Originally posted by googlefudge
I have written two posts to you since that train wreck you expect me to understand
and in both of them I made it abundantly clear that I had not the foggiest what point
you were trying to make. I am not trying to have it both ways, I am entirely consistently
having it one way.
Your post was an incoherent mess and I have no clue what your point i ...[text shortened]... f
consistency.
If you can't see that then you are simply to illiterate to communicate with.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
08 Jun 16
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOne of the many problems you suffer from, and the list is near endless, is the mistaken
Not self-described nor understood.
You're not making the atheists look very thoughtful.
belief that the definition of atheist should include a reason for why a person is an atheist.
Atheists are atheists for many many different reasons, some good and some bad.
However how good the reason is is irrelevant to whether they are an atheist or not.
Just as I would argue there are no good reasons period, for being a theist... And yet
huge numbers of people are theists.
It is unfortunately relevant in this day and age that there are people who believe that a
god or gods exist, and there are those that do not hold such a belief.
We label the first of these groups theists, and the other atheists.
That is all the definitions of the word do.
If you want reasons for why a person is in a particular camp then you have to ask that person
because theist or atheist they will all give different answers. And just because one person
doesn't have a reason or hasn't thought about it or has a bad reason is no indicator whatsoever
that everyone else in the group is the same.
That is why you theists should not be so terrified of admitting that babies are atheists, it
does nothing to strengthen our position, it just is. They lack belief in gods and are not
theists and so they must be atheists.
However their implicit atheism due to ignorance and incomprehension says nothing about
why I am an atheist being neither ignorant nor finding the topic incomprehensible.
I/we on these forums answer the question of why we are atheists over and over again while
clearly proving that we have thought about the topic a great deal.
For you to come along and claim that because not all atheists have considered the issue in
detail and that because you are not required to have thought about the topic in detail to be an
atheist is both deeply dishonest and deeply stupid.
But then of course those are your hallmarks.
Originally posted by googlefudgeNo matter how long you've railed in your holy war to change the definition of the word, the rest of the world trudges on burdened with the ol' tried and true meaning.
I have written two posts to you since that train wreck you expect me to understand
and in both of them I made it abundantly clear that I had not the foggiest what point
you were trying to make. I am not trying to have it both ways, I am entirely consistently
having it one way.
Your post was an incoherent mess and I have no clue what your point i ...[text shortened]... f
consistency.
If you can't see that then you are simply to illiterate to communicate with.
Your inarticulate attempt to place the words just so only serves to emphasize the silliness of your goal.
A theist is a theist because on the issue of God, he accepts Him as true.
An atheist is an atheist because on the issue of God, he rejects Him as true.
This is the normative, commonly-held definition of the terms and no amount of hand waving or temper tantrums by the likes of you or anyone from your funny little group is going to change it.
Move on, son.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
08 Jun 16
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHistory teaches no such thing.
Your belief is ill-placed.
History teaches that man has always had a spiritual mind which understands deity.
It's a good thing you didn't go looking: you would have wasted a great deal of time.
More to the point, I know for a fact that I have not got a spiritual mind.
I have never ever believed in any god or gods at any point to any degree.
[and I know a great many atheists who will say the same thing]
For your claim to be true, that could not be the case... As it is the case
your claim cannot be true.
Originally posted by googlefudgeThose are words, to be sure.
One of the many problems you suffer from, and the list is near endless, is the mistaken
belief that the definition of atheist should include a reason for why a person is an atheist.
Atheists are atheists for many many different reasons, some good and some bad.
However how good the reason is is irrelevant to whether they are an atheist or not.
Ju ...[text shortened]... eist is both deeply dishonest and deeply stupid.
But then of course those are your hallmarks.
What you are aching to say, well, that part's a little fuzzy.
Take another swing, this time try making sense of your thoughts and express it clearly, will you?
I contend that it requires thought to be either a theist or an atheist, as the positions are both conclusive in nature.
Unlike a person's citizenship which, although it can be consciously changed, is otherwise involuntary, all of us at some point in our lives will come to grips with the idea of God... and make our decisions accordingly.
To lump atheist as a term into the realm of those unable to form cogent thought is a disservice and insult to those who consciously and with great deliberation make that mistake otherwise.
You really need to think things through a lot better.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
08 Jun 16
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFirst words change meanings all the time with usage. So your argument that words should
No matter how long you've railed in your holy war to change the definition of the word, the rest of the world trudges on burdened with the ol' tried and true meaning.
Your inarticulate attempt to place the words just so only serves to emphasize the silliness of your goal.
A theist is a theist because on the issue of God, he accepts Him as true.
An at ...[text shortened]... y the likes of you or anyone from your funny little group is going to change it.
Move on, son.
and will remain with their 'old' meanings is just wrong on the face of it.
That is why dictionaries update their meanings regularly as meanings and usage changes.
Second, along with being idiotically gender biased [all atheists are not "he", moron] you also
make the classic Christian mistake of stupidly defining atheism with respect to the singular
capitalised Christian "God"... Atheists do not 'reject "God"... We lack belief or believe in the
lack of any and all gods. Under your stupid definition anyone who is not a Christian would be
an atheist... Which is how many old dictionaries [written by Christians] described atheism.
However it is clearly stupid to call all Hindus and Muslims and every other non-Christian
religious person an atheist.
Thirdly, atheists and atheist societies are the only people qualified to define what it means to
be an atheist. And we have spoken, and the definition we use is the one I have presented.
That IS what atheist means.
This is the normative, commonly-held definition of the terms and no amount of hand waving or temper tantrums by the likes of you or anyone from your funny little group is going to change it.
Um, actually the dictionary definitions are updating to accept this as atheists increase in numbers
and prominence and they realise the old bigoted Christian definitions are wrong.
The OED for example has changed in the last decade, and others have followed. Most of the ones
that have not are American dictionaries still under Christian thrall... On which subject, the
definition I use IS the standard usage in the UK. The fact that over in backwards ass USA you
haven't picked up on it yet doesn't change that fact.
So not only are you wrong that this is not common use, because it is, you are also wrong to claim
that we cannot change it to be common usage, because we are doing just that.
And as our numbers grow, which they are doing rapidly, that change will only come faster.
Whether you like it or not.
Originally posted by googlefudgeHistory teaches no such thing?
History teaches no such thing.
More to the point, I know for a fact that I have not got a spiritual mind.
I have never ever believed in any god or gods at any point to any degree.
[and I know a great many atheists who will say the same thing]
For your claim to be true, that could not be the case... As it is the case
your claim cannot be true.
Well, then it should be an easy point for you to find the group of people from any phase of human history which had no concept of deity.
I contend you are unable to do any such thing, and I am emboldened in such a challenge knowing how each time you've been asked to, you've failed.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
08 Jun 16
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI am thinking clearly. You however lack the intelligence of a fruit fly.
Those are words, to be sure.
What you are aching to say, well, that part's a little fuzzy.
Take another swing, this time try making sense of your thoughts and express it clearly, will you?
I contend that it requires thought to be either a theist or an atheist, as the positions are both conclusive in nature.
Unlike a person's citizenship which, alt ...[text shortened]... tion make that mistake otherwise.
You really need to think things through a lot better.
I've made my points, and I'm not going in any more circles with you.
You can flail in the darkness on your own.
Originally posted by googlefudgeOf course words change in meaning all the time; no one is denying that reality.
First words change meanings all the time with usage. So your argument that words should
and will remain with their 'old' meanings is just wrong on the face of it.
That is why dictionaries update their meanings regularly as meanings and usage changes.
Second, along with being idiotically gender biased [all atheists are not "he", moron] you also
ma ...[text shortened]... which they are doing rapidly, that change will only come faster.
Whether you like it or not.
To support your comment, one needs to look no further than "faggot" or "gay" as proof.
But that's not your point, I hope.
I would hope that you aren't resting on that small precipice to make a case for this attempt at changing the meaning of the term.
