Why Everyone's Bored With Atheists

[Ouroboros]

Perhaps English is not your native language?

What stunning originality, not.

 

[Ouroboros]

Lacking any argument in support of your claim suffices.

You keep proving the OP claims every time you post, particularly the part where you immorally violate the atheist credo of providing evidence.

 

[Ouroboros]

We find no need to create evidence without a reason.

All I've asked you to do is define evidence accurately, without resorting to tautologies. Since you cannot, clearly you're the one who wants evidence to be whatever you claim it is.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yep

Lol. This is the definition I am using. Straight from M-W

a
: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

Definition of ATHEISM

a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods; a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods; godlessness especially in conduct : ungodliness, wickedness… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

I will continue to point out that lacking belief in a god or gods is by definition, not a belief. The same way not playing baseball isn’t a sport.

And M-W validates that atheism can be a belief, which you keep wanting to deny. The definition you cite does not in any way disprove my counterclaim, that atheism is just wanting to believe something other than the idea of a god.

1

: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

The "thing" in this case is scientific materialism, without which atheists would have zero bolts to aim against the assertions of theism.

Also, you neglected to mention one of the examples M-W online mentions as the proper use of the word "atheism:" "And there will also be those who are very religious about their atheism."—Mike Woodruff, Chicago Tribune, 28 Mar. 2025. Thus M-W does not really define atheism as a simple absence of religious belief, or they would never have cited a colloquial use of the word that the dictionary-people deemed improper. As for your sports metaphor, you're still zero for zero.

 

[Ouroboros]

Nonsense as usual
I said morals are by definition subejctive and the dictionary proved me correct
Your inability to comprehend the english language is your problem not mine

Run, run, run, from your original statement.

 

[Individual]

Same old dodge-routine from you. What criteria do you utilize to prove, say, that a being who claims to be a god isn't just an alien with super-technology? As usual, your idea of "clear and concise" is completely without substance.

Exactly, a mind created story character.

 

[Ouroboros]

LOL You already proved yourslef wrong
Link your original attempt to support your false claims so we can all laugh at your fail again

Still running. Sing Morrison's "Run With Me" while you do so, and I'm sure you'll find lots of atheists willing to keep you company.

 

[Ouroboros]

Irony

Nothing ironic about your lies, since irony implies more than one meaning.

 

[Ouroboros]

Failure is not only a concern, but also a part of life
Ignore it,
deny the same,
defy it, however, facts never change.

And one of those facts is that you can't change what you actually posted. That's why you won't quote yourself.

 

[Ouroboros]

You are free to point out a lie I have made but since you have repeatedly admitted you have said untrue thigns I think you should put down the stone and leave your glass house
When my love swears that she is made of truth
I do believe her, though I know she lies,
That she might think me some untutored youth,
Unlearnèd in the world's false subtleties.

You've been fibbing so long your glass walls barely have a sliver left to them.

 

[Ouroboros]

More projection BIGTIME! Individual is running circles around you in terms of intellectual effort, and has been ever since he showed up here. A person could put half their brain on idle and still do so. Your OP was one of the least intellectual ones this side of Tosca.
Individual is refusing to be taken down any of your plethora of rabbit holes or to engage you in your attempt to exchange fifth-grade level insults, but instead stays on topic with reasoned responses. That is why it is so evident to anyone who observes this thread that you are flailing and he is winning in the debate.

Sealions defend one another, especially in not being able to define criteria of evidence.

 

[Ouroboros]

A little perspective. (A picture is worth a thousand words.)

View attachment 67570299

View attachment 67570303
You're right on the money. Just dont be on the View attachment 67570304

I will never understand why posters here think that philosophical validity consists of a popularity contest. Well, Trump is currently more popular with the American electorate than anyone on the Left, so that means all of you here validate Trump's philosophy because he's the most popular--right?

 

[Individual]

Bark without substance some more, sealion.

What stunning originality, not.

You keep proving the OP claims every time you post, particularly the part where you immorally violate the atheist credo of providing evidence.

As an agnostic, how can you be sure of anything?

 

[Ouroboros]

How do YOU define evidence? Why are you so afraid to tell us? Why the weeks-long sealioning in that regard, and numerous others.

I'm not basing my agnostic interpretation of the world upon whatever you consider evidence; that's YOUR position. I have a definition of what YOU actually mean when you say it, but if I said it, that would spoil the fun that might ensue if one of you finally comes up with a substantial definition.

 

[Ouroboros]

I have given you a number of definitions for evidence. Pick one. Or do you prefer to continue your evidently endless sealioning.

All generalized definitions. The writers of dictionaries are not using the word the way you are using it; you are dependent on how it applies within the specific sphere of scientific materialism. "Evidence" within that sphere is not generalized, but I asked you to provide even that in case it moved you to come up with a substantive formulation. Not surprised you did not.

 

[Ouroboros]

Still a lie no matter how many thousands of times you repeat it.

Shake your fists some more; see if I care.

