| JWeinCom said:
i'll give an analogy - there is a group of fruits called citrus fruits but below that we have oranges, lemons etc
here we move from more abstract to more specific do you understand now? or are you still having trouble grasping how what you posted makes no sense Which is what I said when I said they are subsets of the same groups, and you criticised it. W/e though. Not worth discussing. well its not and you saying that its not doesn't change reality unfortunately You said all humanists are atheists. Please explain how that is not a bad generalization. as i said this is the reason why only atheistic humanism is mentioned in definitions because it started as an atheistic idea and eeven after all this time most of its adherents subscribe to the atheistic pov
its also why the main humanist organisations are secular Atheistic humanism was not mentioned in any definition. Secular humanis was mentioned in some. Secular and atheist are not the same thing. lol no all you've done is demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of abstraction Nah man. You don't get to say something blatantly false then say "it's a generalization". That's what you've done this whole time. You've somehow abstracted things to the point where huanism paganism atheism and antitheism are the same thing. We don't use generalizations in debate, and the link I gave you on logical fallacies explains why.
"You said ALL humanists are atheists" no i didn't at any time post that quote where i've done so Absolutely good sir! Because you see, I don't make up bullshit, and I don't lie about what people have or haven't said. You apparently not only lie about what I said, but about what you said as well.
"therefore (sic) all humanists are also atheists" There. You said it. A direct quote :). I guess maybe it was so stupid that you couldn't imagine you'd actually said it, but you did. All humanists are also atheists. And that ties in to what I said before about your generalization being incredibly stupid. Now, do yourself a favor instead of digging yourself deeper into your pile of bullshit. Just admit you said it, admit it was wrong, and move on. We all say stupid shit sometimes, and I've done so on many occasions. I'm not going to hold that against you. The constant dishonesty though is a bad trait that you should drop. lol i'll skip your ridiculously amusing attempts to justifiy discarding dictionary definitions for words here Yeah. I mean, I'd probably skip it too if I had no argument to back me up. But, at least do me this courtesy. If we shouldn't discard dictionary definitions, that you just discarded the ones I presented from Oxford and Webster? Dictionary.com 2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Webster
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
Oxford English Dictionary Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. So if we can't discard a dictionary definitions, then I guess this definition has to be viewed as correct, and then you agree with me that "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." Is the correct definition of atheism. Thank you for your agreement.
Yeah, unless you can think of a compelling reason why a primary source shouldn't be trusted, then you should. Is there a good reason not to accept the definition provided by atheists and the Oxford English dictionary? ah yes because people are always honest about what they believe with regards to conveying their ideas to outsiders... very good advice sir
the aryan guy isn't just going to say something about preserving his racial heritage while ommitting all of the negative aspects much like the rebranding you postedT Don't want to get into a whole thing about the Aryan Brotherhood is a gang that has been quite honest about what you would probably consider the negative aspects of the Aryan people. But that's not the point. The point is atheists. Is there a reason that we should not take the atheist definition of atheism, which is also listed in the dictionary? these groups all realise that in order to grow their numbers and influence that they have to make their ideas as palatable to outsiders as possible
the average person would look at a statement like "there is no god" and say well that's fucking retarded ( although i'm sure that eventually atheistic ideas are going to become more and more common and influencial and not because of "rationality" ) If the position is so retarded, why do you suppose atheists believe it? Do you think atheists are fucking retarded? Do you have any reason to suggest that all of the atheist organizations and Oxford English dictionary are lying? If you want to ignore the dictionary definition and the atheist definition, fine. Present a compelling reason (meaning evidence) that atheists are being dishonest. If not, then you owe me, and the atheist community at large, another apology. By the way, I noticed you did not correct yourself or apologize for accusing me of attacking all theists are blind followers. Nor have you been able to provide an instance where I did. If you claimed that I said something I did not say, please back it up with some evidence. If you cannot, then you lied, intentionally or not, and misrepresented me. As a simple matter of human decency (thou shalt not bear false witness btw) you should apologize to a person in that situation.
original argument stop being so damn lazy and do some research with the intent this time to actually get to the root instead of taking the path of least resistance with confirmation bias How about if you make a claim you back it up? I've provided you with evidence from multiple sources, none of which you'd been able to contradict. I have done the research and presented it. By your own admission (and I can quote this as well if need be), you could not contradict the quotes I've provided regarding Hitler's beliefs, nor can you dispute that the laws of Nazi Gerany forbade any speech besmirching Jesus. Meanwhile, you not only refuse to present one piece of evidence that has said anything about Hitler being an atheist, and you will not even, despite 7 previous attempts, clearly define your position. The only reason I can think of for your complete willingness to clarify your opinion is that you realize that you cannot defend it. Now, you have the right to be as wrong as you like in your head. However, if you present something in a public forum such as this one, you are responsible for defending it. If you can't, just admit you can't. It's fine. I've also made claims I couldn't defend. And when called on it, I simply said, "oh I can't defend that" and moved on. Edit: But at least now when talking about atheistic regimes you went for the Russia example instead of Nazi Germany, so apparently you are learning, even if you won't admit to being wrong. :) |
"W/e though. Not worth discussing."
yes because you realised that you were wrong it was worth discussing though when you brought it up
"You said they are distinct groups, but now you want to call them one group (take the adherents collevtively). congratulations on completely contradicting yourself."
i was explaining how this is not contradictory do you get it now?
"Atheistic humanism was not mentioned in any definition."
a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values;especially : a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason
"a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism"
""therefore (sic) all humanists are also atheists"
There. You said it. A direct quote :). "
all right fair enough i was thinking of its origins but i will gladly admit that i was wrong to post that
"lol i'll skip your ridiculously amusing attempts to justifiy discarding dictionary definitions for words here
Yeah. I mean, I'd probably skip it too if I had no argument to back me up."
yeah no argument like that being the primary purpose that we use dictionaries lol please stop
"Yeah, unless you can think of a compelling reason why a primary source shouldn't be trusted, then you should."
and i presented one ( which to anyone with a modicum of common sense should be apparent )with an example for this particular context
"If the position is so retarded"
your reading comprehension is slipping again i didn't say that it was; i said to the average person it is
"the average person would look at a statement like "there is no god" and say well that's fucking retarded"
"By the way, I noticed you did not correct yourself or apologize for accusing me of attacking all theists are blind followers. "
and i have no intention to do so... i personally don't see how you can support atheism and be offended by that since that is pretty much the most pervasive idea in the movement
which makes me wonder if you are simply attempting to be dishonest here but whatever
" By your own admission (and I can quote this as well if need be), you could not contradict the quotes I've provided regarding Hitler's beliefs"
i posted various articles that are in direct opposition to your claims that christianity was the motivation behind his movement and that it was instead motivated by an older pagan religion if you choose to dismiss then that's your prerogative
as i conceded yes he appears to be associated with christianity in various ways but as i said there is also various evidence that the movement was inspired by an older religion
"But at least now when talking about atheistic regimes you went for the Russia example instead of Nazi Germany"
no i still stand by what i said but the overall point is that atheism makes people no more moral or causes less suffering than any other ideology which seems to be a belief that is pervasive among atheists
