Real0ne
Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: crazyml
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0nequote:
ORIGINAL: Real0nequote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata
Your entire position is based on the premise that when a choice has a moral component it is inherently a "religious" choice. I suppose one might adopt that view as a philosophical stance. But you are treating it as the certified gold fact from which all your arguments logically follow. I'll grant they are logical, but garbage in garbage out.
Speaking of religion shall we talk about what the gubblemint does? lol get my drift?
I'll be, K never came back to justify that nasty comment. Getting a little deep for ya man? 
Yeah, more than a little. Get my drift?
K.
Nah you dont get off the hook that easily because I much more than simply 'get your drift'....
You literally just confessed you are in over your head to anyone who recognises that I am merely quoting some of the positions of well known highly accredited philosophers. Its not too late ya know, but personally I think you would be trying merely to defend the indefensible imo. Never know sometimes you come up with pretty good points
Parroting things that philosophers have said without actually understanding is what has got you into this absurd mess.
You have manifestly failed to make the "govt as atheist" argument... you now just look like a drooling idiot.
You seem to be suffering from some kind of cognitive disorder if that is what you concluded from my post. That is usually the result of runaway emotions.
What got me into this absurd mess, is the result of generously tolerating all the butt hurt kiddies that think they can come out here with drive by snarks such as "You have manifestly failed to make the "govt as atheist" argument... you now just look like a drooling idiot." and expect it to hold up against legitimate philosophy. I mean seriously only a tard would post a rupert statement like that, because if they really had a point to make they would follow it up with a counter argument. I know I know, small oversite that you feel I should disregard because you are all butthurt n shit. Sorry no free pass.
If thats not bad enough in another thread you have shown us that you cant comprehend something as simple as understanding a dictionary where I went so far as to even post the definition of religion and you still managed to somehow get everything ass backwards. I may as well respond to that one here.
quote:
ORIGINAL: crazyml
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
First the distinctions between ethics and morals are very subtle and when using them in the same sentence as you did without distinguishing the sense you are using each invariably lands you squarely into using one or the other incrorrectly.
The distinction is demonstrably too subtle for you to get your head around it.
It is certainly utter nonsense to argue that the only source of either is "religion"
Dont blame me for your tarded improper use of morals and ethics, and now your improper use of the word religion on top of that.
A cake doesnt make the flour and sugar, flour and sugar are used to make the cake. You have everything ass backwards! Now you have 3 big words you need to learn to distinguish.
Oh and look at that immediately below I even posted the definition for you!
Try reading it again for comprehension this time:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Now the problem you have with your perspective is:
the definition of 'religion' does not stop at deities and faith there are several more which is why I posted the several more to avoid any confusion.
quote:
religion
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices
the practice of religious beliefs
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience
strict faithfulness; devotion
The reason I posed the several more is because your version does not take into consideration non-theistic religions.
quote:
Nontheistic religions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nontheistic religions are traditions of thought within religions—some otherwise aligned with theism, others not—in which nontheism informs religious beliefs or practices.[1] Nontheism has been applied to the fields of Christian apologetics and general liberal theology, and plays significant roles in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. While many approaches to religion exclude nontheism by definition, there are some inclusive definitions that show how religious practice and belief do not depend on the presence of god(s). For example, Paul James and Peter Mandaville distinguish between religion and spirituality, but provide a definition of the term that avoids the usual reduction to "religions of the book":
There you go, now I even crayola'd it for you!
So you need to come up with a good explanation why these other religions without deities are not religions? Especially since they operate the same way and consider themselves such?
quote:
ORIGINAL: crazyml
The term religion can encompass a broad spectrum of belief systems, but "Atheism" is not a system of belief, it's a simple belief. Atheism is not a religion.
I will save that one for last since its possibly the only one that makes enough sense that dignifies a response
"supernatural deity"
government does deity, they themselves become the deity, and government also does supernatural, since metaphysics is the secular version of supernatural.
quote:
ORIGINAL: crazyml
So, let's add "metaphysical" to the list of terms you don't understand.
Why feel free to do so just as soon as you have the balls to actually PROVE your bullshit is true.
quote:
ORIGINAL: crazyml
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Therefore the government does in fact 'establish' a religion and itself as the deity of the religion of its creation that it enforces through laws that violate our personal religion(s). (when it fails to remain neutral to all parties)
No, in passing laws that meet the moral or ethical demands of the time (neither of which is dependent on religion), the government steers clear of establishment.
There you go again with your assbackwards understanding of religion, morals, ethics and beliefs.
The gubblemint jumps head first into establishing itself as your religion.
You do not need a Deity to make a right v wrong decision and all matters of conscience resulting in right v wrong decisions are moral decisions, which is why nontheists are classified as having a religion. This is not real difficult ML
quote:
ORIGINAL: crazyml
"The term religion can encompass a broad spectrum of belief systems, but "Atheism" is not a system of belief, it's a simple belief. Atheism is not a religion."
Its imperative you grasp the meanings and usage of the words you are trying to use.
I have explained many times why it is in fact a belief system and religion, and proved the definition of religion is even more broad leaving no room for atheists to escape coming under its umbrella, so aside from simply posting your butt hurt no reason version of your opinion why not lay out your reasoning and and at least make an attempt to establish a fact somewhere in your attempt at argument. Reversing and conflating meanings and a pile of strawman bs only serves to sink your boat not float it.
< Message edited by Real0ne -- 3/21/2016 11:51:02 AM >
_____________________________
"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile
Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?
Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session
|
RE: Freedom From Atheism! - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread