Theists crying over atheist churches

[Gendou_Augustus]

I define religion as the following:

A doctrine of ritual traditions, ceremonies, mythology, and associated dogma of a faith-based belief system which posits a posthumous promise, that some element of ‘self’ (be it a soul, consciousness, or memories, etc.) may, in some sense, continue beyond the death of the physical being.

 

[dandan]

I define religion as the following:

A doctrine of ritual traditions, ceremonies, mythology, and associated dogma of a faith-based belief system which posits a posthumous promise, that some element of ‘self’ (be it a soul, consciousness, or memories, etc.) may, in some sense, continue beyond the death of the physical being.

Given that definition, then atheism is not a religion………..as easy as that

 

[Gendou_Augustus]

Only fanatic atheists care whether if one what to label atheism as religion or not.

Do you want accurate terms? Labeling atheism as a religion, is inaccurate; it equates theism to religion. Which is wrong, because their are many religions that are atheist, even panthesitic in fact, such as Jainism.

 

[Gendou_Augustus]

Given that definition, then atheism is not a religion………..as easy as that

The problem is that not everyone knows that. Some do it as a tu quoque fallacy, calling the silverware black.

 

[dandan]

That's funny.

So LEROY ignored any argument against his views, insulted those who disagreed with him, had an interest in converting others to his world view, was willing to adopt an incoherent or absurd position before granting that an atheist made a good point, and admitted no evidence that would convince him he was wrong... but dandan acted differently?

No, of course not. The same fool's behind all the different usernames. A pile of shit by any other name would smell as rank.

Really can you provide a single example of me ignoring a relevant argument? Can you provide an example of me insulting someone for disagreeing with me? Can you provide an example of me admitting that nothing will change my world view? Have I ever tried to convert you? Can you provide an example of an absurd position taken by me?

 

[*SD*]

Why am I getting a strong sense of Déjà vu...

 

[dandan]

Only fanatic atheists care whether if one what to label atheism as religion or not.

Do you want accurate terms? Labeling atheism as a religion, is inaccurate; it equates theism to religion. Which is wrong, because their are many religions that are atheist, even panthesitic in fact, such as Jainism.

No, in fact I would argue that labeling things is irrelevant, the relevant question is whether if atheism, Jainism, Christianity, etc are true or not……..labeling them as religion or not is in my opinion irrelevant. (but sure it is just a personal opinion)

 

[dandan]

Why am I getting a strong sense of Déjà vu...

Sparhafoc making false accusations, me challenging him to prove his accusations, Sparhafoc ignoring the chanllenge = dejavu

 

[Gendou_Augustus]

Language allows us to communicate. And if we don't do it properly, we can confusion and spread misinformation. Good definitions allow us to spread info that is accurate and correct. Bad definitions, can spread misinformation and give info that is inaccurate, baseless or even mythinfo .

 

[dandan]

Language allows us to communicate. And if we don't do it properly, we can confusion and spread misinformation. Good definitions allow us to spread info that is accurate and correct. Bad definitions, can spread misinformation and give info that is inaccurate, baseless or even mythinfo .

Sure, but you can in theory define atheism and justify atheism regardless if you label it as a religion or not.

You can in theory show that atheism is true, regardless if you label it as a religion or not.



This is why I consider labels unimportant.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Why am I getting a strong sense of Déjà vu...

Sparhafoc making false accusations, me challenging him to prove his accusations, Sparhafoc ignoring the chanllenge = dejavu

LEROY fapping, then fapping some more.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Language allows us to communicate. And if we don't do it properly, we can confusion and spread misinformation. Good definitions allow us to spread info that is accurate and correct. Bad definitions, can spread misinformation and give info that is inaccurate, baseless or even mythinfo .

Given you don't know LEROY, you've just nailed the jelly to the wall.

This is how LEROY tries to evade any form of substantive discussion in every thread he partakes in. He always complains about semantics while trying inanely to smuggle in shit ideas through using woolly language, and when called on it, he starts whining about how everyone just focuses on mere words and meanings.

 

[dandan]

Language allows us to communicate. And if we don't do it properly, we can confusion and spread misinformation. Good definitions allow us to spread info that is accurate and correct. Bad definitions, can spread misinformation and give info that is inaccurate, baseless or even mythinfo .

