Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Dear Derideo_Te: Thank you for your clarifying statement.
I wish all people would EXPLAIN as you did what the problem is.
That way at least we know what is going wrong and have a chance to address it.
In this case, it may be this is just an exercise in learning to forgive unconditionally.
If Asaratis does not define your beliefs, then don't let him.
There is no need to ignore or cut him off to make this not so.
If it is truly independent, then he should be able to keep thinking what he does
and not affect you. Let him be wrong.
So this could be one of those exercises in how to really stop this nonsense of
associating people by label.
...<snip>...
My dear Emily,
My time is my own and I am under no obligation to suffer fools gladly around here. Those who prove themselves to be a complete and utter waste of my time don't deserve the privilege of wasting my time so that is why I consign them to Cyberia. The feature is there for a reason and I make good use of it because the value I place on my time far exceeds the vacuity of the posters who now reside in Cyberia.
They can still post their mindless drivel as much as they wish but it won't interfere with my time in this forum in the future. I am the one and only master of my time and when I decide that they are not worth it that is the result. I don't make this decision lightly because I consider a number of factors before I issue the one way ticket. Essentially when I see no redeeming value at all in the posts of someone I push them out of my time slot.
There is no shortage of posters either so it isn't as though I won't have anyone else to exchange ideas with. The abundance of fools though can make it tedious wading through their blather. Going by Carla's recent response to QW in this thread I am glad that he was the very first poster that I ignored when I first arrived here about 18 months ago. I must have saved many hours of my time by now not reading his claptrap.
So yes, the ignore system works perfectly. I get to control who I read and respond to and that improves the USMB experience. The Cyberians might as well be speaking another language or residing on a different planet as far as I am concerned because what they have to say is just meaningless noise since it contains nothing of any value whatsoever.
Peace
DT
Dear @emilynghiem ,
DT above expresses nothing more than self aggrandizement coupled with intentional veiling of his apparent inability to cope with those "beneath him" that logically challenge his errant postings and surreal re-definitions of terms that have been accepted for decades. This is very much akin to the liberals changing their own label from liberal to progressive in an attempt to escape the negative connotations now attached to liberal. Ignoring the opposition is also another tactic used exhaustively by liberals. It bears no resemblance to that which it precludes; productive dialog that often leads to self improvement and understanding.
Just as does hatred, ignoring people has little effect on the target.
Regards,
asaratis
[QUOTE="PratchettFan, post: 9828388, member: 37752"
Really. Which part isn't true? Did you not say you think it is probable there is no God (I am number 6)? Do you disagree with the definition that Atheism is an absence of belief?
I don't know why you're so fixated with that Dawkins list. I just happened to come across it online. Actually, now that I think about it, I'm right in between a 5 and a 6.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical. 6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
And once again, not answering the questions. You said I was making shit up and I asked you to point out where. You presented the list, not me. Don't blame me for what you did. You said you were a 6 and I took you at your word. Don't blame me if you didn't mean it. I have asked you if the definition that Atheism is an absence of belief and you have never once said it isn't. In fact, you have never yet acknowledged the question.
Did you say you were a 6 on the Dawkins scale? yes or no
Do you agree the definition of Atheism is an absence of belief? yes or no
I'll bet I don't get an answer. Please prove me wrong.
You're asking for something that isn't black and white, as you'd hoped. Yes, I did say I was a 6, but now I think I'm between a 5 and 6, because this Dawkins example is the best I've seen so far. The Dawkins list is not going to fit every atheist like a glove, because all atheist are different. No, I do not agree that the definition of atheism is an absence of belief. I think it's a disbelief or doubt that there is a God/God's.
Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".
She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.
Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".
Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.
The fact that you continue to argue what your beliefs actually are definitively establishes the fact that you actually have a belief.
A tree is not a deity. Religions deal with deities. Believing in Santa Clause is not comparable to believing in God.Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".
She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.
Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".
Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.
The fact that you continue to argue what your beliefs actually are definitively establishes the fact that you actually have a belief.
A belief is not a religion by itself, Windbag. Religion, by definition, is a system of faith, and the worship of a superhuman/God.
Since I believe trees exist, that's not a religion because I do not worship trees, nor do I think trees have superhuman powers.
A tree is not a deity. Religions deal with deities. Believing in Santa Clause is not comparable to believing in God.Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".
She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.
Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".
Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.
The fact that you continue to argue what your beliefs actually are definitively establishes the fact that you actually have a belief.
