[Drlee]

I thought not. No answer. I think we all know why he refuses to answer the question. If he does he proves himself wrong.

Trolls are like that.

[Besoeker]

I thought not. No answer. I think we all know why he refuses to answer the question. If he does he proves himself wrong.

Trolls are like that.

So you insult me, tell me I don't know what theism means then ask me to explain what it means.
Don't you see how really silly that is?

[Pants-of-dog]

Would you like to discuss your incorrect generalisation instead?

[Besoeker]

Would you like to discuss your incorrect generalisation instead?

There isn't and wasn't one to discuss.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, the one where you claim that all atheists have only an absence of belief. That one.

[Besoeker]

Yes, the one where you claim that all atheists have only an absence of belief. That one.

I did not claim that. How many times do I have to tell you?

[Pants-of-dog]

Actually, you have said many many times that this is your (incorrect and generalising) defintion of atheism.

[Besoeker]

Actually, you have said many many times that this is your (incorrect and generalising) defintion of atheism.

But I did not claim what you said I claimed.

[Pants-of-dog]

What exactly did I claim that you claimed?

[Besoeker]

What exactly did I claim that you claimed?

This:
"Yes, the one where you claim that all atheists have only an absence of belief. That one."
I did not claim that.

[Drlee]

Just a troll POD. He refuses to form an argument. He is wrong and it would appear, as far as the ability to explain his trolling, in way over his head.

So we can conclude that:

He does not know what a theist is.

Therefor he does not know what an atheist is.

There is an outside chance that he has seen the error of his ways and can't find a way out of the trap he has sprung on himself.

He is an antitheist who refuses to own his beliefs.

I'm going with troll unless he can figure out how to justify his absurd position.

[Besoeker]

Just a troll POD. He refuses to form an argument. He is wrong and it would appear, as far as the ability to explain his trolling, in way over his head.

So we can conclude that:

He does not know what a theist is.

Therefor he does not know what an atheist is.

There is an outside chance that he has seen the error of his ways and can't find a way out of the trap he has sprung on himself.

He is an antitheist who refuses to own his beliefs.

I'm going with troll unless he can figure out how to justify his absurd position.

And you clearly don't understand what atheism is.

[Drlee]

So that is yet another one-line trolling post.

It will be interesting to see if he ever decides to present an argument to support his position.

[Besoeker]

So that is yet another one-line trolling post.

It will be interesting to see if he ever decides to present an argument to support his position.

My position is very simple.
I have no belief in any supernatural entity.
You want to argue about that?

[Pants-of-dog]

This:
"Yes, the one where you claim that all atheists have only an absence of belief. That one."
I did not claim that.

It is your definition of atheism.

Yes, I know that I used the word atheists instead of atheism, but that is mere semantics. I am discussing the logic (or more specifically, the inconsistency between your defintion and the actual beliefs of atheists) of your definition.

[Besoeker]

It is your definition of atheism.

It's not my definition. It's what atheism is. The clue is right there in the word.

[Pants-of-dog]

Then how do you reconcile that with the fact that some atheists believe that god does not exist?

[Besoeker]

Then how do you reconcile that with the fact that some atheists believe that god does not exist?

I couldn't and I wouldn't.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well, that was a stunning admission of the limited usefulness of your defintion.

I agree that it would be impossible to reconcile your defintion with the reality that many atheists have more than an absence of belief.

And now we see why your defintion is incorrect, and a generalisation.

[Besoeker]

Well, that was a stunning admission of the limited usefulness of your defintion.

I agree that it would be impossible to reconcile your defintion with the reality that many atheists have more than an absence of belief.

And now we see why your defintion is incorrect, and a generalisation.

I'll try this one more time. It is not a generalisation and it is not incorrect.
If you want to continue to unnecessarily complicate the issue, include me out.