OtherGround Forums Atheists know more about religion than xians lol..

8/22/19 11:21 AM
1/8/12
Posts: 2692

I think I just fell for your troll, lol.

8/22/19 11:30 AM
12/28/04
Posts: 30837
RocG - 

I think I just fell for your troll, lol.


Image result for gotcha gif

8/22/19 11:33 AM
12/13/15
Posts: 3042

Not surprised. Atheists are the most religious people on the planet. 

8/22/19 12:16 PM
10/6/17
Posts: 4238
BrocksSwockRanTrane_onShane -
The Jentleman - 
BrocksSwockRanTrane_onShane -
The Jentleman - 
BrocksSwockRanTrane_onShane -
The Jentleman - 
BrocksSwockRanTrane_onShane -
The Jentleman - 

LOL! Yet my point was that all of you like to poke fun at ALL Christians with dog butt memes and “Jesus toast” comments.

You can give it but can’t take it.

And I never said all atheists are murders, but did prove that atheists have killed in the pursuit of furthering their own beliefs in response to someone saying that it has never happened. Which was obviously false.

Who’s actually being like the SJW LGBT Feminazis?.. you’re hypocrites who are trying to deny proven history...

No, you proved that a subset of atheists did, so what? It was NOT their atheism that caused it, it was their ideology; in this case Scientific Atheism. So the beliefs they were trying to further were not that of atheism. They did not go and kill driven on by the fact that they do not accept the claim a god exists. They did that on other beliefs, e.g. hatred of religion, the belief religion is evil, etc. That is NOT atheism. 

PS I like to poke fun at all religious. 

 

So you agree with me... Great!

Yes, I know you like to poke at all religious. And it’s so easy for me to poke back with simple facts and watch the “intellectuals” deflect and deal in logical fallacies to try and make it about an argument I never made. 

Etch-a-sketch hypocrites.

LOL! 

 

I literally have no idea what you are even talking about now. To be clear...

 

You claimed...

"atheists have killed in the pursuit of furthering their own beliefs"

 

This is correct, atheist have... But the beliefs in question were NOT simply atheism, and it was NOT driven by their atheism.  

 

History disagrees. 

 

Finally! Starting to sink in now it is?

You’re not the intellectual you believe yourself to be...

I never claimed that “atheism” by itself is an ideology. I merely pointed out that an ideology based on atheism was used to kill people for the purpose of furthering (in the name of) atheism. This is fact. 

For instance. Christianity doesn’t believe in killing people either, yet people kill (in the name of) Christianity. But that’s not Christianity. Never has been, never will be. 

"I merely pointed out that an ideology based on atheism was used to kill people for the purpose of furthering (in the name of) atheism. This is fact."

 

With one small but vital change I agree...

I merely pointed out that an ideology based on atheism was used to kill people for the purpose of furthering (in the name of) the ideology. This is fact.

Killing in the name of religion is a much more complex discussion as religions are ideologies with vast doctrines, beliefs and values which must be followed.  In all honest I am not a bit fan of the killing in the name of arguments. While I would stand by the claim people have killed in the name of their religions I do not agree its a reflection on said religion and the religious. 

You can keep up the circular argument all you want. It doesn’t change the fact that their very ideology was to kill religious people in the name of atheism. My point still stands unassailable.

8/22/19 12:31 PM
12/9/13
Posts: 5811

Communism went after religion because it was seen as a threat to the government, not atheism. It’s not that hard to understand but then again you don’t want to understand it.

Edited: 8/22/19 4:10 PM
12/28/04
Posts: 30838
The Jentleman -
BrocksSwockRanTrane_onShane -
The Jentleman - 
BrocksSwockRanTrane_onShane -
The Jentleman - 
BrocksSwockRanTrane_onShane -
The Jentleman - 
BrocksSwockRanTrane_onShane -
The Jentleman - 

LOL! Yet my point was that all of you like to poke fun at ALL Christians with dog butt memes and “Jesus toast” comments.

You can give it but can’t take it.

And I never said all atheists are murders, but did prove that atheists have killed in the pursuit of furthering their own beliefs in response to someone saying that it has never happened. Which was obviously false.

Who’s actually being like the SJW LGBT Feminazis?.. you’re hypocrites who are trying to deny proven history...

No, you proved that a subset of atheists did, so what? It was NOT their atheism that caused it, it was their ideology; in this case Scientific Atheism. So the beliefs they were trying to further were not that of atheism. They did not go and kill driven on by the fact that they do not accept the claim a god exists. They did that on other beliefs, e.g. hatred of religion, the belief religion is evil, etc. That is NOT atheism. 

PS I like to poke fun at all religious. 

 

So you agree with me... Great!

Yes, I know you like to poke at all religious. And it’s so easy for me to poke back with simple facts and watch the “intellectuals” deflect and deal in logical fallacies to try and make it about an argument I never made. 

Etch-a-sketch hypocrites.

LOL! 

 

I literally have no idea what you are even talking about now. To be clear...

 

You claimed...

"atheists have killed in the pursuit of furthering their own beliefs"

 

This is correct, atheist have... But the beliefs in question were NOT simply atheism, and it was NOT driven by their atheism.  

 

History disagrees. 

 

Finally! Starting to sink in now it is?

You’re not the intellectual you believe yourself to be...

I never claimed that “atheism” by itself is an ideology. I merely pointed out that an ideology based on atheism was used to kill people for the purpose of furthering (in the name of) atheism. This is fact. 

For instance. Christianity doesn’t believe in killing people either, yet people kill (in the name of) Christianity. But that’s not Christianity. Never has been, never will be. 

"I merely pointed out that an ideology based on atheism was used to kill people for the purpose of furthering (in the name of) atheism. This is fact."

 

With one small but vital change I agree...

I merely pointed out that an ideology based on atheism was used to kill people for the purpose of furthering (in the name of) the ideology. This is fact.

Killing in the name of religion is a much more complex discussion as religions are ideologies with vast doctrines, beliefs and values which must be followed.  In all honest I am not a bit fan of the killing in the name of arguments. While I would stand by the claim people have killed in the name of their religions I do not agree its a reflection on said religion and the religious. 

You can keep up the circular argument all you want. It doesn’t change the fact that their very ideology was to kill religious people in the name of atheism. My point still stands unassailable.

Circular? Dear god. Go look up circular arguments then come back and explain why you think my argument is circular. The very fact i explained the addition of the extra factors makes it the exact opposite of a circular argument. 

Edited: 8/22/19 3:55 PM
12/6/16
Posts: 3947

 

 

Philip Hamburger from Columbia Law has some pretty good stuff.

8/22/19 7:27 PM
8/20/15
Posts: 6560

Haka Jawaka knows more about this thread(and article) than OP lol..

8/22/19 7:56 PM
12/28/04
Posts: 30839
Robert Thomas -

Haka Jawaka knows more about this thread(and article) than OP lol..

Awww, boo hoo. Lol

8/22/19 8:21 PM
10/6/17
Posts: 4240
BrocksSwockRanTrane_onShane -
The Jentleman -
BrocksSwockRanTrane_onShane -
The Jentleman - 
BrocksSwockRanTrane_onShane -
The Jentleman - 
BrocksSwockRanTrane_onShane -
The Jentleman - 
BrocksSwockRanTrane_onShane -
The Jentleman - 

LOL! Yet my point was that all of you like to poke fun at ALL Christians with dog butt memes and “Jesus toast” comments.

You can give it but can’t take it.

And I never said all atheists are murders, but did prove that atheists have killed in the pursuit of furthering their own beliefs in response to someone saying that it has never happened. Which was obviously false.

Who’s actually being like the SJW LGBT Feminazis?.. you’re hypocrites who are trying to deny proven history...

No, you proved that a subset of atheists did, so what? It was NOT their atheism that caused it, it was their ideology; in this case Scientific Atheism. So the beliefs they were trying to further were not that of atheism. They did not go and kill driven on by the fact that they do not accept the claim a god exists. They did that on other beliefs, e.g. hatred of religion, the belief religion is evil, etc. That is NOT atheism. 

PS I like to poke fun at all religious. 

 

So you agree with me... Great!

Yes, I know you like to poke at all religious. And it’s so easy for me to poke back with simple facts and watch the “intellectuals” deflect and deal in logical fallacies to try and make it about an argument I never made. 

Etch-a-sketch hypocrites.

LOL! 

 

I literally have no idea what you are even talking about now. To be clear...

 

You claimed...

"atheists have killed in the pursuit of furthering their own beliefs"

 

This is correct, atheist have... But the beliefs in question were NOT simply atheism, and it was NOT driven by their atheism.  

 

History disagrees. 

 

Finally! Starting to sink in now it is?

You’re not the intellectual you believe yourself to be...

I never claimed that “atheism” by itself is an ideology. I merely pointed out that an ideology based on atheism was used to kill people for the purpose of furthering (in the name of) atheism. This is fact. 

For instance. Christianity doesn’t believe in killing people either, yet people kill (in the name of) Christianity. But that’s not Christianity. Never has been, never will be. 

"I merely pointed out that an ideology based on atheism was used to kill people for the purpose of furthering (in the name of) atheism. This is fact."

 

With one small but vital change I agree...

I merely pointed out that an ideology based on atheism was used to kill people for the purpose of furthering (in the name of) the ideology. This is fact.

Killing in the name of religion is a much more complex discussion as religions are ideologies with vast doctrines, beliefs and values which must be followed.  In all honest I am not a bit fan of the killing in the name of arguments. While I would stand by the claim people have killed in the name of their religions I do not agree its a reflection on said religion and the religious. 

You can keep up the circular argument all you want. It doesn’t change the fact that their very ideology was to kill religious people in the name of atheism. My point still stands unassailable.

Circular? Dear god. Go look up circular arguments then come back and explain why you think my argument is circular. The very fact i explained the addition of the extra factors makes it the exact opposite of a circular argument. 

LOL! The ideology IS the spread of atheism by killing religious people. You continue the “circular argument” of saying “it’s the ideology” and not in the name of atheism, but that was the ideology. 

You seriously are not as smart as you believe.

8/22/19 9:25 PM
6/13/04
Posts: 11186
I took the test. I got a perfect score. I'm an atheist.

https://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/u-s-religious-knowledge-quiz/
Edited: 8/22/19 9:37 PM
12/28/04
Posts: 30840
The Jentleman - 

LOL! The ideology IS the spread of atheism by killing religious people. You continue the “circular argument” of saying “it’s the ideology” and not in the name of atheism, but that was the ideology. 

You seriously are not as smart as you believe.

"The ideology IS the spread of atheism by killing religious people"

Even if that was true, which it is not, it would STILL not be a result of atheism. And it STILL is not a circular argument, and your crappy cop-out of you think you are right because "seriously are not as smart as you believe" is not even CLOSE to an argument. 

Circular reasoning takes the form of "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true.", so please fill in the A's and B's and show my circular reasoning. 

8/22/19 10:18 PM
10/6/17
Posts: 4241
BrocksSwockRanTrane_onShane -
The Jentleman - 

LOL! The ideology IS the spread of atheism by killing religious people. You continue the “circular argument” of saying “it’s the ideology” and not in the name of atheism, but that was the ideology. 

You seriously are not as smart as you believe.

"The ideology IS the spread of atheism by killing religious people"

Even if that was true, which it is not, it would STILL not be a result of atheism. And it STILL is not a circular argument, and your crappy cop-out of you think you are right because "seriously are not as smart as you believe" is not even CLOSE to an argument. 

Circular reasoning takes the form of "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true.", so please fill in the A's and B's and show my circular reasoning. 

LOL!

Cop-out? No, just truth.

A: atheism isn’t an ideology 

B: can’t kill in the name of atheism only an ideology 

Circular arguments usually have some truth to them. Yet killing in the name of atheism is an ideology. It has happened. I have already posted evidence that it has happened. 

Go stare at a dogs butt some more; maybe you’ll find another way of deflecting why you were wrong.

LOL!

8/23/19 12:05 AM
1/3/18
Posts: 5299
The Jentleman -
BrocksSwockRanTrane_onShane -
The Jentleman - 

LOL! The ideology IS the spread of atheism by killing religious people. You continue the “circular argument” of saying “it’s the ideology” and not in the name of atheism, but that was the ideology. 

You seriously are not as smart as you believe.

"The ideology IS the spread of atheism by killing religious people"

Even if that was true, which it is not, it would STILL not be a result of atheism. And it STILL is not a circular argument, and your crappy cop-out of you think you are right because "seriously are not as smart as you believe" is not even CLOSE to an argument. 

Circular reasoning takes the form of "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true.", so please fill in the A's and B's and show my circular reasoning. 

LOL!

Cop-out? No, just truth.

A: atheism isn’t an ideology 

B: can’t kill in the name of atheism only an ideology 

Circular arguments usually have some truth to them. Yet killing in the name of atheism is an ideology. It has happened. I have already posted evidence that it has happened. 

Go stare at a dogs butt some more; maybe you’ll find another way of deflecting why you were wrong.

LOL!

You keep using that term “circular argument”. It doesn’t mean what you think it means. 

Here is a simplified example of a circular argument:

Person A says god exists 

Person B asks for proof

Person A refers to the bible

Person B asks “why should anyone believe the bible?”

Person A says “because it’s true and it’s the word of god.”

Person B asks “How do you know it’s true and the word of god?”

Person A says “Because it says so in the book.”

Person A has committed a circular argument.

Are you competent enough to understand why?

Also, I’m wondering as to why you’re so bent on hanging a murderous charge on atheism. Is it to try to make your god a little less blood lusty by justifying it to the lowest common denominator of human behavior? I mean, what’s your point? Even if the charge was true, it doesn’t give your “unconditionally loving” god a pass for the untold Billions its fucked over in the name of love, so-called morality, and salvation. 

30 days ago
12/28/04
Posts: 30841
The Jentleman - 
BrocksSwockRanTrane_onShane -
The Jentleman - 

LOL! The ideology IS the spread of atheism by killing religious people. You continue the “circular argument” of saying “it’s the ideology” and not in the name of atheism, but that was the ideology. 

You seriously are not as smart as you believe.

"The ideology IS the spread of atheism by killing religious people"

Even if that was true, which it is not, it would STILL not be a result of atheism. And it STILL is not a circular argument, and your crappy cop-out of you think you are right because "seriously are not as smart as you believe" is not even CLOSE to an argument. 

Circular reasoning takes the form of "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true.", so please fill in the A's and B's and show my circular reasoning. 

LOL!

Cop-out? No, just truth.

A: atheism isn’t an ideology 

B: can’t kill in the name of atheism only an ideology 

Circular arguments usually have some truth to them. Yet killing in the name of atheism is an ideology. It has happened. I have already posted evidence that it has happened. 

Go stare at a dogs butt some more; maybe you’ll find another way of deflecting why you were wrong.

LOL!


This is so idiotic it makes my head hurt. That IS NOT a circular argument. This is a circular argument.

Image result for circular argument bible

 

This is a waste of everyones time. You can't even follow basic reasoning. 

29 days ago
12/28/04
Posts: 30844

Looks like hes off,

Of course he will claim this utter embarrassment of him as wiping the floor with everyone lol. 

Edited: 29 days ago
10/6/17
Posts: 4243
BrocksSwockRanTrane_onShane -
The Jentleman - 
BrocksSwockRanTrane_onShane -
The Jentleman - 

LOL! The ideology IS the spread of atheism by killing religious people. You continue the “circular argument” of saying “it’s the ideology” and not in the name of atheism, but that was the ideology. 

You seriously are not as smart as you believe.

"The ideology IS the spread of atheism by killing religious people"

Even if that was true, which it is not, it would STILL not be a result of atheism. And it STILL is not a circular argument, and your crappy cop-out of you think you are right because "seriously are not as smart as you believe" is not even CLOSE to an argument. 

Circular reasoning takes the form of "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true.", so please fill in the A's and B's and show my circular reasoning. 

LOL!

Cop-out? No, just truth.

A: atheism isn’t an ideology 

B: can’t kill in the name of atheism only an ideology 

Circular arguments usually have some truth to them. Yet killing in the name of atheism is an ideology. It has happened. I have already posted evidence that it has happened. 

Go stare at a dogs butt some more; maybe you’ll find another way of deflecting why you were wrong.

LOL!

 

This is so idiotic it makes my head hurt. That IS NOT a circular argument. This is a circular argument.

 

 

This is a waste of everyones time. You can't even follow basic reasoning. 

Actually it is. You have such a rudimentary understanding of a circular argument it’s sad.

 

Examples of Circular Reasoning:

“ I deserve to have a later curfew, so you should let me stay out until 10pm!

 

This argument says the person should stay out until 10pm because he/she deserves a later curfew.

 

You have to invite Jenna to your party because it would not be nice not to invite Jenna.

 

You have to save enough money to pay your bills each month because bills have to be paid.

 

It should be okay to destroy property when you are angry because angry people destroy things.” 

 

The same as your argument that “no one can kill in the name of atheism because atheism isn’t an ideology.” argument.

It’s a circular argument that I figured you would have picked up on when pointed out. Yet you go with such a basic understanding you picked up from Google instead of actually understanding how circular logic works in practice beyond the simplistic examples given to you by someone else.

 

Not only are you not as smart as you think, but you’re not even smart enough to know when I’ve “wiped the floor with you.”

LOL!

Edited: 29 days ago
12/28/04
Posts: 30847
The Jentleman - 
BrocksSwockRanTrane_onShane -
The Jentleman - 
BrocksSwockRanTrane_onShane -
The Jentleman - 

LOL! The ideology IS the spread of atheism by killing religious people. You continue the “circular argument” of saying “it’s the ideology” and not in the name of atheism, but that was the ideology. 

You seriously are not as smart as you believe.

"The ideology IS the spread of atheism by killing religious people"

Even if that was true, which it is not, it would STILL not be a result of atheism. And it STILL is not a circular argument, and your crappy cop-out of you think you are right because "seriously are not as smart as you believe" is not even CLOSE to an argument. 

Circular reasoning takes the form of "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true.", so please fill in the A's and B's and show my circular reasoning. 

LOL!

Cop-out? No, just truth.

A: atheism isn’t an ideology 

B: can’t kill in the name of atheism only an ideology 

Circular arguments usually have some truth to them. Yet killing in the name of atheism is an ideology. It has happened. I have already posted evidence that it has happened. 

Go stare at a dogs butt some more; maybe you’ll find another way of deflecting why you were wrong.

LOL!

 

This is so idiotic it makes my head hurt. That IS NOT a circular argument. This is a circular argument.

 

 

This is a waste of everyones time. You can't even follow basic reasoning. 

Actually it is. You have such a rudimentary understanding of a circular argument it’s sad.

 

Examples of Circular Reasoning:

“ I deserve to have a later curfew, so you should let me stay out until 10pm!

 

This argument says the person should stay out until 10pm because he/she deserves a later curfew.

 

You have to invite Jenna to your party because it would not be nice not to invite Jenna.

 

You have to save enough money to pay your bills each month because bills have to be paid.

 

It should be okay to destroy property when you are angry because angry people destroy things.” 

 

The same as your argument that “no one can kill in the name of atheism because atheism isn’t an ideology.” argument.

It’s a circular argument that I figured you would have picked up on when pointed out. Yet you go with such a basic understanding you picked up from Google instead of actually understanding how circular logic works in practice beyond the simplistic examples given to you by someone else.

 

Not only are you not as smart as you think, but you’re not even smart enough to know when I’ve “wiped the floor with you.”

LOL!

I cannot believe how dumb you are...

 

"A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."

To taking your argument...

 

You have to save enough money to pay your bills each month because bills have to be paid.

A. You have to save enough money to pay your bills each month

B.  because bills have to be paid each month 

So in that case A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true.

In my argument there IS no such A and B relationship. But putting it in that form to show how retarded you are...

A. One can’t kill in the name of atheism because it isn't an ideology, it is simply a position regarding a single claim.

B. This was the post where I explained the extra factors that differentiated atheism from scientific atheism.  

In short there is NO B is true because A is true, therefore, there is no circular argument. Every single person in this thread can see that but you. I wonder why that is?

29 days ago
3/3/14
Posts: 2580
shen -

What bull...

As a devout Christian, I hope a Jesus thunderbolt from Mt. Olympus strikes these guys dead.

 

 

You obviously aren't a xtrian with that statement. Another wannabe idiot. 

29 days ago
10/6/17
Posts: 4244
BrocksSwockRanTrane_onShane -
The Jentleman - 
BrocksSwockRanTrane_onShane -
The Jentleman - 
BrocksSwockRanTrane_onShane -
The Jentleman - 

LOL! The ideology IS the spread of atheism by killing religious people. You continue the “circular argument” of saying “it’s the ideology” and not in the name of atheism, but that was the ideology. 

You seriously are not as smart as you believe.

"The ideology IS the spread of atheism by killing religious people"

Even if that was true, which it is not, it would STILL not be a result of atheism. And it STILL is not a circular argument, and your crappy cop-out of you think you are right because "seriously are not as smart as you believe" is not even CLOSE to an argument. 

Circular reasoning takes the form of "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true.", so please fill in the A's and B's and show my circular reasoning. 

LOL!

Cop-out? No, just truth.

A: atheism isn’t an ideology 

B: can’t kill in the name of atheism only an ideology 

Circular arguments usually have some truth to them. Yet killing in the name of atheism is an ideology. It has happened. I have already posted evidence that it has happened. 

Go stare at a dogs butt some more; maybe you’ll find another way of deflecting why you were wrong.

LOL!

 

This is so idiotic it makes my head hurt. That IS NOT a circular argument. This is a circular argument.

 

 

This is a waste of everyones time. You can't even follow basic reasoning. 

Actually it is. You have such a rudimentary understanding of a circular argument it’s sad.

 

Examples of Circular Reasoning:

“ I deserve to have a later curfew, so you should let me stay out until 10pm!

 

This argument says the person should stay out until 10pm because he/she deserves a later curfew.

 

You have to invite Jenna to your party because it would not be nice not to invite Jenna.

 

You have to save enough money to pay your bills each month because bills have to be paid.

 

It should be okay to destroy property when you are angry because angry people destroy things.” 

 

The same as your argument that “no one can kill in the name of atheism because atheism isn’t an ideology.” argument.

It’s a circular argument that I figured you would have picked up on when pointed out. Yet you go with such a basic understanding you picked up from Google instead of actually understanding how circular logic works in practice beyond the simplistic examples given to you by someone else.

 

Not only are you not as smart as you think, but you’re not even smart enough to know when I’ve “wiped the floor with you.”

LOL!

I cannot believe how dumb you are...

 

"A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."

To taking your argument...

 

You have to save enough money to pay your bills each month because bills have to be paid.

A. You have to save enough money to pay your bills each month

B.  because bills have to be paid each month 

So in that case A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true.

In my argument there IS no such A and B relationship. But putting it in that form to show how retarded you are...

A. One can’t kill in the name of atheism because it isn't an ideology, it is simply a position regarding a single claim.

B. This was the post where I explained the extra factors that differentiated atheism from scientific atheism.  

In short there is NO B is true because A is true, therefore, there is no circular argument. Every single person in this thread can see that but you. I wonder why that is?

LOL! You literally posted a circular argument and  trying to argue that it’s not one.

“A. “One can’t kill in the name of atheism because it isn't an ideology,” it is simply a position regarding a single claim”

Sorry, to bust your ignorant bubble, but that is a circular argument.

I see you left off the other examples that were lifted from the same place that shows what circular arguments are. They weren’t so easy for you to use your very basic understanding of circular logic, but I assure you that they are, as is your ignorant stance.

But please continue. I love the fact that you have no idea what you’re talking about yet continue to argue against something has already been proven true.

LOL!

29 days ago
12/9/13
Posts: 5814
The Jentleman -
BrocksSwockRanTrane_onShane -
The Jentleman - 
BrocksSwockRanTrane_onShane -
The Jentleman - 
BrocksSwockRanTrane_onShane -
The Jentleman - 

LOL! The ideology IS the spread of atheism by killing religious people. You continue the “circular argument” of saying “it’s the ideology” and not in the name of atheism, but that was the ideology. 

You seriously are not as smart as you believe.

"The ideology IS the spread of atheism by killing religious people"

Even if that was true, which it is not, it would STILL not be a result of atheism. And it STILL is not a circular argument, and your crappy cop-out of you think you are right because "seriously are not as smart as you believe" is not even CLOSE to an argument. 

Circular reasoning takes the form of "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true.", so please fill in the A's and B's and show my circular reasoning. 

LOL!

Cop-out? No, just truth.

A: atheism isn’t an ideology 

B: can’t kill in the name of atheism only an ideology 

Circular arguments usually have some truth to them. Yet killing in the name of atheism is an ideology. It has happened. I have already posted evidence that it has happened. 

Go stare at a dogs butt some more; maybe you’ll find another way of deflecting why you were wrong.

LOL!

 

This is so idiotic it makes my head hurt. That IS NOT a circular argument. This is a circular argument.

 

 

This is a waste of everyones time. You can't even follow basic reasoning. 

Actually it is. You have such a rudimentary understanding of a circular argument it’s sad.

 

Examples of Circular Reasoning:

“ I deserve to have a later curfew, so you should let me stay out until 10pm!

 

This argument says the person should stay out until 10pm because he/she deserves a later curfew.

 

You have to invite Jenna to your party because it would not be nice not to invite Jenna.

 

You have to save enough money to pay your bills each month because bills have to be paid.

 

It should be okay to destroy property when you are angry because angry people destroy things.” 

 

The same as your argument that “no one can kill in the name of atheism because atheism isn’t an ideology.” argument.

It’s a circular argument that I figured you would have picked up on when pointed out. Yet you go with such a basic understanding you picked up from Google instead of actually understanding how circular logic works in practice beyond the simplistic examples given to you by someone else.

 

Not only are you not as smart as you think, but you’re not even smart enough to know when I’ve “wiped the floor with you.”

LOL!

I cannot believe how dumb you are...

 

"A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."

To taking your argument...

 

You have to save enough money to pay your bills each month because bills have to be paid.

A. You have to save enough money to pay your bills each month

B.  because bills have to be paid each month 

So in that case A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true.

In my argument there IS no such A and B relationship. But putting it in that form to show how retarded you are...

A. One can’t kill in the name of atheism because it isn't an ideology, it is simply a position regarding a single claim.

B. This was the post where I explained the extra factors that differentiated atheism from scientific atheism.  

In short there is NO B is true because A is true, therefore, there is no circular argument. Every single person in this thread can see that but you. I wonder why that is?

LOL! You literally posted a circular argument and  trying to argue that it’s not one.

“A. “One can’t kill in the name of atheism because it isn't an ideology,” it is simply a position regarding a single claim”

Sorry, to bust your ignorant bubble, but that is a circular argument.

I see you left off the other examples that were lifted from the same place that shows what circular arguments are. They weren’t so easy for you to use your very basic understanding of circular logic, but I assure you that they are, as is your ignorant stance.

But please continue. I love the fact that you have no idea what you’re talking about yet continue to argue against something has already been proven true.

LOL!

Fuck you’re dumb.

29 days ago
10/6/17
Posts: 4245

^ Call me names all you want; I am very much correct.

Brockswock is definitely the type that would make being a student a lifestyle. He can regurgitate lines he memorized in a book, but can’t flesh out the logic to apply them in real life. If they don’t fit his exact example the way it’s written, “Then it must not be true!” He may have a good memory, but his cognitive abilities are not up to par.

You probably don’t understand any of it.

29 days ago
12/28/04
Posts: 30848
The Jentleman - 

^ Call me names all you want; I am very much correct.

Brockswock is definitely the type that would make being a student a lifestyle. He can regurgitate lines he memorized in a book, but can’t flesh out the logic to apply them in real life. If they don’t fit his exact example the way it’s written, “Then it must not be true!” He may have a good memory, but his cognitive abilities are not up to par.

You probably don’t understand any of it.


LOL, meanwhile in the real world i'm an internationally published cognitive scientist. 

Edited: 29 days ago
10/6/17
Posts: 4246
BrocksSwockRanTrane_onShane -
The Jentleman - 

^ Call me names all you want; I am very much correct.

Brockswock is definitely the type that would make being a student a lifestyle. He can regurgitate lines he memorized in a book, but can’t flesh out the logic to apply them in real life. If they don’t fit his exact example the way it’s written, “Then it must not be true!” He may have a good memory, but his cognitive abilities are not up to par.

You probably don’t understand any of it.

 

LOL, meanwhile in the real world i'm an internationally published cognitive scientist. 

Yeah, I doubt that. Probably in academia, but no real world experience.

Edited: 29 days ago
12/28/04
Posts: 30849
The Jentleman - 

LOL! You literally posted a circular argument and  trying to argue that it’s not one.

“A. “One can’t kill in the name of atheism because it isn't an ideology,” it is simply a position regarding a single claim”

Sorry, to bust your ignorant bubble, but that is a circular argument.

I see you left off the other examples that were lifted from the same place that shows what circular arguments are. They weren’t so easy for you to use your very basic understanding of circular logic, but I assure you that they are, as is your ignorant stance.

But please continue. I love the fact that you have no idea what you’re talking about yet continue to argue against something has already been proven true.

LOL!

“A. “One can’t kill in the name of atheism because it isn't an ideology,” it is simply a position regarding a single claim” Sorry, to bust your ignorant bubble, but that is a circular argument.

But that is NOT the entirety of the argument, you clown. I then explain to you WHY atheism is not the same as scientific atheism, as PART OF THE ARGUMENT. So there is no B is true because A is true, B is true for the reason I demonstrated! And if there is no B is true because A is true, then there is no fucking circular argument.

You can't stop half way through an argument then claim it is circular because you are blindly ignoring the part of the argument that means its not fucking circular.