]

The OP was "There is no such thing as 'doctrine of atheism', since atheism has no stated propositions."

Yes, atheism is not a system of propositions. Atheism is the highest general category that is defined singly as the disbelief in the existence of any gods.

Any doctrines that someone who is an atheist professes to believe or accept as a philosophical code would be an "atheistic" one because it does not include the existence of God or revelation from God within it.

Atheism is A-theism. Not athe-ism.

"There is no such thing" means that IT DOESN'T EXIST. As soon as I posted the "doctrine" from the AA website I proved that there IS a doctrine of atheism, at least to some. There is a group of people who have "codified" their belief, which, according to the definition from Wiki that you posted, satisfies the requirement for the word "doctrine".

It's not a doctrine of atheism, it's the doctrine of AA. The doctrine of AA happens to be atheistic, but it isn't a doctrine of atheism.

Your doctrine is a theistic doctrine, more specifically a Christian doctrine.

The propositions listed are a codified belief system and therefore qualify as "doctrine".

Of course, but they do not qualify as one that is representative of atheism, which is the implication of stating "doctrine of atheism". It's representative of the beliefs of AA, not of atheists.

But anyways, this is semantic nonsense.

I'll give it to you and then proceed with a "so what?". If it is a doctrine of atheism, what's the point?