Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pope Benedict 16....

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by bsgsbkht View Post
    Atheism is the state of not believing in God or gods. It has no attached necessary system of beliefs and is therefore compatible with any system of beliefs that does not necessarily include belief in God or gods, and this includes some religions, as well as a variety of things that aren't religions per se but in their essential characteristics very much resemble religions. On top of this we might note that religion involves practise and not just belief; I'm absolutely sure that there are atheists who engage in the practise of Christianity, though whether or not you would consider such people to be genuinely religious (because their atheism is incompatible with a Christian belief in God) is another matter.

    You have misunderstood the word "class". Make sure your English is up to snuff before playing with scare quotes.
    You are essentially repeating what I corrected you about just now with the added corrections, well except for a few important factors. Have you any proven statistics about these Atheists that follow religion/s with or without a deity? As for "involves practise" when 75000 people go to watch a soccer game are they now religious atheists due to having a similar belief and congregating at the same place?

    It would seem you misunderstand many things regarding Atheism even with what you must perceive as your English being up to snuff so save the tired old "scare" cliches for someone that can't see straight through your nonsense

    Comment


    • #32
      Religion is basically the same as ideology as far as social manifestations go, and all of then usually relay on irrational axioms

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by DrSchadenfreude View Post

        Absolutely none of that made any sense.
        Well, while non-atheists have an obvious god, some self-proclamed atheists also have one under another name... In the case of feminism, patriarchy fulfill the role of a god almost perfectly and shit as postmodernism are literally dogmas.
        In the case of money, some people see it as the key of everything, have many irrational beliefs including the belief that an infinite "growth" might exists, that having money is good blablabla.

        Veganism also fall into this and maybe a more fair "ahteist religion" would simply be buddhism.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Sancta_Lux View Post

          Well, while non-atheists have an obvious god, some self-proclamed atheists also have one under another name... In the case of feminism, patriarchy fulfill the role of a god almost perfectly and shit as postmodernism are literally dogmas.
          In the case of money, some people see it as the key of everything, have many irrational beliefs including the belief that an infinite "growth" might exists, that having money is good blablabla.

          Veganism also fall into this and maybe a more fair "ahteist religion" would simply be buddhism.
          A religion is generally considered to be an institutional form of worship. It’s not necessary to worship a god as non-theistic, institutional religions exist such as Raëlism, Sunday Assembly etc. As for feminism, veganism and environmentalism, these could be considered proto-religions in their most extreme forms...but you’d really have to want to fit a square peg into a round to call them full-blown religions.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by DrSchadenfreude View Post
            You are essentially repeating what I corrected you about just now with the added corrections,
            I'm restating what I originally said and addressing your miscomprehensions and objections by way of clarification. My mind has not changed and there is no inconsistency between my earlier and later posts.

            Originally posted by DrSchadenfreude View Post
            well except for a few important factors. Have you any proven statistics about these Atheists that follow religion/s with or without a deity?
            There's a wealth of information on these sorts of topics. There's a study, I think from the '80s, on Japanese religious identity/adherence and actual belief. There is also more recent work dealing with Roman Catholics in the Netherlands, as well as on Protestant clergy.

            Beyond that, of course, is personal anecdote - and if you haven't any of these then you must be sorely lacking in human contact. Go out and talk to people.

            Originally posted by DrSchadenfreude View Post
            As for "involves practise" when 75000 people go to watch a soccer game are they now religious atheists due to having a similar belief and congregating at the same place?
            As a homework exercise, why don't you try to answer this question for us?

            Originally posted by DrSchadenfreude View Post
            It would seem you misunderstand many things regarding Atheism
            Belief in God or gods is a binary factor that has no necessary relation to whether or not a person is religious. Do you disagree?

            Originally posted by DrSchadenfreude View Post
            even with what you must perceive as your English
            Unless you believe somebody else to be typing in my stead, I don't see any reason to call my perception in to question. Perhaps you are struggling with the language again.

