Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ampersand]

Fine, I'll take a new stance, make a new point, and end the debate.

Atheism is a religion because the definition of religion is broad enough to include it if one wishes to interpret it as such.

It also doesn't actually matter. Just because something falls under an arbitrary semantical definition some bearded dictionary writer decided on 200 years ago doesn't make it the in any way similar to other things that fall in this definition. It's label like fruit.

All apples are a fruit.
All Oranges are a fruit.

You cannot, with those premises decide that apples and oranges are the same.

Similarly, you can claim that

Atheism is a Religion
Islam is a Religion

Given those premises, you cannot claim that Atheism and Islam are on equal grounds.

Two objects cannot be equated with each other just because they fall within the same set, Like apples and oranges.

To &: Thanks for showing us a new radio show thingy. I was, at one point thinking of moving to Austin, so it was nice to here that something like this existed in what is stereotypically known as Bible-thumper country. Then again, Austin is pretty liberal, and when outnumbered the minority tends to get pretty damn militant. (for lack of a better word, maybe vocal would have been more appropriate.)

Firstly, you're welcome. Secondly, it's a TV show. It's just a little hard to catch outside of Austin's cable services.

[Sergius]

Words have MANY definitions. That was already agreed upon by most people here. One thing that qualifies under the definition of atheism is Godlessness. That is certainly. Note there was a semi colon, not a comma dividing Godlessness and Immortality. Either someone Godless or Immortal fits, but they don't have to be both.

Now that's rich. It turns out that when dictionaries use semicolons to separate a list of definitions, it means that only one of those has to be true, and the rest can be false in all cases. So, for example, if a dictionary says:

Apple: a fruit; a type of locomotive.

The dictionary is accurate, because although an apple is not a type of locomotive, it is however a fruit. Priceless.

Everything you post in this thread amounts to cliches, arguing semantics, misrepresent the opposite opinion; also, water is wet.

It's obvious that you are a dishonest person as you ignore parts of other people's punctuation pretending that they were never there and then use the remaining part out of context. That and I really doubt you believe atheists are immortal.

Immoral. Not immortal. Immoral. I-M-M-O-R-A-L. Lacking in MORALS. Can you even read?

I'm also inclined to believe you are not in fact: a person; you're a parrot. All you ever do is repeat the other person's argument swapping a few words around so that it says the opposite of what they said. The equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?".

I don't expect you to have any semblance of respect to what I say. You don't want to hear it and will ensure you never will.

Actually, if you said things intelligently, and didn't claim other people think atheists are IMMORTAL, and didn't just repeat their same words back to them, and didn't make retarded assertions that semicolons make an entire sentence true as long as any part of the sentence is true, I would respect your opinion even if it was the opposite of mine. As it is, though, you're right in not expecting any respect for what you said.

[Wiles]

Actually, if you said things intelligently, and didn't claim other people think atheists are IMMORTAL

Have you never misspelled a word in your entire life? Should we all aspire to be as perfect and intelligent as you? 

[Earthquake Damage]

Well, either he consistently misspells immoral or he misread the definition as "godlessness; immortality".

[Wiles]

Well, either he consistently misspells immoral or he misread the definition as "godlessness; immortality".

...and?

We have people from all over the world and from various backgrounds and age groups. Just because someone makes mistakes with words does not mean they are stupid.

[Earthquake Damage]

Stupid?  I said nothing of the sort.  I was just noting that it wasn't a single typo.  It was consistent.

Point:  Either he misread the definition, thus misunderstanding, or he keeps accidentally throwing a 't' in there, thus misunderstanding (or whatever you want to call Sergius's post).

[Sergius]

Well, either he consistently misspells immoral or he misread the definition as "godlessness; immortality".

...and?

We have people from all over the world and from various backgrounds and age groups. Just because someone makes mistakes with words does not mean they are stupid.