What you are suggesting that if a group of people assert themselves aggressively enough, they can effectively change the minds of those around them.
That's politics, not an increase in knowledge.
Words and the definitions thereof, ought to be the domain of thinkers, not tinkerers.
The terms we are here considering have definitions which are based on philosophy and theology, but you are suggesting we should acquiesce to your grassroots efforts and change the meaning because you don't like the current one.
The current one is actually based on knowledge, and how man understands himself.
You wish the rest of the world to believe that man doesn't understand himself in this manner, that some new understanding has come into play which renders the old definition obsolete and is now replaced with this better, more accurate meaning.
You're wrong, of course.
Only a small group thinks otherwise, and thus far, the group has failed to provide any support for the change.
So you're left to affecting change the old fashioned way: politics and power plays.
Best of luck with that.
Gender based language is appropriate whenever and where ever people are speaking with other people.
As the base of the human race is man, this is the unit of measure.
Man and woman are represented by man, not because penises are better, but because he is the one in charge.
You obviously have a problem with man being in the lead, but that speaks more to you than any reflection on reality.
You can continue your attempts to correct those around you for their continued use of man as the unit, but you're not likely to get much done.
Originally posted by googlefudge
One of the many problems you suffer from, and the list is near endless, is the mistaken
belief that the definition of atheist should include a reason for why a person is an atheist.
Atheists are atheists for many many different reasons, some good and some bad.
However how good the reason is is irrelevant to whether they are an atheist or not.
Ju ...[text shortened]... eist is both deeply dishonest and deeply stupid.
But then of course those are your hallmarks.
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou however lack the intelligence of a fruit fly.
I am thinking clearly. You however lack the intelligence of a fruit fly.
I've made my points, and I'm not going in any more circles with you.
You can flail in the darkness on your own.
So I'm a fruit fly atheist?
Did I get it right?
Is that how your club wants to play?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
09 Jun 16
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOh that's fantastic... I couldn't have hoped for a better demonstration of the sexist misogynistic roots of
Gender based language is appropriate whenever and where ever people are speaking with other people.
As the base of the human race is man, this is the unit of measure.
Man and woman are represented by man, not because penises are better, but because he is the one in charge.
You obviously have a problem with man being in the ...[text shortened]... e around you for their continued use of man as the unit, but you're not likely to get much done.
gender based language and why adopting gender neutral language is important.
That is totally going into my archive to be brought out any time someone questions whether gender based
language is an issue to show them what they are arguing for and what they sound like.
I will indeed correct those around me who continue to used sexist gender based language, and with your
help I have no doubt more will see the light.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell said.......
No matter how long you've railed in your holy war to change the definition of the word, the rest of the world trudges on burdened with the ol' tried and true meaning.
Your inarticulate attempt to place the words just so only serves to emphasize the silliness of your goal.
A theist is a theist because on the issue of God, he accepts Him as true.
An at ...[text shortened]... y the likes of you or anyone from your funny little group is going to change it.
Move on, son.
09 Jun 16
Originally posted by googlefudgeIf there is no God,
Oh that's fantastic... I couldn't have hoped for a better demonstration of the sexist misogynistic roots of
gender based language and why adopting gender neutral language is important.
That is totally going into my archive to be brought out any time someone questions whether gender based
language is an issue to show them what they are arguing for and ...[text shortened]... to used sexist gender based language, and with your
help I have no doubt more will see the light.
why in the world dwell upon the possibility that He does
[exist in three distinct persons who share identical divine attributes:
God the Father;
God the Son;
and God the Holy Spirit]?
_____________
Originally posted by googlefudge
"I have no doubt more will see the light."
As do I......
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
09 Jun 16
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThat is because you are deluded. You do not peddle light, you peddle darkness.
If there is no God,
why in the world dwell upon the possibility that He does
[exist in three distinct persons who share identical divine attributes:
God the Father;
God the Son;
and God the Holy Spirit]?
_____________
Originally posted by googlefudge
"I have no doubt more will see the light."
As do I......
The same darkness that gave "the dark ages" their name.