            Originally posted by DrSchadenfreude View Post
            being up to snuff
            Do point out any misunderstandings on my part.

            Originally posted by DrSchadenfreude View Post
            so save the tired old "scare" cliches
            You are having trouble with vocabulary here. "Scare quotes" is a set phrase. It refers to the use of quotes such as "these" where the intention is to call in to question whether or not the term quoted has been applied properly. They are a snide or sneaky way to attempt to discredit a person, but they can backfire when that attempt is made based on a misreading on the part of the user (such as has been the case in this thread). You can do the same thing with italics, I suppose.

            Originally posted by DrSchadenfreude View Post
            for someone that can't see straight through your nonsense
            It must be torture to be so perceptive that you know everything, but so autistic that you cannot communicate it properly to anybody else. I'm doing my best to help you, rest assured, but I would like a show of commitment on your part.
            Last edited by bsgsbkht; 04-15-2019, 05:41 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by bsgsbkht View Post
              I'm restating what I originally said and addressing your miscomprehensions and objections by way of clarification. My mind has not changed and there is no inconsistency between my earlier and later posts.
              There's a wealth of information on these sorts of topics. There's a study, I think from the '80s, on Japanese religious identity/adherence and actual belief. There is also more recent work dealing with Roman Catholics in the Netherlands, as well as on Protestant clergy.
              Beyond that, of course, is personal anecdote - and if you haven't any of these then you must be sorely lacking in human contact. Go out and talk to people.
              As a homework exercise, why don't you try to answer this question for us?
              Belief in God or gods is a binary factor that has no necessary relation to whether or not a person is religious. Do you disagree?
              Unless you believe somebody else to be typing in my stead, I don't see any reason to call my perception in to question. Perhaps you are struggling with the language again.
              Do point out any misunderstandings on my part.
              You are having trouble with vocabulary here. "Scare quotes" is a set phrase. It refers to the use of quotes such as "these" where the intention is to call in to question whether or not the term quoted has been applied properly. They are a snide or sneaky way to attempt to discredit a person, but they can backfire when that attempt is made based on a misreading on the part of the user (such as has been the case in this thread). You can do the same thing with italics, I suppose.
              It must be torture to be so perceptive that you know everything, but so autistic that you cannot communicate it properly to anybody else. I'm doing my best to help you, rest assured, but I would like a show of commitment on your part.
              All you have done here is failed to answer anything I asked despite the time you took to try and look knowledgeable and then getting angry about me shooting down your inept "scare" cliche, you see that is what it is called when you use a cliche.

              Your best bet is try helping yourself before offering to help others as by the looks of your reply you most likely will have nothing left to give. Of course I won't be answering your question until you find the time to answer mine, you know, just as a show of commitment from you.


              Btw, take your time and think clearly when replying, then you will have no need to make an edit You can thank me later.

              Comment


              • #37
                He is a rather retarded person. Everyone in Germany went from "wir sind Papst" back in 2005, which is like we got a pope again, to "can't this person die already, so he can't embaress us further in front of the entire world?"

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by DrSchadenfreude View Post
                  All you have done here is failed to answer anything I asked
                  Not "failed" but "declined". I've already provided the answers to your questions and it's on you to actually read and comprehend them.

                  Originally posted by DrSchadenfreude View Post
                  despite the time you took to try and look knowledgeable
                  Is that the game we are playing?

                  Originally posted by DrSchadenfreude View Post
                  and then getting angry
                  This is news to me.

                  Originally posted by DrSchadenfreude View Post
                  about me shooting down your inept "scare" cliche,
                  What on Earth are you talking about?
                  Here:
                  https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/class
                  Atheists are a class of people, but when assessing whether or not atheists have a religion, we must look at individual cases rather than the class as a whole.
                  You were wrong to cast doubt on my use of the word "class", and you were doubly wrong to suggest that it was "inept" or "cliched" of me to tell you to be more humble when you are uncertain about the meaning of words in a language over which you clearly have an incomplete command.

                  Originally posted by DrSchadenfreude View Post
                  you see that is what it is called when you use a cliche.
                  What is the cliche here? You are the one who used scare quotes inappropriately. I have, incidentally, just provided a fine example of their proper use.

                  Originally posted by DrSchadenfreude View Post
                  Your best bet is try helping yourself before offering to help others as by the looks of your reply you most likely will have nothing left to give.
                  I don't need to practise English, whereas you evidently do. You would do well to pay close attention to the guidance offered.

                  Originally posted by DrSchadenfreude View Post
                  yOf course I won't be answering your question until you find the time to answer mine, you know, just as a show of commitment from you.
                  I have asked rhetorical questions. If you were to answer them, it would make you look foolish.

                  Originally posted by DrSchadenfreude View Post
                  Btw, take your time and think clearly when replying, then you will have no need to make an edit You can thank me later.
                  You'll have to forgive me for posting without previewing. It turns out that even if one is inclined to re-read his own writing, resolving BBCode mentally (to check for orphans and the like) is not efficient.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by bsgsbkht View Post


                    I have asked rhetorical questions. If you were to answer them, it would make you look foolish.


                    .
                    This sums up your failure here quite nicely, no need for me to add anything else...well other than the fact you are schizophrenic perhaps

                    Originally posted by bsgsbkht View Post



                    As a homework exercise, why don't you try to answer this question for us?


                    Belief in God or gods is a binary factor that has no necessary relation to whether or not a person is religious. Do you disagree?






                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by DrSchadenfreude View Post
                      This sums up your failure here quite nicely, no need for me to add anything else...well other than the fact you are schizophrenic perhaps
                      Work on your English; those are obviously rhetorical questions.
                      And buy a mirror.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by bsgsbkht View Post
                        Work on your English; those are obviously rhetorical questions.
                        And buy a mirror.
                        Your questions are only rhetorical now because I made a fool of you, or to be precise you made a fool of yourself, I've just helped you along

                        No need, my superiority is reflected in your every reply.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by DrSchadenfreude View Post

                          Your questions are only rhetorical now because I made a fool of you, or to be precise you made a fool of yourself, I've just helped you along

                          No need, my superiority is reflected in your every reply.
                          But I called them rhetorical before you picked them out to suggest otherwise. They were rhetorical from the start which is why I was able to say so before your attempt at a zinger.

                          I can translate them in to assertions for you:

                          As a homework exercise, why don't you try to answer this question for us?
                          You yourself know that this isn't a reasonable comparison and there's no point bothering with it.

                          Do you disagree?
                          Of course you don't disagree; the preceding claim is uncontroversial.

                          Think about it. What else could I have been trying to say?

                          I'll do that one, too; maybe you can learn to recognise them with more examples.
                          What else could I have been trying to say?
                          Any other interpretation would be laboured and stupid.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by bsgsbkht View Post
                            But I called them rhetorical before you picked them out to suggest otherwise. They were rhetorical from the start which is why I was able to say so before your attempt at a zinger.


                            No you didn't, you only claimed your questions were rhetorical after I stated I was not going to answer yours until you answered the question I asked in the first place, which you still haven't managed, had you of tried to answer it you wouldn't be in this mess now, well perhaps not as big a mess anyway.

                            Originally posted by bsgsbkht View Post
                            I can translate them in to assertions for you:

                            As a homework exercise, why don't you try to answer this question for us?
                            You yourself know that this isn't a reasonable comparison and there's no point bothering with it.

                            Do you disagree?
                            Of course you don't disagree; the preceding claim is uncontroversial.

                            Think about it. What else could I have been trying to say?

                            I'll do that one, too; maybe you can learn to recognise them with more examples.
                            What else could I have been trying to say?
                            Any other interpretation would be laboured and stupid.
                            To make matters even more delicious you are now answering your own questions with your logic on my behalf in such a foolishly conceited ill advised manner that it can only be best described as hilariously cringe-worthy. By all means continue in the same vein, your car crash replies are starting to be better fun than the catholic Polish crybaby and the stupid retarded Turk put together

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by DrSchadenfreude View Post
                              No you didn't, you only claimed your questions were rhetorical after I stated I was not going to answer yours until you answered the question I asked in the first place, which you still haven't managed, had you of tried to answer it you wouldn't be in this mess now, well perhaps not as big a mess anyway.
                              This doesn't make sense as an ultimatum because I don't need you to answer rhetorical questions.

                              Originally posted by DrSchadenfreude View Post
                              To make matters even more delicious you are now answering your own questions with [/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]your[COLOR=#252C2F][FONT=Helvetica][SIZE=13px] logic on my behalf
                              They're rhetorical questions that I asked. Of course they lead to answers that are convenient for me. You're still not getting this, are you? (That's another one, by the way.)

                              Originally posted by DrSchadenfreude View Post
                              in such a foolishly conceited ill advised manner that it can only be best described as hilariously cringe-worthy.
                              I'm glad you're having fun.

                              Originally posted by DrSchadenfreude View Post
                              By all means continue in the same vein, your car crash replies are starting to be better fun than the catholic Polish crybaby and the stupid retarded Turk put together
                              Given how touchy and defensive you are about religion, there's a certain irony in how much antipathy you have towards other users.

                              But enough about you; why don't we get back on topic? I'm still waiting for you to explain how atheism is at all necessarily incompatible with all religion. If you could manage just that, maybe your tantrum would look a bit less like a deflection tactic. (No promises, though.)

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by bsgsbkht View Post
                                This doesn't make sense as an ultimatum because I don't need you to answer rhetorical questions.


                                They're rhetorical questions that I asked. Of course they lead to answers that are convenient for me. You're still not getting this, are you? (That's another one, by the way.)


                                I'm glad you're having fun.

                                But enough about you; why don't we get back on topic? I'm still waiting for you to explain how atheism is at all necessarily incompatible with all religion. If you could manage just that, maybe your tantrum would look a bit less like a deflection tactic. (No promises, though.)
                                It makes perfect sense, you chose to call them rhetorical questions after I pointed out you made a fool of yourself, but I can see why you would cling to your position about it.

                                You have consistently shown how angry and petulant you get when you don't get your own way and have now slipped into the predictable last bastion role of projecting your feelings as mine and yes of course i'm having fun watching you ask and answer your own questions. As for explaining anything to you with the remedial intellect you have inadvertently shown here it will be far too time consuming for me to try and teach you anything.

                                Originally posted by bsgsbkht View Post
                                Given how touchy and defensive you are about religion, there's a certain irony in how much antipathy you have towards other users.
                                I saved the best for last "Touchy and defensive about religion" you say.....au contraire, religion is fantastic and I've had some of the best laughs ever in this particular forum, from the dull lonely Canadian village idiot (TDLCVI) another religious know it all that failed here even under the mildest scrutiny and his direct messages from god along with peewee the self confessed psychotic on medication with visions of demons screaming at him at the foot of his bed right through through to the angry intolerant muzlums preaching here about being peaceful and tolerant, all of them without fail assured they are going to their version of heaven whilst anyone that calls them out on their nonsense is going to their version of hell, all served with a pious dose of hilarious hypocrisy, what's not to like.

                                Now, given your penchant for answering your own questions why don't you use this thread as a chance to make it your own personal blog, I have a feeling you have got some sort of your own personal religious revelations you could share or perhaps your thoughts on the moral decline of mankind, like the others mentioned you have all the hallmarks of someone who thinks he is in a position to know what is in store for everyone else.

                                If there is anything else I can help you with just ask.....and then answer it yourself of course







                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X