A belief is not a religion by itself, Windbag. Religion, by definition, is a system of faith, and the worship of a superhuman/God.
Since I believe trees exist, that's not a religion because I do not worship trees, nor do I think trees have superhuman powers.
DT depends on re-definitions of long accepted definitions to support his unwarranted claims regarding Atheism.
No attempt is being made here to define your beliefs. Your beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Atheism is a religion since it is a denial that deities exist. DT can come up with all the Atheist produced re-definitions of words that he can muster. Neither you, DT nor any other Atheist has license to re-define the definition of Atheism to slant your argument against its being logically considered a religion or for any other reason.
If you have no belief one way or the other whether deities exist, you are an agnostic. If you believe one way or another, you are either a Theist or an Atheist. The beliefs that either of these hold ON FAITH constitutes religious belief.
Whether or not either of the above persons is religious depends on whether he/she participates in or promotes the doctrine of their respective religion. I consider myself religious in that I promote belief in God. I don't go to church often, but many churches are there for me. If you are truly an Atheist, there are churches for you to attend also.
A tree is not a deity. Religions deal with deities. Believing in Santa Clause is not comparable to believing in God.Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".
She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.
Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".
Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.
The fact that you continue to argue what your beliefs actually are definitively establishes the fact that you actually have a belief.
A belief is not a religion by itself, Windbag. Religion, by definition, is a system of faith, and the worship of a superhuman/God.
Since I believe trees exist, that's not a religion because I do not worship trees, nor do I think trees have superhuman powers.
DT depends on re-definitions of long accepted definitions to support his unwarranted claims regarding Atheism.
No attempt is being made here to define your beliefs. Your beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Atheism is a religion since it is a denial that deities exist. DT can come up with all the Atheist produced re-definitions of words that he can muster. Neither you, DT nor any other Atheist has license to re-define the definition of Atheism to slant your argument against its being logically considered a religion or for any other reason.
If you have no belief one way or the other whether deities exist, you are an agnostic. If you believe one way or another, you are either a Theist or an Atheist. The beliefs that either of these hold ON FAITH constitutes religious belief.
Whether or not either of the above persons is religious depends on whether he/she participates in or promotes the doctrine of their respective religion. I consider myself religious in that I promote belief in God. I don't go to church often, but many churches are there for me. If you are truly an Atheist, there are churches for you to attend also.
A tree is not a deity. Religions deal with deities. Believing in Santa Clause is not comparable to believing in God.Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".
She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.
Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".
Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.
The fact that you continue to argue what your beliefs actually are definitively establishes the fact that you actually have a belief.
A belief is not a religion by itself, Windbag. Religion, by definition, is a system of faith, and the worship of a superhuman/God.
Since I believe trees exist, that's not a religion because I do not worship trees, nor do I think trees have superhuman powers.
DT depends on re-definitions of long accepted definitions to support his unwarranted claims regarding Atheism.
No attempt is being made here to define your beliefs. Your beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Atheism is a religion since it is a denial that deities exist. DT can come up with all the Atheist produced re-definitions of words that he can muster. Neither you, DT nor any other Atheist has license to re-define the definition of Atheism to slant your argument against its being logically considered a religion or for any other reason.
If you have no belief one way or the other whether deities exist, you are an agnostic. If you believe one way or another, you are either a Theist or an Atheist. The beliefs that either of these hold ON FAITH constitutes religious belief.
Whether or not either of the above persons is religious depends on whether he/she participates in or promotes the doctrine of their respective religion. I consider myself religious in that I promote belief in God. I don't go to church often, but many churches are there for me. If you are truly an Atheist, there are churches for you to attend also.
asaratis said:A tree is not a deity. Religions deal with deities. Believing in Santa Clause is not comparable to believing in God..
A tree is not a deity. Religions deal with deities. Believing in Santa Clause is not comparable to believing in God.Carla got it is 100% right when she said that no one else can define her "beliefs".
She is correct because if, like me, she has none then no amount of semantics by theists is going alter the facts.
Atheists are not defined as "not believing in God".
Atheists are defined as having a lack of any belief in a deity. Without any belief there can be no religion.
The fact that you continue to argue what your beliefs actually are definitively establishes the fact that you actually have a belief.
A belief is not a religion by itself, Windbag. Religion, by definition, is a system of faith, and the worship of a superhuman/God.
Since I believe trees exist, that's not a religion because I do not worship trees, nor do I think trees have superhuman powers.