Given you don't know LEROY, you've just nailed the jelly to the wall.

This is how LEROY tries to evade any form of substantive discussion in every thread he partakes in. He always complains about semantics while trying inanely to smuggle in shit ideas through using woolly language, and when called on it, he starts whining about how everyone just focuses on mere words and meanings.

Aja, and can you provide an example of a discussion that I evade, by complaining about semantics?


Why is it that you can never support your accusations against me?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Aja, and can you provide an example of a discussion that I evade, by complaining about semantics?

Why is it that you can never support your accusations against me?

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=182645#p182645

To paly semantics means that you are making a big deal out of definitions and words, instead of focusing on the argument.

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=182627#p182627

that simply proves that your definition of objetive is different from yours,

when I say that OMV are real I simply mean that there is a metric that exists independently of human opinion. If you dont like to use the term Objetive to describe that idea, feel free to use other words. Once again you are just playing semantics.

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=182587#p182587

I will go back to your last post, where you provided several points, but before doing that I what to make sure that we are talking about the same thing when we use terms like entropy

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=182535#p182535

once again you what to dance with semantics.

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=181200#p181200

why do you have to do this all the time, why is it that you always address semantics and vocabulary, but not the actual point.?

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=181270#p181270

atheist in this forum did it again.....you are focusing on correct semantics instead of focusing in the point that I am making.

In reality, it would be more of a challenge to find a thread where LEROY didn't hide behind semantic games when he got his ass spanked.

Now piss off you miserable little worm.

 

[dandan]

Aja, and can you provide an example of a discussion that I evade, by complaining about semantics?

Why is it that you can never support your accusations against me?

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=182645#p182645

To paly semantics means that you are making a big deal out of definitions and words, instead of focusing on the argument.

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=182627#p182627

that simply proves that your definition of objetive is different from yours,

when I say that OMV are real I simply mean that there is a metric that exists independently of human opinion. If you dont like to use the term Objetive to describe that idea, feel free to use other words. Once again you are just playing semantics.

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=182587#p182587

I will go back to your last post, where you provided several points, but before doing that I what to make sure that we are talking about the same thing when we use terms like entropy

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=182535#p182535

once again you what to dance with semantics.

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=181200#p181200

why do you have to do this all the time, why is it that you always address semantics and vocabulary, but not the actual point.?

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=181270#p181270

atheist in this forum did it again.....you are focusing on correct semantics instead of focusing in the point that I am making.

In reality, it would be more of a challenge to find a thread where LEROY didn't hide behind semantic games when he got his ass spanked.

Now piss off you miserable little worm.

Aja, but none of those where attempts to avoid a discussion, these are all examples of my personal attempts to actually focus on the relevant stuff.

 

[Gnug215]

Aja, but none of those where attempts to avoid a discussion, these are all examples of my personal attempts to actually focus on the relevant stuff.

You offer nothing in here. You don't belong in a place of reason.

Why are you still here?


Hmm... what do you call a question that becomes irrelevant as soon as you ask it?


Pew-pew-permaban.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Aja, but none of those where attempts to avoid a discussion, these are all examples of my personal attempts to actually focus on the relevant stuff.

Whereas, in reality they were just the first handful of posts in LEROY's recent post history and no filter was even needed to find them. Anyone sufficiently bored would be able to find hundreds of examples of LEROY running away from any substantive point of discussion by making up shit in a language he's far from fluent at and demanding people genuflect to his semantic games or else he spends pages depicting them as unreasonable, and depicting them as unreasonable because they're atheists.

Utter scum, every which way you look at it. He wouldn't know honesty if it slapping him round the face.

 

[Jason Boreu]

Aja, but none of those where attempts to avoid a discussion, these are all examples of my personal attempts to actually focus on the relevant stuff.

You offer nothing in here. You don't belong in a place of reason.

Why are you still here?


Hmm... what do you call a question that becomes irrelevant as soon as you ask it?


Pew-pew-permaban.

Why is he still here, i thought you had banned him?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Why is he still here, i thought you had banned him?

Probably whack-a-mole!

 

[Jason Boreu]

Why is he still here, i thought you had banned him?

Probably whack-a-mole!

One would think that after being banned three times on three different accounts one would stop to think what one is doing wrong and try to adjust but not when one is a miserable little worm.