Why don't atheists accept they are so evangelical and apologetic?

[firedragon]

YOU did in the above quoted post.


It is not a strawman when you did in fact flat out claim that a religious person developed algorithms that made communication possible.

So how about you name this religious person you claim developed algorithms that made communication possible?

I never said that.

So maybe you should respond to what was said, not what you want to respond to. Thats a strawman. Read what I said.

I said "there was a religious man who created algorithms". Not what you are saying. You have created a strawman to attack.

Strange.

 

[Altfish]

You have missed the point, like some others in this thread. Strange.

You are ignoring my questions. Strange?

Perhaps you could clarify your point then we all understand it. (Awaits a non-answer blaming me for not reading/understanding it properly)

 

[firedragon]

You will have to point it out to me.
I do not see it.

Last bit.

 

[McBell]

You have missed the point, like some others in this thread. Strange.

One would think that if everyone is missing the point of the OP that it is the OP that is the problem...

 

[firedragon]

You are ignoring my questions. Strange?

Perhaps you could clarify your point then we all understand it. (Awaits a non-answer blaming me for not reading/understanding it properly)

Who do you mean "we"?

 

[firedragon]

One would think that if everyone is missing the point of the OP that it is the OP that is the problem...

What is the problem then? You maybe right. SO please explain.

 

[Altfish]

Who do you mean "we"?

You never fail to disappoint, as predicted a non-answer.

Thank you and good night

 

[McBell]

Last bit.

Last bit of what?

 

[firedragon]

You never fail to disappoint, as predicted a non-answer.

Thank you and good night

Already explained this type of thing in the OP. Typical response.

Several people will try this. Its quite normal. So, good night. Have a good one.

 

[firedragon]

Last bit of what?

Of the OP.

What else do you think this thread is about? Its the post that's called the OP.

 

[McBell]

What is the problem then? You maybe right. SO please explain.

How would I know what the specific problem is?

I am not trying to be a jerk, but if I am so obviously missing the point like everyone else is missing the point I fail to see how I would be able to explain why we are all missing the point.

 

[McBell]

...

The above quoted reply to my post does not address the post it was in reply to.

 

[firedragon]

How would I know what the specific problem is?

If you dont know, dont just make comments. Try and be specific. If you think there is a problem with the OP, which may very well be, please point it out. Specifically.

 

[firedragon]

The above quoted reply to my post does not address the post it was in reply to.

Great. Thanks.

 

[McBell]

Of the OP.

What else do you think this thread is about? Its the post that's called the OP.

Apparently, according to you, NO ONE knows what this thread is about....

 

[McBell]

If you dont know, dont just make comments. Try and be specific. If you think there is a problem with the OP, which may very well be, please point it out. Specifically.

The problem with the OP is that apparently no one but you understands what the point of the OP is.

This is evidenced by you telling everyone they missed the point of the OP.

Again, how can anyone who missed the point of the OP explain why they missed the point of the OP when the author of the OP is too busy making false fallacy claims to explain what the point of the OP is?

 

[Regiomontanus]

I have seen arguments like "this verse in my opinion says this" with no regard to what it means. I mean "dogmatic refusal". I have also seen arguments like "God SHOULD HAVE kept languages without changing" so that we don't have to study an ancient language.

Recently there was an argument about a particular verse where the atheist picked up this argument from a "missionary website" but had no clue about it. Very dogmatic faith in a missionary website. What was more strange is that every single one of these episodes were found with other atheists defending this atheist so tribalistically (If there is such a word). Defend my brethren religiously with no regard to who or what is right. This is blind faith and tribalism.

Generally atheists accuse the "religious" of these same traits, but my opinion is that Atheists display these traits immensely but they so religiously deny it, together. The United Nations publication "State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples" has a definition for religion that has all of these traits as the definition. Its a strange thing. One would find the refusal of this also to be "Highly Dogmatic".

Let me state something from the Islamic point of view. The word used in the Qur'an for "religion" is the arabic word "Dheen". But, in all honesty, these two words are very different in meaning. Of course even this explanation can expect a dogmatic retort from someone who says "no. In my opinion they mean the same" . Nope. Try to analyse it rather than making a dogmatic faith statement. After all, atheists are supposed to be analytical and scientific as most would claim.

The etymology of the word “religion” is very different from that of dheen, and are in fact, different concepts. Some maintain, as did Cicero, that it comes from relegere, meaning, “to treat carefully.” Others follow the fourth-century Christian apologist Lactantius, who maintains that it derives from religare, “to bind.” As Lactantius writes, “We are tied to God and bound to Him (religati) by the bond of piety, and it is from this, and not, as Cicero holds, from careful consideration (relegendo), that religion has received its name. In Arabic, the word dheen means "way or system" in its essence. There have been usages where statements are made like "submission is a system based on reason". In that sentence, submission and system should be replaced by the words Islam and Dheen. The reason to adopt the famous word religion is because people are "bound" together. Does one not see that Atheists display the same symptoms? Maybe they display traits to the word religion more than a so called "religious" person would because its "dheen" for them, not religion. But I have noticed that most atheists do not with to analyse the meaning of the word Religion because they do not want to be associated with it, so they will resort to evangelical methods of denial of simple language. Also may argue that "etymologies dont matter". Actually, whatever argument that they could muster up to deny this. Thats dogmatism. The Romans used this same word as a binding to the state. Not religion. The famous Roman scholar who lived in the 1st century BC called "Cicero" accordingly used a rendition like "to select". So this is what you selected if his rendition is the "one".

One of the signs of religiosity we may observe today is this dogmatic worship of "science". Some atheists seem to claim science for themselves and deny the walking ability of science and religion together. What this seems to bring up is that dogmatic denial of a persons exegesis of his religion to be aligned with science by "hook or crook". This is a dogmatic faith that blinds reason. I address those who deny by default, and never even try and understand someones explanation but just deny no matter what. By Hook or Crook. Also they take their information predominantly from apologetic websites. Evangelical websites.

The general missionary response of atheists to "Religere" is that "religion is worshiping a divinity, and we don't" or something similar. But general refusal to analyse the meaning of it, and that they fit the bill in itself shows their religiosity and binding to the faith that "we are not religious". I think this is the definition of being "religious".

Another phenomenon of this level of dogmatic religiosity is the blind denial of facts when trying to blame religion for all the violence in the world forever. I have noticed that scholars who are also atheists dont do this because obviously they are more aware and I honestly have found them to extremely pragmatic and not so dogmatic. Yet, I am speaking about scholars, not evangelists and apologists that atheists seem to follow more.

Of course I expect some ad hominem and character assassination attempts even in this thread which is almost a norm. But in this matter, most atheists in this forum are pretty nice people. Yet at least one or two posts could be seen trying to attack the character of the person rather than analyse the point made in the OP. Thats ad hominem, and shows the character of the person doing it, not the other way around. One of my favourite sayings in the New Testament comes to mind: "Why do you look at the thimble in my eye when you have a plank in yours".

Anyway, this post was made as a general one and I can plead you not to get offended but try and make an analysis of what was said and provide your insight. I will truly appreciate it.

I think you make some good points and you are right, there a few here with that anti-theism zeal. I lived that way too for decades, sadly, Pretty embarrassing now that I look back on my militancy (promoting atheism) but hey, live and learn. I think scientism is a real problem today (as is the evangelical madness coalescing around people like Trump).

 

[Mock Turtle]

You missed the point. Actually, many have. Address the OP.

I addressed your subsequent comments.

 

[firedragon]

Apparently, according to you, NO ONE knows what this thread is about....

Nope. Thats another strawman in this thread. I never said "No One". Why the logical fallacies? Please try your best to address the OP Mestemia!

The problem with the OP is that apparently no one but you understands what the point of the OP is.

This is evidenced by you telling everyone they missed the point of the OP.

Again, how can anyone who missed the point of the OP explain why they missed the point of the OP when the author of the OP is too busy making false fallacy claims to explain what the point of the OP is?

Again, not everyone.

Anyway, that's another random comment. So since you dont have anything specific to say, I shall withdraw from this particular conversation.

Cheers.

 

[McBell]

Nope. Thats another strawman in this thread. I never said "No One". Why the logical fallacies? Please try your best to address the OP Mestemia!

Again, you are more concerned with falsely accusing others of fallacies than you are with explaining to those who missed the point what the point actually is.

But since the point of the OP is obvious not important to you.....

Again, not everyone.

Anyway, that's another random comment. So since you dont have anything specific to say, I shall withdraw from this particular conversation.

Cheers.

Now that you have established that the point of the thread is not important enough to explain....