 

[Ouroboros]

Of course it’s not viable. It’s just making up stuff, just like the theists and religionists do. Two-year-olds can do that, just make up stuff without providing any evidence other than “say-so”. And, like the theists and religionists, once you indicate your fantasy, you then demand that others knock it down, just like they do. Like Frank and DrewPaul, you are not one bit different from the theists and religionists in how you approach the subject. It’s just another EPIC FAIL to do this.
And how many times do I need to tell you that the evidence, like in science, needs to be such that others can validate it in some manner other than accepting the “say-so” of the person stating their fantasy. Do you have any for your goofy “formless entities” or “entities that appear to be gods”?
Didn’t think so. It’s just nonsensical musings, as usual.

And how do you claim that scientific evidence is validated? What quality or qualities make it more reliable than personal testimony? This is the essential polnt you keep missing with your tautological definitions.

 

[Ouroboros]

This is hilarious. I asked you a couple of central questions to try to get you to somehow clarify your claims, and you go into a meltdown of projection. Well, I suppose that is what I get for assuming that you were debating in a serious and mature manner. If you would like to move forward beyond the insult mode in which you seem so comfortable, I am still looking for some answers to those questions. Thanks in advance.

The "insult mode" that you used on other threads, where you mocked religious people in the shallow manner I've described, was the mode that prompted me to create this thread. And contrary to your false representation of your posts here, you've always been in "insult mode" from your first remark here:

"Is this really the best that you can do? Maybe you had better try again."

I don't care about your weak insults, and am happy to respond to them in kind, within the boundaries of posting regulations here. But for you to represent your spite-heavy rhetoric as reasoned discourse is truly hilarious. As usual, atheists show their lack of moral compass by criticizing what they deem "insults" but never seeing the beam in their own eyes.

 

[Quag]

Run, run, run, from your original statement.

Nope not running. Just you failing, as always.
Do at least try to be honest with your posts

 

[Quag]

Still running. Sing Morrison's "Run With Me" while you do so, and I'm sure you'll find lots of atheists willing to keep you company.

Still being dishonest you clearly lack morals

 

[Quag]

Nothing ironic about your lies, since irony implies more than one meaning.

More irony

 

[Quag]

And one of those facts is that you can't change what you actually posted. That's why you won't quote yourself.

Why would I want to change what I posted? What lie do you think I have made?

 

[Quag]

You've been fibbing so long your glass walls barely have a sliver left to them.

More Irony, but feel free to try and point out a lie

 

[Ouroboros]

Strawman lies. I have never said any of that. I guess that “debate” is quite easy when you get to argue both sides, eh?

To the extent that you defended Michael Cole's equivalence between archaic animists and modern animists, you did exactly that. I critiqued him for that failing and since all you did was repeat the claim of meaningful equivalence, then the same imputation falls to you.

Another lie. I have never used that description nor indicated that it is the case. What I have said is that tribes or societies need an ethical structure if they are to survive for the long term. Please quit lying about me. But then I suppose that your “debate” technique would have no place to go.

Amusingly enough, your very first post on this thread sends mixed messages about the applicability of morality to atheists.

"Atheists don’t give a hoot about “morality”. That’s a religious concept, like sin. Atheists use ETHICS to guide them through life."

So, in the societies of the animist tribes, how did your Caveman Rotary Clubs elaborate their ethics without also subscribing to a code of local morality? How did that separation you advanced in your first post apply to those societies?

I pointed to the studies that gave the evidence for my claims. You, on the other hand, have provided exactly none to support your “hypothesis” of morality-based religions rather than nature-based religion among primitive peoples. Do you have any, or is this yet another case whereby we have to just accept your “say-so”.

As usual you distort things to have your own way. My position has no conflict between the simultaneous worship of nature and the inculcations of moral codes. You're the one trying to arbitrarily separate the two, and no sources you cited provided evidence for such a separation. I on the other hand cited Clifford Geertz as an example of an anthropologist who advocated the unity of religion and art with moral codes. Your only response to that citation was something like, "You didn't cite everything he ever wrote so I can ignore the quote."

Where else would they get their ethics except from human communication? And what exactly is “religious inspiration”? Or is this yet another term that you throw into the mix without providing and expanded scenario? Do they get it from your “formless entity”. *L*

Religious inspiration may be either the internal creation of the subject experiencing it, or it may be stimulated by the spiritual beings that most archaic societies attest to. Both remain possibilities even though you want to believe only one can be possible. Cue one of your goofy admonitions against "fiction," as you continue to misapprehend that by the "Evidence" you supposedly enshrine, you have none that proves that all such archaic societies were either deluded or deceptive.

Hope you like my new keyboard. Makes it much easier to sort your nonsense.

 

[Ouroboros]

All that you are saying is that anybody can make up anything and call it a “hypothesis” and that then it somehow becomes “viable” based on that say-so alone. Do you not understand how ridiculous that is? You might as well be a Christian if that is your standard, because their claims are nothing more than “hypotheses” either.
Okay, my turn. I hypothesize that it was ancient aliens who brought morality to primitive humans. Before the ancient aliens arrived, primitive humans were nothing more than savages with no societal or individual ethical structure. It was the ancient aliens who taught the the ethical rules that would allow them to thrive for the long term.

So there you go. Now I’m on the same level as you and the Christians by presenting a viable hypothesis. Surely you agree.

Good, now define the evidence by which you invalidate the hypothesis, the same way you invalidate the existence of gods.