DT depends on re-definitions of long accepted definitions to support his unwarranted claims regarding Atheism.
No attempt is being made here to define your beliefs. Your beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Atheism is a religion since it is a denial that deities exist. DT can come up with all the Atheist produced re-definitions of words that he can muster. Neither you, DT nor any other Atheist has license to re-define the definition of Atheism to slant your argument against its being logically considered a religion or for any other reason.
If you have no belief one way or the other whether deities exist, you are an agnostic. If you believe one way or another, you are either a Theist or an Atheist. The beliefs that either of these hold ON FAITH constitutes religious belief.
Whether or not either of the above persons is religious depends on whether he/she participates in or promotes the doctrine of their respective religion. I consider myself religious in that I promote belief in God. I don't go to church often, but many churches are there for me. If you are truly an Atheist, there are churches for you to attend also.
That's totally incorrect, because religion is the belief and worship of a superhuman power. What you're saying is that religion is simply a belief, which is ridiculous. You're making up your own definition.
A belief is not a religion by itself, Windbag. Religion, by definition, is a system of faith, and the worship of a superhuman/God.
Since I believe trees exist, that's not a religion because I do not worship trees, nor do I think trees have superhuman powers.
You make a number of false statements. As usual, your hate and intolerance won't allow you to make rational judgments outside of your cult's indoctrination.
Your religion fits the definition of a cult, BTW.
Christianity is by definition, a cult. CULT - Any group which has a pyramid type authoritarian leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming from the person/persons at the top.
Catholicism falls prey to this. It has a Pope and a structure of Bishops and priests, each a lower level of authority with all the teaching "at the top". By definition, it is a cult.
Let me toss out Scientology here, where all its teaching comes from L Ron Hubbard (Scientology has been decreed a bona fide religion based on .... finances and headcount). I bring this up because its Leader is dead but still the teaching comes from one person at the top.
All Christianity is a cult as well under these strictures. There is a hierarchy of authority not in any way different from Scientology. Jesus is the authority who is dead, as well as the apostle Paul (who really established the founding of Christianity as a religion). But the authority still comes from the "top" through these two individuals who are no more or less dead than L Ron Hubbard (except they have been dead a lot longer). That the religion confers a special status to these two authorities is of no consequence, as Scientologists confer a special status to their "spiritual leader" as well. Neither this fact nor the antiquity of the Christian folk being dead (or for that matter Mohammed or David Koresh or Jim Jones, etc.) is in anyway legitimized one over the other.
BTW, each of these men have made grandiose claims of self-importance, each claiming those who follow different paths are doomed to eternal torment.
How can I make you understand? Most atheists will admit that the most logical position to have is actually an agnostic atheist. Most atheists don't claim to know for certain that there isn't a god. What we know for certain, or at least as certain as we can be, is that the organized religions stories of god are all made up, fake or lies.
So as far as the Christian, Mormon, Muslim, Jewish, Greek God stories? I would still call myself an agnostic atheist but only because I wasn't there. I would say 99.9999% those stories are made up. Since I wasn't there I won't say 100% but pretty freakin sure non the less. We disbelieve enough that we aren't scared into going along with the stories of hell. Lets just put it that way.
Now, as far as there being a generic "creator"? The kind that Boss talks about? The idea that "something" might have created us but has never spoke to anyone and doesn't care about you? That is possible. We don't know what is on the other side of black holes. Maybe our universe was made from god spunk when he used a black hole like a glory hole. How can we say 100% for sure that we were not created by something intelligent? We can't. But, you can't either.
So as far as all the theist stories, we give those a .000001% chance of being true.
Do you believe in magic? Do you think those magicians are really doing magic or is it a trick? If you are like most, you know those are just tricks or illusions. So, is this a religion?
A belief is not a religion by itself, Windbag. Religion, by definition, is a system of faith, and the worship of a superhuman/God.
Since I believe trees exist, that's not a religion because I do not worship trees, nor do I think trees have superhuman powers.
Never said it was, oh she who thinks she can tell others what they believe. What I said is that atheism is a belief. You can attempt to pretend that it isn't all fucking day long, and you will always be fucking wrong.
Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.
It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
You're welcome.You make a number of false statements. As usual, your hate and intolerance won't allow you to make rational judgments outside of your cult's indoctrination.
Your religion fits the definition of a cult, BTW.
Christianity is by definition, a cult. CULT - Any group which has a pyramid type authoritarian leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming from the person/persons at the top.
Catholicism falls prey to this. It has a Pope and a structure of Bishops and priests, each a lower level of authority with all the teaching "at the top". By definition, it is a cult.
Let me toss out Scientology here, where all its teaching comes from L Ron Hubbard (Scientology has been decreed a bona fide religion based on .... finances and headcount). I bring this up because its Leader is dead but still the teaching comes from one person at the top.
All Christianity is a cult as well under these strictures. There is a hierarchy of authority not in any way different from Scientology. Jesus is the authority who is dead, as well as the apostle Paul (who really established the founding of Christianity as a religion). But the authority still comes from the "top" through these two individuals who are no more or less dead than L Ron Hubbard (except they have been dead a lot longer). That the religion confers a special status to these two authorities is of no consequence, as Scientologists confer a special status to their "spiritual leader" as well. Neither this fact nor the antiquity of the Christian folk being dead (or for that matter Mohammed or David Koresh or Jim Jones, etc.) is in anyway legitimized one over the other.
BTW, each of these men have made grandiose claims of self-importance, each claiming those who follow different paths are doomed to eternal torment.
That was hilarious, thanks for the laugh.
Your false claim that atheism is a belief is simply the ranting that you and the other fundie extremists rattle on with, utterly unsupported and indefensible.A belief is not a religion by itself, Windbag. Religion, by definition, is a system of faith, and the worship of a superhuman/God.
Since I believe trees exist, that's not a religion because I do not worship trees, nor do I think trees have superhuman powers.
Never said it was, oh she who thinks she can tell others what they believe. What I said is that atheism is a belief. You can attempt to pretend that it isn't all fucking day long, and you will always be fucking wrong.
How can I make you understand? Most atheists will admit that the most logical position to have is actually an agnostic atheist. Most atheists don't claim to know for certain that there isn't a god. What we know for certain, or at least as certain as we can be, is that the organized religions stories of god are all made up, fake or lies.
Even if you are correct that most, as in more than half, of atheist will admit they don't really know, that does not change the fact that, to be an atheist, you have to believe that there is no god. I know Christians, and Muslims, that will admit they might be wrong about the existence of God or Allah, that does not change the fact that they believe.
On top of that, most is not all. That means that, even if I give you the most generous interpretation of your post possible, you are still arguing against reality.
So as far as the Christian, Mormon, Muslim, Jewish, Greek God stories? I would still call myself an agnostic atheist but only because I wasn't there. I would say 99.9999% those stories are made up. Since I wasn't there I won't say 100% but pretty freakin sure non the less. We disbelieve enough that we aren't scared into going along with the stories of hell. Lets just put it that way.
Now, as far as there being a generic "creator"? The kind that Boss talks about? The idea that "something" might have created us but has never spoke to anyone and doesn't care about you? That is possible. We don't know what is on the other side of black holes. Maybe our universe was made from god spunk when he used a black hole like a glory hole. How can we say 100% for sure that we were not created by something intelligent? We can't. But, you can't either.
So as far as all the theist stories, we give those a .000001% chance of being true.
Do you believe in magic? Do you think those magicians are really doing magic or is it a trick? If you are like most, you know those are just tricks or illusions. So, is this a religion?
Sorry, but what you said is not an expression of disbelief, it was an expression of belief. The fact that you are so stupid you don't understand that fact is not proof you are correct.
Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.
It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
All of your arguments are based on your belief system, which means you are not a person who has a lack of belief. Therefore, all your arguments in favor of defining atheism as a lack of belief are based on the delusion that you lack belief, and are thus untrue.
Don't believe me? Prove that people are born atheists. Keep in mind before you start that I can provide actual scientific studies that prove people are actually born with an neurologically hard wired system that defines them as believers.
Got anything else to say?
Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.
It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
All of your arguments are based on your belief system, which means you are not a person who has a lack of belief. Therefore, all your arguments in favor of defining atheism as a lack of belief are based on the delusion that you lack belief, and are thus untrue.
Don't believe me? Prove that people are born atheists. Keep in mind before you start that I can provide actual scientific studies that prove people are actually born with an neurologically hard wired system that defines them as believers.
Got anything else to say?
You're welcome.
Per standard windbaggery, you can't refute the claim so you're left to stutter and mumble.
Your false claim that atheism is a belief is simply the ranting that you and the other fundie extremists rattle on with, utterly unsupported and indefensible.
That others reject your polytheistic traditions is no excuse to use your beliefs to promote lies and falsehoods.
