Why Everyone's Bored With Atheists (5 Viewers)

[Ouroboros]

As an atheist, I hold no beliefs related to any god(s). Point out what you believe to be a tautology.
Are you using a "Word a Day Calendar"?

Every definition you've advanced of "evidence" remains a tautology. And once again you dodge any question put to you.

 

[Ouroboros]

You can only lead a horse to water...

Your watering-hole is clearly surrounded by "poison" signs; you've just been drinking from that tainted source so long you can't read them any more.

 

[Ouroboros]

You've failed in your attempt to debate, and refuse to engage in discussion.

You were never debating with all your one sided questions, sealion. So I answer what amuses me and disregard whenever you repeat questions answered.

 

[Ouroboros]

Lacking any evidence all you have is a belief.

Define your criteria for belief, non-tautologically.

 

[Ouroboros]

Perhaps you should look up the definition of tautology.

Why, when you keep giving so many concrere examples?

 

[Ouroboros]

It is YOUR evidence that has been asked for, in support of YOUR claims.

Nope, months ago I asked atheists here for their definition of the evidence they claim to require for any non-materialistic phenomena, and no definition has been forthcoming. I know some atheists have been able to form such definitions, so why can't any of you?

 

[Ouroboros]

But you are lying. Because the definition of atheism is lack of belief in a god. Not believing in a gif isn’t a belief. In the identical way not playing baseball isn’t a sport.

You are going to keep being pounded into the ground by reality as many times as you need.

What word was "gif" supposed to be? The only people using gifs here have been my opponents. But maybe you meant to type "god" as the previous sentence suggests, Once again, the primary M-W def for "belief" is this: "a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing," The thing in which atheists place all of their confidence is scientific materialism, and every one of my opponents here has asked for validation of religion in those terms. Not playing baseball is not predicated on playing basketball, but not believing in gods remains predicated on the false notion that materialism explains all real phenomena.

 

[Ouroboros]

Another strawman lie. So many……

Your clumsy dismissal of religion in societies remains the proof of my statement.

 

[Ouroboros]

Says the King of Strawman Lies.

Again, tell us where you got your Caveman Rotary Club concept.

 

[Ouroboros]

Projection BIGTIME!

What does a "little-time" projection look like in your world? Or do you live in a world where only atheists are allowed to project their falsehoods?

 

[Ouroboros]

Sealioning is a critical term for a form of trolling that involves relentlessly pestering someone with questions and requests (such as for evidence or sources), typically with the goal of upsetting them and making their position or viewpoint seem weak or unreasonable.

Proceed With Caution If You Notice Sealioning

If someone is relentlessly pestering you with questions and requests, they may be sealioning you. Learn more about sealioning (and why this form of trolling is called that) here.

www.dictionary.com

So how many months now have you pestered the atheists for a definition of evidence, even after the question has been answered many many times in versions configurations. And now you have expanded it to include the word “criteria” so that you continue the sealioning in a slightly different form. Your last sentence above: more projection BIGTIME!

Nothing in your definition allows for the fact that the poster so accused has given you a clear source for the required definition. It's true that I predicted you would not look at the source, but that's entirely on you.

 

[Ouroboros]

And I note that you don’t even attempt to show a difference between the primitive and more recent nature-based religions but instead revert to your normal “nuh-uh” answer. Your desperation is always on full display.

The biggest difference of many is that recent animist societies have had no contact with more advanced societies, the sort of societies that did not exist in archaic times. None of the recent societies are in the position of early human societies, that of formulating concepts of gods and spirits for the first time ever. Only a firm believer in materialism would assume that animist societies today were influenced by other religions, particularly in those eras when anthropology did not exist and no independent observers existed to chart those societies' development. I told Michael Cole that weeks ago and he had no more answer than you, just another knee jerk defense of anything that seems to support scientific materialism.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes another “nuh-uh” input, which all of yours have basically become. The answer is because there is not a single viable alternative. If you have one let’s see it. You don’t, because there aren’t any.

You continue to confuse your crude representation of Saussure's "parole" with the principal of "langue" that I have put forth. Here's another reference you'll ignore: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langue_and_parole

 

[Ouroboros]

I did indeed somewhere back there a few months ago. Quit lying and trying to go around in circles.

"Somewhere back" in your projections.

 

[Ouroboros]

That was just Gish Gallop Garbage. Express the final focus of it in a couple of sentences. It’s not worth wading through the trash of those posts to try to find a bit of clear thinking.

I'm not surprised that you can't read an actual sustained argument. Your punky little posts continually prove that brevity is not the sole of wit for atheists.

 

[Ouroboros]

No I said morals are by definition subjective you need to look at the definitions of subjective and morals to understand that

Your revised rules are not binding. If the definition of morality from an established dictionary doesn't support your claim, your claim remains wrong. However, my post 6315 provides a justification for my statement that morality is intersubjective since it stems from universal human problems and the deviations between the moral systems are epiphenomenal.

 

[Ouroboros]

Dictionaries proved my statement correct your inability to comprehend English is your problem not mine
A-bomb is how it begins with a big bang on page
one, a calculator of sorts whose centrifuge
begets bedouin, bamboozle, breakdance, and berserk,
one of my mother's favorite words, hard knock
clerk of clichés that she is, at the moment going ape

Your detour into nonsense remains your problem not mine.

 

[Ouroboros]

More irony
Water, water, every where,
And all the boards did shrink;
Water, water, every where,
Nor any drop to drink.

Talking to atheists is indeed like trying to drink seawater.

 

[Ouroboros]

What a surprise the theist extremist made an ad-hominem but cries and rants about anyone who makes an ad-hominem against them

The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the Mudville nine that day;
The score stood four to two with but one inning more to play.
And then when Cooney died at first, and Barrows did the same,
A sickly silence fell upon the patrons of the game.

A critique of a post is not an ad hominem because a post is not a person, any more than a philosophy. And you still have no evidence (supposedly important to atheists) that I am a theist.

 

[Ouroboros]

More irony

I know my Damsel waits for me
Perhaps chained to some balcony
If I could only find the Key
I could set her free

Repeated if petty failure.

 

[Ouroboros]

This is soooooo cute.

* define "all morality."




The ideal Caveman Rotary Club serves cheesecake. Tainted by cannibalism. Soooooooooooooooooo cute.

Who says atheists have no appreciation for poetry.

Good stuff, man. What's next?

(1) I'm still waiting for you to validate your false paradigm. I repeated my critique of it in post 6512, so you can't make the usual excuse that it's too much trouble to remember it. (2) "Next" SHOULD be any atheist here grappling with the problems they avoid. But if you are asking what will PROBABLY come next, probably another dippy accusation of theism.

 

[Ouroboros]

That's why "a picture is worth a thousand words"

Atheists may not believe in gods but some of them place all their faith in gifs.

 

[Ouroboros]

What makes mine a fake definition other than your opinion?

As is your simple name calling of my philosophical position. The only difference is I'm not so frail as to have to hide behind this silly pretense.

Another opinion. When will we get to you making an actual rational argument?

What makes it objective? What do you make of us disagreeing on what may or may not be prudent?

And what if you don't care about the maintenence of said society or you care about other peoples lives more than your own? It's like you don't understand what subjective or objective even mean....

Just like the motivations of slaver societies aren't concerned with the motivations of their slaves, but the slaves are. Welcome to subjectivity.

Are you noting desperation or make believing it for the sake of your frail argument? If your argument can't maintain consistency over questioning it can't be very good, can it?

The name calling isn't my argument, the subjective nature of society is.

I already explained I was talking about evidence in the context of you understanding the operation of a thing. The evidence that you found a thing is to produce that thing.

I am. And I'm happy with these counter arguments of yours.

(1) The actual meaning of "ad hominem" is all the proof required. (2) You're still the one playing mind-reader when you impute psychological faults to others without material evidence. Evidence is supposedly important to atheists, until it isn't. But please continue to condemn yourself out of your own mouth. (3) Your arbitrary separation of the objective and the subjective remains your non-rational argument. You should go back to that, though, since you've already lost the ad hominem thing. (4) Your proposition that rapists and rape-victims have equivalent subjectivities invalidates your disagreement by virtue of the proposition's nonsensical content. (5) The disregard you describe is purely subjective, unlike the objectively based ideals of an organized society. (6) Now, organized societies can make mistakes based on subjective ideals as much as individuals. But the objective needs for societal defense still establish a need for its citizens' prudence over pure subjectivity, and the slaves' desire to escape bondage does not annul that societal need. The slave who wants freedom does not want the total anarchy of subjective rule; he wants to join the society and have access to the rules that govern societal membership. (7) You are in no position to critique anyone's consistency after equating the rapist's desire to rape and the victim's desire not to be raped-- a conflict which gives birth to the objective need for social controls of the rapist's purely subjective desires. (8) Your lack of understanding of the equivalence of the different sciences is a "you thing." (9) If you were truly happy you wouldn't continue advancing nonsensical content, because it shows your desperation.

 

[Individual]

Nope, months ago I asked atheists here for their definition of the evidence they claim to require for any non-materialistic phenomena, and no definition has been forthcoming. I know some atheists have been able to form such definitions, so why can't any of you?

Not quite what you been asking, but go ahead and state what non-materialistic phenomena you're talking about.
State your question clearly and concisely and I'll try to answer it clearly and concisely.

 

[Individual]

Why, when you keep giving so many concrere examples?

Your response is exactly why.