I referred to the atheists "here". (and you know who they are.) Stu trolled his ass into our conversation uninvited. He loves to do it. He must seem himself as president of some aggressive atheist reverse pr club. I do not care who trolls this is et... but you have to name the correct troll. Or are you using some form of the word troll that you and stu made up because you have no belief as to the existence of troll. Queer was not a good word and neither is gay - they should just be people. Gay has lost its meaning as happy. It now means homosexual. You know that is true when you here kids say that is so gay. Any clown who does not respect words and definitions and culture has a right to be known as a clown.
Good logic - except for the fact educated people use the word agnostic. So while you and your sky fairies can create you own construct... I will stick with the educated people who like to efficiently communicate through a shared language with shared definitions.
What you ignore are the facts, as I pointed out previously in this thread, that definitions change and that current definitions can be flawed. Here's the definition of gay: 1. having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay music. 2. bright or showy: gay colors; gay ornaments. 3. given to or abounding in social or other pleasures: a gay social season. 4. licentious; dissipated; wanton: The baron is a gay old rogue with an eye for the ladies. 5. homosexual. 6. of, indicating, or supporting homosexual interests or issues: a gay organization. As you pointed out, the word is now exclusively used as a synonym for homosexual, a usage that didn't even exist (at least in the straight community) over 40 or 45 years ago. But you'd never know that from just looking at the still-outdated dictionary definition. Also the circularity between the definitions of god and deity. The dictionary doesn't even properly define the central element which theism, atheism, agnosticism, etc. is all about. Acting as if real-world word usage should have no effect on the dictionary is myopic. People can and do change definitions through new usage all the time. Atheists have not been letting the dictionary define us for decades. Sorry if this upsets you; we really don't care. Just like the homosexuals didn't care what we straights thought about them co-opting "gay" for their usage, which has become exclusive in practice. I'm not talking about a technical or legal jargon that has fixed, precise definitions that a group of professionals has agreed upon. I'm talking about everyday English, which has always been fluid. Why you think you get to lock up atheists (or anybody else) into antiquated dictionary definitions is either hilarious or contemptible. Or maybe both.
Oh puhleeze, everybody knows words change meaning over time with usage, that's why dictionaries always come out with annual editions moron. What people are laughing at you for is attempting to create your own personal definitions and insisting we adopt them. When we don't you get all testy. You liberals need to grow up and realize there are conventions in this world for a frickin reason.
But you do seem to imagine religious belief is a free pass card allowing the rejection of definitions or reason to get all testy when ignoring the fact there are conventions in this world. As well as from yourself, there is some of that rejection from one of your own "we" people , who only make up argument through the way theism ever defends its beliefs, arguing from absurd, contradictory, unsupported and dishonest standpoints. As witnessed in this thread and many others like it. Jem states So if you have no belief you are not an atheist. Do you agree? If so, what is the label supposed to be for someone who has no beliefs ? It cannot be agnostic , without as you frikin say, "ignoring the fact there are conventions in this world." Can you explain without getting all testy? Or is the definition to be "turd" as Jem likes to call anyone, when he cannot grasp the meaning of something.
Everybody here knows your pathetic ruse of "no belief" as if it meant a "null belief" is bullshit. It's certainly clear by now you have a belief system but wish to portray it as not having any beliefs on the subject; and thereby insulating yourself from criticism . To me that's just a little bit pussfied. Now, on your behavior towards others here on the board who do man up and admit a belief (unlike you) your actions are clearly antagonistic towards anyone of belief. Your vehemence is well demonstrated ,shall I call it "antagonistic belief" and expect it in the next edition of the dictionary? Therefore your behavior noted above by jem has labeled you a "turd" which evidently does not please you. As far as I'm concerned he's been rather magnanimous in his description of you. GOOD DAY
what you fail to grasp.. atheists believe in the rules of evidence and reason. rationality. to claim i don't believe in "ghosts", or unicorms or gremlins or (insert any nonsense here) is to say I believe in the rational, in the rules of evidence because those rules are forged in 10's of 1000's of years of experience and reflective thought. YOU, on other hand are caught up in some semantic bullshit from which has trapped your mind, your soul and from which you can never escape. and will hamper you throughout your life. look past the words to the MEANING! :eek:
"atheists believe in the rules of evidence and reason. rationality." ...so you and your fellow atheists also believe your faith is superior when it come to the concept of God, right? If God exists, then God must conform to these rules? Let me ask, can you see the entirety of the universe? Where did all these "rules" you believe in come from? If they came from the mind, then what is the check on the mind that objectively validates these "rules." If you were to actually do some deeper thinking, you would find your rules are grounded in a circular argument... ...you just can't admit the underlying contradiction.
i've read your post let me get this straight.. you are questioning the efficacy of reason, rationality and logic? science? in place you propose to throw us back into the "Dark Ages" of witch burning? :eek: