• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:88]Atheism is a political doctrine

Prof_Lunaphiles said:
Atheism is not "just a lack of belief in gods," it is formal review of doctrine that leads to a conclusion that there is no god.

Sent from my Lenovo YT3-850F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Similar to how a nihilist, in calling themselves a nihilist, and in personally identifying with and embracing aspects of nihilism, cannot claim the position that life is meaningless.


OM
 
Theism is the ' belief ' that a deity or god exists....Atheism is the ' belief ' that a deity or god does not exist. Both are systems of ' belief '. Both are based upon ignorance ( not knowing ).

I, on the other hand, KNOW that GOD DOES NOT EXIST, because I killed him.
 
GodlessBrandy said:
Theism is the ' belief ' that a deity or god exists....Atheism is the ' belief ' that a deity or god does not exist. Both are systems of ' belief '. Both are based upon ignorance ( not knowing ).

I, on the other hand, KNOW that GOD DOES NOT EXIST, because I killed him.
Click to expand...

Im not dead
 
Quag said:
Im not dead
Click to expand...

False god. Pretender to the throne. Oh, by the way, I also killed all the Angels, Satan, Fallen Angels, etc etc etc so the only thing left in Heaven is a Denny's.
 
GodlessBrandy said:
False god. Pretender to the throne. Oh, by the way, I also killed all the Angels, Satan, Fallen Angels, etc etc etc so the only thing left in Heaven is a Denny's.
Click to expand...

Who do you think runs the Denny's?
 
Prof_Lunaphiles said:
Atheism is not "just a lack of belief in gods," it is formal review of doctrine that leads to a conclusion that there is no god.

Sent from my Lenovo YT3-850F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

no it was kinda informal
 
Prof_Lunaphiles said:
I tried to search the members that you referred to. One did not seem to be a listed member, the other had a thread list, but I could not find it with the search term, "definition." So it gets kind of tiresome for me to search further. Why can't you direct me to the thread that you are likely to remember?

My reasoning is sound, and eventually I will put it into book form and it will be a monumental breakthrough in directing society towards the more appropriate goal.

Sent from my Lenovo YT3-850F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yet your approach is very similar to theirs and other failed trends (examples clearly quoted in my sig). If such "styles" of argument fail, it would seem rational to use an approach more conducive to actual constructive discussion.
 
Lursa said:
Yet your approach is very similar to theirs and other failed trends (examples clearly quoted in my sig). If such "styles" of argument fail, it would seem rational to use an approach more conducive to actual constructive discussion.
Click to expand...
Why are you not providing a link to the similar discussions?

Sent from my Lenovo YT3-850F using Tapatalk
 
Prof_Lunaphiles said:
Why are you not providing a link to the similar discussions?

Sent from my Lenovo YT3-850F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Oh sorry! I meant that it's posted in the style of many failed arguments by specific posters. There is a series in the Abortion sub-forum, titled similar to school curricula, that are easily found...follow threads by that poster to see a good example of what I'm referring to.
 
Prof_Lunaphiles said:
There is a major error in the popular definition of "atheism," because of various reasons of convenience, compliance, and lack of reliable knowledge classification, in the past.​

To get it straight, you have to go over the three terms that are being compared. You you have to understand what theism and humanism are, and why atheism is not in the same classification category:

  • Theism is the ontological doctrine that suggests that a supernatural deity orders/defines reality.
  • Humanism is the ontological doctrine that suggests that humans order/define reality.
  • Atheism is a political doctrine that opposes theist doctrine as the basis for public policy, because it is absurd to designate an ontology as the antithesis of a designated ontology; which is what you are doing when you suggest that atheism has something to do with determining what exists - (lack of) belief in the existence of a supernatural dimension of reality - gods.

My argument is valid and sound. Your counter-arguments are based on dogma - compromised definitions from bygone eras of sophistication dominated by Christian dictionary editors unwittingly appeasing the Christian world.

Smarten-up - Stay Woke​
Click to expand...

Your argument is not valid, one of your premises is not true.

Atheism means non-belief in a deity. Nothing more. There may be atheists who do not oppose theist doctrine as the basis of public policy.

Hope that helps, better luck next time.
 
Last edited:
JustHanging said:
Your argument is not valid, one of your premises is not true.

Atheism means non-belief in a deity. Nothing more. There may be atheists who do not oppose theist doctrine as the basis of public policy.

Hope that helps, better luck next time.
Click to expand...

Your exercise of a informal definition is what is wrong. There is no such thing as "non-belief," or "lack of belief." People construct doctrinaire of beliefs based on reasoned arguments - not by figments of magical dimension that causes them to believe, or not believe - which is what theists want you to believe is possible.

Atheism does not exist without the existence of theism. Theism is a doctrine; atheists consistently argue that theists have to be indoctrinated to believe. Atheists can not describe themselves as an "atheist" until they understand the existence of a doctrine for theism.

I am right, you are wrong; better luck next time.
 
Prof_Lunaphiles said:
Your exercise of a informal definition is what is wrong. There is no such thing as "non-belief," or "lack of belief." People construct doctrinaire of beliefs based on reasoned arguments - not by figments of magical dimension that causes them to believe, or not believe - which is what theists want you to believe is possible.

Atheism does not exist without the existence of theism. Theism is a doctrine; atheists consistently argue that theists have to be indoctrinated to believe. Atheists can not describe themselves as an "atheist" until they understand the existence of a doctrine for theism.

I am right, you are wrong; better luck next time.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a lack of food.
 
Prof_Lunaphiles said:
There is no such thing as "non-belief," or "lack of belief."
Click to expand...

It is possible to lack belief in a god. That's the definition of an atheist.

So you make another argument with false premises.

I am right, you are wrong; better luck next time.
Click to expand...

You don't understand how logic works.

One of your premises was false: Atheism is a political doctrine that opposes theist doctrine as the basis for public policy


As I pointed out, there could be atheists who do not oppose theist doctrine as the basis of public policy.

Thus your argument is not valid.

Unless you have evidence that every single atheist in the world opposes theist doctrine as the basis of public policy? If so, please present that evidence, and the methodology used to interview every single atheist in the world.
 
Last edited:
I lack belief in a god or gods. It's a simple concept and quite easy to understand.
 
JustHanging said:
It is possible to lack belief in a god. That's the definition of an atheist.
Click to expand...
That is the informal definition for a person, based on the informal definition that theism is not a doctrine that needs to be learned, but rather some kind of an inherent awareness of a supernatural dimension.

JustHanging said:
You don't understand how logic works.
Click to expand...
You do not understand how logic works

JustHanging said:
One of your premises was false: Atheism is a political doctrine that opposes theist doctrine as the basis for public policy
Click to expand...
That is not a premise - it is the conclusion

"Theism is an ontological doctrine," and "humanism is an ontological doctrine," are the premises; supported by the ontological fact that ontologies cannot be defined as the antonym of a designated ontology. Which is what atheists do when they use the informal definitions of theism and atheism to describe their inherent consciousness.

JustHanging said:
As I pointed out, there could be atheists who do not oppose theist doctrine as the basis of public policy.
Click to expand...
They are not atheists - they are humanists.

JustHanging said:
Thus your argument is not valid.
Click to expand...
Your argument is not valid, because you do not understand ontology, nor do you understand that belief requires a doctrinaire to be reviewed. Belief (in gods) is not an inherent condition of consciousness, which is what the theists want it to be; and what atheists want atheism to be.

Rational atheists/humanists recognize that belief requires the review of doctrine.

JustHanging said:
Unless you have evidence that every single atheist in the world opposes theist doctrine as the basis of public policy? If so, please present that evidence, and the methodology used to interview every single atheist in the world.
Click to expand...
I am not trying to prove the category error argument that you are constructing based on the informal definition of theism.
 
Last edited:
zyzygy said:
I lack belief in a god or gods. It's a simple concept and quite easy to understand.
Click to expand...
That is not false, but it is incorrect - it is informal.

You have reviewed the doctrine and recognize that the theism doctrine is irrational, and you are inclined to subscribe to the humanism ontological doctrine that humans define reality, and you are probably inclined to subscribe to the atheism political doctrine that opposes theism doctrine as the basis for public policy.
 
Prof_Lunaphiles said:
That is the informal definition for a person, based on the informal definition that theism is not a doctrine that needs to be learned, but rather some kind of an inherent awareness of a supernatural dimension.
Click to expand...

No it's not. It's based on a lack of belief.

That is not a premise - it is the conclusion
Click to expand...

Then it doesn't follow, not even remotely so, as I've already explained.

"Atheism is a political doctrine that opposes theist doctrine as the basis for public policy" would only take one atheist who doesn't oppose theist doctrine as the basis for public policy. I've decided that's me. For the moment, I don't oppose theist doctrine as the basis for public policy.

Case closed.

"Theism is an ontological doctrine," and "humanism is an ontological doctrine," are the premises; supported by the ontological fact that ontologies cannot be defined as the antonym of a designated ontology.

They are not atheists - they are humanists.
Click to expand...

If A is belief in a God, then Atheism is NOT A.


Your argument is not valid,
Click to expand...

Yes it is. See above.
 
Last edited:
Prof_Lunaphiles said:
My argument is valid and sound. Your counter-arguments are based on dogma
Click to expand...

My arguments are made out of chocolate and win. Your arguments stink of poop.

There. I have raised the tone.
 
Prof_Lunaphiles said:
That is not false, but it is incorrect - it is informal.

You have reviewed the doctrine and recognize that the theism doctrine is irrational, and you are inclined to subscribe to the humanism ontological doctrine that humans define reality, and you are probably inclined to subscribe to the atheism political doctrine that opposes theism doctrine as the basis for public policy.
Click to expand...

That is one of your shorter word salads. Meaningless. I am not interested in politics.
 
Prof_Lunaphiles said:
Your exercise of a informal definition is what is wrong. There is no such thing as "non-belief," or "lack of belief." People construct doctrinaire of beliefs based on reasoned arguments - not by figments of magical dimension that causes them to believe, or not believe - which is what theists want you to believe is possible.

Atheism does not exist without the existence of theism. Theism is a doctrine; atheists consistently argue that theists have to be indoctrinated to believe. Atheists can not describe themselves as an "atheist" until they understand the existence of a doctrine for theism.

I am right, you are wrong; better luck next time.
Click to expand...

You do not believe in the Great Flying Sponge Bob Over God, Lord of all Gods, Master of the 27 Heavens.

Nor do I. I just made it up.

You are atheists about it. So am I. You and I don't need to know the theology of the GFSBOG to not believe in it.

Clearly my point above is obviously true. Clearly it is the same argument as not believing in any particular god.
 
Prof_Lunaphiles said:
There is a major error in the popular definition of "atheism," because of various reasons of convenience, compliance, and lack of reliable knowledge classification, in the past.​

To get it straight, you have to go over the three terms that are being compared. You you have to understand what theism and humanism are, and why atheism is not in the same classification category:

  • Theism is the ontological doctrine that suggests that a supernatural deity orders/defines reality.
  • Humanism is the ontological doctrine that suggests that humans order/define reality.
  • Atheism is a political doctrine that opposes theist doctrine as the basis for public policy, because it is absurd to designate an ontology as the antithesis of a designated ontology; which is what you are doing when you suggest that atheism has something to do with determining what exists - (lack of) belief in the existence of a supernatural dimension of reality - gods.

My argument is valid and sound. Your counter-arguments are based on dogma - compromised definitions from bygone eras of sophistication dominated by Christian dictionary editors unwittingly appeasing the Christian world.

Smarten-up - Stay Woke​
Click to expand...

Well, religion has always been political. Christianity, for example, was often a state religion in most countries where it was practiced en masse, and it served as the police and the politics of the time.
 
Stay woke, lol. He should try and stay awake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom