You know what's dishonest? Pretending words mean only one thing when they can mean multiple things:
View attachment 89705
You know how dictionary definitions work, right?
When you have 2 points like in the above, then they don't both apply at the same time.
It means that it can mean one thing OR the other thing.
So when you talk to an atheist and that atheist tells you that his atheism is of the first kind, then you insisting it must be of the second kind... is what is dishonest.
This is why people (rightfully) accuse you of arguing strawmen.
This is the problem
We can say that you do 'straw man' on the basis of 'ad hominem'.
It's simple:
Atheists don't like to accept rephrased definitions when they are being challanged.It has nothing to do with skeptical thinking , since we don't think that your questions are not valid.We do encounter the challanges that are being put in front of us.
Maybe not at the moment , but we do give answers with time.
You don't like how you see them.
It seems that method is neccessary when it feeds certain pre-conditions that do not have to be neccessary while in the same time others are being acused of using the same methods.
'One of the biggest downsides of utilizing paraphrasing is that it makes you to completely rely on someone else's content. You don't have your own ideas or thoughts. This stunts your own knowledge growth and academic writing skills. That's why it is always recommended to only utilize paraphrasing when the
need arises.'
And that is why when we say : "ok , we take all those definitions as valid , and we say to you
'This is your viewpoint when adressing the most fundemental question of existence; this is what you belive'."
And you say : 'No,...'
And we say 'Ok , Sorry we taught you belived it.'
And you get that as offense , Why?
(As a joke would neccessary make the discussion any different.)
But in fact , nothing you say would make it less or more equivalent to the definitions.
It may have a contribution with further conclusions and how the other reacts on that.
Patience is important in personality.
Yes, you've made it very clear already that you don't care what people's positions actually are. You only care about imposing on them what you feel like their positions should be.
Which transforms in these kind of answers.
Do you think that your choice is compromised; when you look at his different definitions?
It seems to me that your answers are pretty convincing as how to demonstrate the problem of 're-phrasing'.
Again: this is exactly what strawmanning someone's position is.
Which is Steelmanning , demonstrated.
Read the above dictionary definition again. Most people here identify as an atheist in the sense of point 1. You insist that they must identify as an atheist in the sense of point 2. And you then critisize them / argue against them on that basis. This is nothing more or less then a dishonest strawman.
Or could it be that is neither of that.
We don't tell you to say that you are Atheists..
And even when we rephrace it , what's the problem ? Is the term 'Atheists' labeled by Atheists criteria?
Why should we even take anything you say as serious , since we can demonstrate the oposite?
We keep pointing this out to you, and you keep doubling down on your dishonest ways.
Yes , most of you use this argument of Authority.
But when it is demonstrated that your methods are not consistent then we might say 'If there is no consistency in the methodology you use , where is the Logic then'?
The first time we use that methodology on the view-point , you reject it , Why?
This is just an observation , nothing personal.
