What being an atheist means in practical terms

I have already posted my sources to you several times. I will underline the problem here. "I decline to show you definitions that meet your criteria because you don't merit it. I am the agnostic atheist, not you. I am not interested in your agenda driven game, where you pick the rules. You shuffle the deck. You cut the deck. You deal the cards, and then say, 'Lets play'.

Huxley is a very credible source defining a term he helped coin and promote over a century ago, if we want to know what agnosticism meant to a philosopher a century ago. You don't get to use his words to freeze the word, and nullify how it gets used today and handcuff the work of lexicographers since then.

This is about your agenda as a zealot trying control your own narrative and undermine atheism.

 

If you had I would have seen them, no quote = never happened.

Facts, logic, reason, is all it takes to meet my criteria, not merit is fails the viable argument test, and supports my position that you have not and continue to have nothing to offer.

Yes you have the right to claim what ever you want no matter how far over the edge it is.
Not until you can demonstrate its logical and reasonable, thus far you failed to do so.

Its a pretty big stretch to label 'debunking errors' my agenda.

He is a very credible source today as well since he is corrected quoted in several dictionaries TODAY define agnostic using HIS definition, Proven by a plethora of quotes I posted on the previous page that you imply think you can ignore.

Sorry but thats just BS, Huxleys exact definition is provided for you in several of the better dictionaries as I have shown on the previous page.

Are you trying to be funny?
Neoatheists destroy themselves out here.
Again blame me for their failures in logic and reason.

as we can see in the above response

 

as we continue to see in the above response

 

Its a well known fact that todays neoatheists have been militantly trying to undermine and eliminate agnostics under the false characterization that agnostics are athesits, to claim otherwise or the opposite is patently delusional.

 

It’s all a conspiracy!

 

Prima facia that sounds like a really stupid post, do you have any evidence that is the case? I always classified it as a neoatheist militant movement led and popularized by the 4 stooges to increase their political numbers. I cant imagine how it could be a conspiracy, pls explain.

 

I don't think DRI thinks it's a conspiracy. I think he was mocking an idiot.

To eliminate agnostics? Using different language makes people cease to exist in kokoland. Fascinating.

 

I heard it from a really reliable source on the internet. Check it out:

 

You talk to the birds I suppose

I dont blame him I am always temped to mock a birdbrain that doesnt know the difference between the conditions for 1+3 and 2+2, preschooler stuff lol

 

Uncritical devotion to science? What is that supposed to mean? It makes sense to be critical of claims purporting to be from science, to examine if it actually is science. But to be critical of science itself? What does that gain?

Also, again I note Koko's obsession with neoatheism, calling everyone who doesnt use his preferred terminology that (regardless of if they call themselves that), and then painting them all as a group as bad in various ways that have nothing whatsoever to do with what the person he accuses said or did. This is a form of prejudice and bigotry.

 

Im sorry for posting in such small text, here let me help you get a clue:

Growing criticism by atheists of the Neo Atheism movement

You really should get the drama queen under control and at least try to comprehend what is posted.

Is that large enough for you? Do you need it crayola'd too? Larger maybe? That commie health system too cheap to buy glasses?

Yep Neoatheists are making atheists look like fools,

Id be pissed too if I were an atheist and I had to apologize for the loony arguments neoatheists make out here.

 

The "Neo-Atheists" or New Atheists have said nothing new really. It is just they have gotten their message to a wider audience than in past times where it was more confined to academics because of societal pressure (Dawkins was on the Daily Show, he wouldn't have been invited on Carson). That is the only thing that is "new". Their criticisms of religion caused a backlash, counter arguments, conspiracy theory and hyperbole (as seen here), so they have been labeled "New".
There is a wide range of opinion among theists, as there is among atheists. I personally don't believe the idea of religion is evil and it can be a useful positive tool for those who need it.
Here is a good summary of New Atheists.

 

I didn't say you call all atheists neoatheists. I said you call anybody who uses words in ways you don't like neo-atheist, and you do. I don't think most of the folks on this forum who are atheists are "neoatheists". Yet you declare them to be and then accuse all sorts of silly things to the group. That is simple bigotry and prejudice.

 

False, as usual you do not comprehend the point being made

true

false criticism is neither bigotry nor predjudice

 

thats neoatheis apologetics, not summary.

 

If lack of belief is how we define a religion then I am a practitioner of countless religions, as are we all.

 

What do you call someone that claims lack of belief anyway?

 

A non-believer.

 

Yes I do. You are too dense to see what everyone else here sees.

 

Nonbeliever is fairly concise, although there are probably some synonyms that could be used interchangeably.

 

Oh someone who chose to reject belief in God or anything supernatural?
Sounds like an atheist to me?

Sorry I cant read minds, what is it that "everyone else sees".

Readers get your haz mat gear on !

 

Nope, I found their view even handed and your view a loony sideshow.

 

Of course, and Christians find their apologetics even handed too, and likewise reject your view, a nutterville side show. small world it tis, funny how that works aint it?