Why do some DP theists always choose willful ignorance?

[Dragonfly]

Apparently you do...you're the one who started a thread whining about it, not me...

Clearly post count is all that matters to you. Maybe one day you’ll contribute something worth discussing. Maybe.

 

[Daisy]

Clearly post count is all that matters to you. Maybe one day you’ll contribute something worth discussing. Maybe.

Only with those worth discussing with...

 

[Dragonfly]

Only with those worth discussing with...

Then leave here and go find a JW forum.

 

[Daisy]

Then leave here and go find a JW website.

Don't tell me what to do...

 

[Dragonfly]

Don't tell me what to do...

Leave my thread.

 

[Daisy]

Leave my thread.

I'll leave when I feel like it...

 

[Dragonfly]

I'll leave when I feel like it...

And I’m sure at no point you’ll actually address the topic. Cowardly on every level.

 

[Daisy]

And I’m sure at no point you’ll actually address the topic. Cowardly on every level.

Sure did...you just did not like I said...

 

[Ren]

When it comes to “atheism“ and/or “atheist”, why do some theists at DP constantly and repeatedly chose willful ignorance over facts?

We’ve explained hundreds of times what the basic definition of those words mean, yet every new thread reveals undeniable willful ignorance from theists.

There’s been entire threads devoted to definitions.
It’s been stated hundreds of times, in hundreds of threads. Often to the exact same theists.

Yet some theists here still chose to get it WRONG in every damn thread that’s created.

Why?

As a theist, why can’t you accept a basic and simple definition?
Why chose willful ignorance when presented with facts and definitions?
Especially when it’s information and definitions coming from actual atheists?

Why is it so difficult to accept a very simple concept?
It’s a verifiable fact that the majority of people on planet Earth don’t believe in the “god” YOU believe in.
So why is it so hard to understand that some people don’t believe in any god at all?

Why do you willfully chose to ignore what you’re told?
Also, why do you chose to make up ridiculous nonsense to support your willful ignorance?
For example, “Russia/Putin is a perfect representation of atheistic ideology.“

Is this how organized religion trains one to think?

Here are some simple definitions: If you have a penis, you're a man or a boy; if you have a vagina you're a woman or a girl.

 

[Dragonfly]

Here are some simple definitions: If you have a penis, you're a man or a boy; if you have a vagina you're a woman or a girl.

A deflection that’s completely off-topic. Not even remotely shocking, yet a perfect example of willful ignorance.

 

[Ren]

A deflection that’s completely off-topic. Not even remotely shocking, yet a perfect example of willful ignorance.

This is basic shit, DF. You're not getting a pass on this.

 

[Dragonfly]

This is basic shit, DF. You're not getting a pass on this.

Yes, post #34 is pure shit.

I don’t need a pass.

 

[Ren]

Yes, post #34 is pure shit.

I don’t need a pass.

No, YOUR post is what's shit.

You're trying to foist YOUR idea of facts on other people, and that shit don't fly in these parts.

 

[EdwinWillers]

No.

I see theists repeatedly ignoring the most basic definition of what atheism is, and/or what atheists are.

Do you know what the word “atheist” means?

I do.

"A" the Greek negative + "Theist" or, "not a Theist." An "atheist" is "not a theist." A "theist" being someone who believes in a supernatural being, or God - ergo, atheists are those who do not believe in a supernatural being, or God, or any plurality of same. So you're right - it's actually very simple and straightforward.

But then, in your own OP, you dredge up this example as proof people don't know what atheism is: “Russia/Putin is a perfect representation of atheistic ideology.“

Now, I wasn't privy to that particular discussion or its context, but on its face I see no reason why it's generating such consternation in you. Putin, tmk, is not a theist, and Russia, only recently having dissolved its Soviet Socialist ties remains quite steeped in its atheist beliefs. So, "where's the beef?"

 

[Somerville]

I do.

"A" the Greek negative + "Theist" or, "not a Theist." An "atheist" is "not a theist." A "theist" being someone who believes in a supernatural being, or God - ergo, atheists are those who do not believe in a supernatural being, or God, or any plurality of same. So you're right - it's actually very simple and straightforward.

But then, in your own OP, you dredge up this example as proof people don't know what atheism is: “Russia/Putin is a perfect representation of atheistic ideology.“

Now, I wasn't privy to that particular discussion or its context, but on its face I see no reason why it's generating such consternation in you. Putin, tmk, is not a theist, and Russia, only recently having dissolved its Soviet Socialist ties remains quite steeped in its atheist beliefs. So, "where's the beef?"

One must wonder what websites you read, or which 'news' channels you kneel down before - because it is not any kind of hidden knowledge that Putin is good buddies with the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Why is Russia's church backing Putin's war? Church-state history gives a clue​

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the leader of the Russian Orthodox Church has defended Russia’s actions and blamed the conflict on the West.

Patriarch Kirill’s support for the invasion of a country where millions of people belong to his own church has led critics to conclude that Orthodox leadership has become little more than an arm of the state – and that this is the role it usually plays.

The reality is much more complicated. The relationship between Russian church and state has undergone profound historical transformations, not least in the past century – a focus of my work as a scholar of Eastern Orthodoxy. The church’s current support for the Kremlin is not inevitable or predestined, but a deliberate decision that needs to be understood.

Soviet shifts​

For centuries, leaders in Byzantium and Russia prized the idea of church and state working harmoniously together in “symphony” – unlike their more competitive relationships in some Western countries.
[. . .]
Churchmen grew to resent the state’s interference. They did not defend the monarchy in its final hour during the February Revolution of 1917, hoping it would lead to a “free church in a free state.”

The Bolsheviks who seized power, however, embraced a militant atheism that sought to secularize society completely. They regarded the church as a threat because of its ties to the old regime.
[. . .]
The dissolution of the Soviet Union brought yet another complete reversal. The church was suddenly free, yet facing enormous challenges after decades of suppression.
[. . .]
The first post-Soviet head of the church, Patriarch Aleksy II, maintained his distance from politicians. Initially, they were not very responsive to the church’s goals – including Vladimir Putin in his first two terms between 2000 and 2008. Yet in more recent years, the president has embraced Russian Orthodoxy as a cornerstone of post-Soviet identity, and relations between church and state leadership have changed significantly since Kirill became patriarch in 2009. He quickly succeeded in securing the return of church property from the state, religious instruction in public schools and military chaplains in the armed forces.

Looks like Putin has done what some American politicians wish to do in the US - Embrace Christianity as a cornerstone of post-liberal American identity. Put religious instruction in public schools. Little wonder some of the talking heads on our TVs haven't been too strong in calling out Putin's aggression.

 

[EdwinWillers]

One must wonder what websites you read, or which 'news' channels you kneel down before - because it is not any kind of hidden knowledge that Putin is good buddies with the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Looks like Putin has done what some American politicians wish to do in the US - Embrace Christianity as a cornerstone of post-liberal American identity. Put religious instruction in public schools. Little wonder some of the talking heads on our TVs haven't been too strong in calling out Putin's aggression.

What 'news' channels I bow down to? A tad hyperbolic don't you think?

And is it your contention then that Putin is in fact a Christian?

Since when does being a "buddy" with someone in the church - any church - make one a member of that church? The flaw in your thinking and logic is so vast, it's beyond repair.

Here's a good expose on Putin's relationship with the Russian Orthodox church - it comes from an unassailable source:

How Putin Uses Russian Orthodoxy to Grow His Empire

When Vladimir Putin rose to the presidency of Russia in 2000, he inherited the remains of a once-fearsome communist-atheist imperial state. In the intervening 19 years, he has transformed Russia back into an imperial power with global ambitions. One of his key tools in that transformation has...

www.heritage.org

And here's the last line of that expose: Putin’s use of traditional Christianity is calculated for political effect. American and European observers would do well to see through the charade.

I would imagine you too would do well to see the propaganda for exactly what it is, because your current take on things is embarrassingly small.

 

[Daisy]

Since when does being a "buddy" with someone in the church - any church - make one a member of that church? The flaw in your thinking and logic is so vast, it's beyond repair.

Yep...

"Standing in a garage no more makes you a car than standing in a church makes you a Christian.“ — Woody Allen

 

[EdwinWillers]

Yep...

"Standing in a garage no more makes you a car than standing in a church makes you a Christian.“ — Woody Allen

Precisely - and particularly when it's well-known that Putin's only presence in a church is generally on Christmas - and then only for the theater of it.

 

[Daisy]

Precisely - and particularly when it's well-known that Putin's only presence in a church is generally on Christmas - and then only for the theater of it.

Agreed...don't know why some people can't get that through their thick heads...being a Christian involves more than just a title...

 

[it's just me]

When it comes to “atheism“ and/or “atheist”, why do some theists at DP constantly and repeatedly chose willful ignorance over facts?

We’ve explained hundreds of times what the basic definition of those words mean, yet every new thread reveals undeniable willful ignorance from theists.

There’s been entire threads devoted to definitions.
It’s been stated hundreds of times, in hundreds of threads. Often to the exact same theists.

Yet some theists here still chose to get it WRONG in every damn thread that’s created.

Why?

As a theist, why can’t you accept a basic and simple definition?
Why chose willful ignorance when presented with facts and definitions?
Especially when it’s information and definitions coming from actual atheists?

Why is it so difficult to accept a very simple concept?
It’s a verifiable fact that the majority of people on planet Earth don’t believe in the “god” YOU believe in.
So why is it so hard to understand that some people don’t believe in any god at all?

Why do you willfully chose to ignore what you’re told?
Also, why do you chose to make up ridiculous nonsense to support your willful ignorance?
For example, “Russia/Putin is a perfect representation of atheistic ideology.“

Is this how organized religion trains one to think?

We KNOW what your words mean, what we want to know is why we need to listen to some arrogant assed atheist preach their bullshit. You dont have the faintest idea of what Christianity is about and you never will and you think you can tell us what we should believe.

Go bitch to someone who cares.

 

[it's just me]

Critical thinking and religious belief are mortal enemies. Organized religion does not train one to think. It hypnotizes one to unquestionably accept by preying on people's weaknesses and instilling fear of disobedience. For believers to confront any falsehood in their dogma means all of what they believe is false, that they will die and not spend eternity in a paradise in the company of their god, and that their god does not exist. It would shatter them.

Atheism and humility are mortal enemies.

 

[devildavid]

Atheism and humility are mortal enemies.

Looks like you share a mortal enemy with atheism.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

I can only think that some people think that they are Special and/or They can't accept the fact that they (horrible thought)
will not be in existence someday.

Hey, I'd like to live forever but it's-not-to-be.

I believe your Eternal Energy will go on forever. Much as a wave goes on forever. Is it "alive"? Maybe not. Not biologically alive. But its eternal. Is gravity alive?
I do not believe your ego will "live forever".
But these are just my personal beliefs and "hunches", worthless to anyone that isnt me I guess.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Here are some simple definitions: If you have a penis, you're a man or a boy; if you have a vagina you're a woman or a girl.

Basically. There are a few anomalies, but not a substantial percentage. Most are male or female. The vast majority. And then there is Lindsey Graham.

 

[it's just me]

Looks like you share a mortal enemy with atheism.

Just this once why dont you say something that actually adds to the discussion instead of cheap and stupid ad hominems?