You missed the point completely. He bases his whole rebuttal on saying: "That and I really doubt you believe atheists are immortal", implying that it's a ridiculous assertion (as opposed to "immoral" which is a commonly held assertion by Christian fundamentalists - note that I used that word REPEATEDLY in my last couple of posts yet he conveniently misread it every time?). What is even more absurd is that I was calling him out on whether whatever the dictionary said was automatically true (which seems to be the basis of his entire argument: atheism is a religion, the Dictionary says so!) which he rebuts with "well you don't believe everything you read in a dictionary do you?".

[Random832]

You should have highlighted the T when calling him out, with bold or an uppercase letter, or just let it drop.

[¿]

I'm also inclined to believe you are not in fact: a person; you're hot air. I already warned:

I'm getting really tired of this and the insults. I give no insults to you other than your own, mind you.

He bases his whole rebuttal on saying: "That and I really doubt you believe atheists are immortal"

That was a serious comment on "immortal". At 11 something PM, words have extra letters, and the definition you gave looked absurd because of that.

The base of a post is generally the biggest part, by the way. It's usually the first part of a post too. As in the part about: words have MANY definitions. I thought you had found a dictionary that gave two fairly different definitions for the same word, although that's not unheard of, and was trying to use that fact as a counterpoint.

Ignoring my misread, where were you going with that definition? Really? 'Godless' and 'Immoral' don't exactly cancel out the one I was using as a base earlier. Just that the dictionary isn't the ultimate word? Well fuck then. I can assign my own meaning to words for the sake of making myself right? What other absolute authority is there on definitions? I really prefer people who pull out a dictionary to settle a dispute rather than just saying that it is.

Everything you post in this thread amounts to cliches, arguing semantics, misrepresent the opposite opinion; also, water is wet.

Ignoring that anyway I'll do this the boring way then since you're getting out of hand:

There's yellow apples.
To make this true, there must be apples that are yellow.
There are, therefore my statement about apples is true.

There's an atheist religion (You know, as in, it is a religion).
To make this true, there must be atheists that qualify as being in a religion centered about atheism.
There are, regardless of how many atheists do not (as you kept saying I was not reading), as long as some do then there are some that do.
Therefore, my statement is true.

Or as YOU SAID YOURSELF with anarchists:

It would create [an] Anarchist organization (oxymoron nonwithstanding).

I'll make one just for you:
Water is wet.
To make this true it must be wet.
It is wet, therefore feel free to get pissy again.

Actually, if you said things intelligently, and didn't claim other people think atheists are IMMORTAL, and didn't just repeat their same words back to them, and didn't make retarded assertions that semicolons make an entire sentence true as long as any part of the sentence is true, I would respect your opinion even if it was the opposite of mine. As it is, though, you're right in not expecting any respect for what you said.

Actually, if you said things intelligently, and didn't claim other people never misread, and didn't just post without addressing the brunt of posts, and didn't make retarded assertions that the way I address some statements is simply because of stupidity, I would respect your opinion even if it was the opposite of mine. As it is, though, I'm right in not expecting any respect for what I said.

Similarly, you can claim that

Atheism is a Religion

And now I've nothing to do. Damn. Thanks a lot Ampersand.

[G-Flex]

Wait,what religion IS centered around atheism?

I mean, I know of religions that are atheistic, but centering your belief system around the fact that you don't believe in this one thing seems weird. I mean, if I don't believe in something, my belief system wouldn't be centered around it at ALL, for obvious reasons.

[Sergius]

You should have highlighted the T when calling him out, with bold or an uppercase letter, or just let it drop.

Alternative, you could open your eyes and notice the bolded letter T.

[Ampersand]

I strongly suggest you just start ignoring him. His arguments are merely mockeries of arguments, with little to no substance behind them. He will never address the heart of your arguments because the can't, or doesn't want to. He'll continue to misinterpret and misquote and misrepresent thoughts and ideas until you fall in line with him. So stop feeding him.

[Sergius]

Squawk!

I give no insults to you other than your own, mind you.

Right.

Ignoring my misread, where were you going with that definition? Really? 'Godless' and 'Immoral' don't exactly cancel out the one I was using as a base earlier. Just that the dictionary isn't the ultimate word? Well fuck then. I can assign my own meaning to words for the sake of making myself right? What other absolute authority is there on definitions? I really prefer people who pull out a dictionary to settle a dispute rather than just saying that it is.

Who says there's a contradiction? Do you know how to read a dictionary? A definition that gives a list separated by semicolons treats them as synonyms. It just sailed right over your head tho: this is ONE definition, in the dictionary, that says that atheism equals immorality. No atheist will accept that as an accurate definition. Just as nobody has to accept the one YOU chose as an accurate definition (a set of beliefs yadda yadda yadda) that then you use to argue semantics because "sets of beliefs" also shows up as part of some definition of religion.

you're getting out of hand

Yawn.

There's an atheist religion (You know, as in, it is a religion).

No.

To make this true, there must be atheists that qualify as being in a religion centered about atheism.

There can be an atheist religion (ex: Buddhism). Atheism cannot be a religion. If some crazy idiot creates the Atheist Church of Iowa, that says nothing about atheism in general. Your requirement for "atheism" to magically become a religion? "They have a website".

There are, regardless of how many atheists do not (as you kept saying I was not reading), as long as some do then there are some that do.
Therefore, my statement is true.

Or as YOU SAID YOURSELF with anarchists:

It would create [an] Anarchist organization (oxymoron nonwithstanding).

The name of the organization? "Anarchist Organization of Organized Anarchists (or whatever) of La La Land". Not "anarchy - The Organization!".

It is wet, therefore feel free to get pissy again.

Cool, now I know you don't know what "therefore" means.

Actually, if you said things intelligently, and didn't claim other people think atheists are IMMORTAL, and didn't just repeat their same words back to them, and didn't make retarded assertions that semicolons make an entire sentence true as long as any part of the sentence is true, I would respect your opinion even if it was the opposite of mine. As it is, though, you're right in not expecting any respect for what you said.

Polly wanna cracker!

Copy + Paste does not equal satire. It's called mimicking. And you've used it against arguments that weren't insults or attacks against you, which was offensive. So don't start crying "but he started it!"

[¿]

Copy + Paste does not equal satire. It's called mimicking.

Who ever heard of a "Parody" anyway?

If some crazy idiot creates the Atheist Church of Iowa, that says nothing about atheism in general. Your requirement for "atheism" to magically become a religion? "They have a website".

It DOES say nothing about Atheism in general. I've already said that. Quite saying that like it's a counter argument. You keep repeating that point over and over and over that it doesn't represent all of atheism. (Hey polly, want a cracker? Who ever heard of a parody, right?) No, it doesn't, but portions of atheists fall under several definitions of "religion" with their atheism.

Listen to this smart man:

I strongly suggest you just start ignoring him. His arguments are merely mockeries of arguments

and stop playing into things. Now even I'm tired of it.

Do you know how to read a dictionary? A definition that gives a list separated by semicolons treats them as synonyms. It just sailed right over your head tho: this is ONE definition, in the dictionary, that says that atheism equals immorality. No atheist will accept that as an accurate definition.

READ

I thought you had found a dictionary that gave two fairly different definitions for the same word, although that's not unheard of, and was trying to use that fact as a counterpoint.

[Earthquake Damage]

I can assign my own meaning to words for the sake of making myself right? What other absolute authority is there on definitions? I really prefer people who pull out a dictionary to settle a dispute rather than just saying that it is.

Sure, you can make up your own definitions to "make yourself right," but that won't "win" an argument nor will it facilitate meaningful discussion.

Also, there is no absolute authority on definitions.  Dictionaries provide common and/or standard definitions for words in the subset of written languages that even have dictionaries.  They're useful as a base when creating a common definition for the purpose of a discussion.  They're also useful when someone appears to be misusing a word according to the standard language, but if all parties agree that "apple" means "the wreckage of a car directly struck by an artillery shell" then that's cool (don't expect newcomers to the conversation to understand what the hell you're talking about, though).

Also, how do you think people communicated before they had dictionaries?