Freedom From Atheism

You again miss the point, you have made the extrodinary claims.

You have the burden of proof and you have not provided one shred of evidence.

YOU claim atheism is a religion.
YOU claim that you are under attack.
YOU claim atheist are controlling government.

Do not think you will get away with deflecting.

 

I knew you wouldnt be able to find anything, not so much as ONE counter argument, just the same soapbox (*)(*)(*)(*) rhetoric.

Ok now get back on your soapbox and scream it loud this time!

I have any idea why dont you invent some?

 

Well I can certainly post one undeniable truth. You have yet to post your premses and the conclusion you are trying to prove in English. That fact is undeniable. And it is also inarguable that doing so is the first step in any logcal proof. Unless there is a clear statement of the premises and an agreement on them all else fails.

 

and I am sure it never occurred to you that you really do not know what a premise and conclusion is.

 

Temper temper sweat pea, here is your conspiracy theory

"Why do atheists assault Christians, Muslims, Jews, and all those who govern themselves with a theistic moral compass by demanding everyone else conform to their atheist agenda [aka religion]?"

Do not mistake your attempt at deflection by using taunts, with me finding it insulting, I find it very amusing. Nothing to substantiate your conspiracy theories so you demand others prove them wrong.

I won't go away, your childish threats just make you look more ass(*)(*)(*)(*)ed and returning to ROE (your threat without a consequence) just shows how much you are struggling.

So once again I ask, how you going to free yourself from the imagined constraints of a non existent religion (atheism) and the persecution you so clearly feel?

 

1) PROVEN FALSE You again miss the point
2) PROVEN FALSE you have made the extrodinary claims.
3) BURDEN PROVEN You have the burden of proof
4) FACT, CLAIM PROVEN FALSE you have not provided one shred of evidence.
5) FACT, CLAIM PROVEN TRUE YOU claim atheism is a religion.
6) FALSE YOU claim that you are under attack. (I am drinking a beer lmao)
7) FACT, CLAIM PROVEN TRUE YOU claim atheist are controlling government.
8.) PROVEN FALSE Do not think you will get away with deflecting.


Again I advise you to get off the soapbox and simply take the time to read the thread if you want answers because soapbox rhetoric wont get you very far.

 

Glad the beer is calming your temper, unfortunately it has not helped you understand that your opinion does not constitute a fact and you need to convince others of your conspiracy theory not yourself!

Remind me, how are you going to be free of a non existent religion and the persecution you feel?

 

your imagination is running away on a tangent again. Laughter is NOT temper. You are confused, or you failed to comprehend my previous response to unending fantasies you post that wreak of desperation.

The facts I posted do constitute a fact along with formal logic proves each point. I suggest taking some university courses so you can actually join me in a debate. Nonsense I feel no persecution, but its getting quite comical that your whole debate tactic relies on strawman fantasies that YOU MAKE UP.

 

It seems to me the definition of belief is quite reliant on it being the truth. The definitions I posted before were:

It seems to me belief specifically refers to beliefs in the truth of statements. It seems to me if I am presented with a statement that I believe is false, I would reject it, i.e. not accept it. If you want to make a statement about its falsehood or unknowability, you would have to construct a separate statement (which may depend on the original statement) which you can chose to believe, but that will have no direct impact on the answer to the question whether you accept the original statement as true.

I'm not agreeing with the bracketed part but the rest seem fine, and I'm curious how you combine them. If you think that "disbelieving odds" is the same as "believing it's not odds" which is the same as "believing it's evens", how can you have the choice to disbelieve evens? And if you cannot, how can there be agnostics?

Absolutely. In daily speech, there are plenty of implications which aren't actually there in the language. If in practice you tell someone "I don't believe odds", it is often quite sensible to assume they mean they do believe evens, and that's not a feature of the language or the logic, that's a feature of the social context. If one has more complex problems, like whether or not it counts as a belief for the purposes of the first amendment of American law, we have to be a bit more careful.

What question do you think you're answering? The question isn't "do you accept that it is odds or do you accept that it is evens?" (in which case neither is a good answer), it was "do you accept that odds is true?". It is true that you can't know, so does that not leaving having to not accept "odds" just like that?

 

Nice try to duck the issue. Sorry you can't even do simple logical proofs correctly. Can provide links to help you if you would like to learn

Here is a very simple primer that I Am sure will raise your skill level. Note step Five. Now after you learn what is in this simple beginner course we can move on the a more detailed lesson.

http://m.wikihow.com/Complete-a-High-School-Logical-Proof

 

WHO, WHAT, and HOW is anyone forcing their atheist belief on you?


You: """Hence the question, how do we obtain freedom from atheists?"""



Look around you.....HOW are you NOT free from atheists? Have they surrounded your house and won't let you out? ....

 

Poor guy is upset by the growing acceptance of the " athiest religion"

 

In other words "frightened by something that doesn't exist"

Some people are easily frightened....

 

so then according to you I cannot accept as true (believe) that something is false is that the problem now?

 

YOu dont know?

read the thread, I answered it more times than I can count then get back to me if you have a point.

 

so I trust you will take the time to read your primer before posting any more silly (*)(*)(*)(*)?

 

Premise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia › wiki › Premise
In other words: a premise is an assumption that something is true. In logic, an argument requires a set of (at least) two declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises or premisses along with another declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion.

Do I need to help you with the meaning of declaritive sentence?

 

Naw, the whole thing is really quite boring ..... I do read fiction but it's usually murder mysteries not "The Atheists are Coming! The Atheists are Coming !! ""


I guess you must not really have a solid argument if you can't sum it up in a single sentence....maybe you're bored by now, too....

 

prem·ise
ˈpreməs/
nounLOGIC
noun: premise; plural noun: premises; noun: premiss; plural noun: premisses
1.
a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion.
"if the premise is true, then the conclusion must be true"
an assertion or proposition which forms the basis for a work or theory.
"the fundamental premise of the report"
synonyms: proposition, assumption, hypothesis, thesis, presupposition, postulation, postulate, supposition, presumption, surmise, conjecture, speculation, assertion, belief
"the premise that human life consists of a series of choices"
verb
verb: premise; 3rd person present: premises; past tense: premised; past participle: premised; gerund or present participle: premising
1.
base an argument, theory, or undertaking on.
"the reforms were premised on our findings"
state or presuppose (something) as a premise.
"one school of thought premised that the cosmos is indestructible"
synonyms: postulate, hypothesize, conjecture, posit, theorize, suppose, presuppose, surmise, assume
"they premised that the cosmos is indestructible"
archaic
state by way of introduction.
"I will premise generally that I hate lecturing"
Origin

late Middle English: from Old French premisse, from medieval Latin praemissa (propositio ) ‘(proposition) set in front,’ from Latin praemittere, from prae ‘before’ + mittere ‘send.’
Translate premise to
Use over time for: premise

Feedback

 

I'd be surprised if you are really saying "disbelieving odds" is the not same as "believing it's not odds" is not the same? If the trinary aspects are confusing leave them out, but you cannot have agnostic without the third option.

- - - Updated - - -

so you have proven that I have made countless propositions, premises and conclusions, like why would I care?

 

No, that is not what I mean. If you have a statement "p", like "there is an odd number of leaves on this tree", you can accept p as true, which would mean you believe p. You can also consider (although I don't propose these are the only options) the idea that p is false, i.e. :there is not an odd number of leaves" and you can believe that statement, !p. However, believing statement !p is not "to believe p". To believe something _about_ p (like that p is false) is not necessarily to _believe_ p.

"That something is false" is a statement in its own right, which you can believe or not. That doesn't in itself mean you believe the something that you thought was false.

 

Belief and its proper application stands upon its own merit. It is a necessary element to the formation of a religion. Every sentient being has beliefs that control their actions/interactions.

what do you think is different from accept there is an odd number of leaves on the tree or accepting that odd is true?

 

well you forced me a while back to prove there is a distinction between the object and the condition of the object. So does that mean that we understand each other now?

 

my last post should have highlighted the above.

this one: "That doesn't in itself mean you believe the something that you thought was false." doesnt make any sense since it does not apply to a resultant decision itself.

 

HE is a massive conspiracy theorist.

Over in the conspiracy theory section here he has wasted massive bandwidth losing argument after argument in favor of inside job, and thermite and controlled demolition theories on 911.

It is a great insight into his narrow thinking and limited intellect.

Being brainwashed as he is he thinks everyone else is as well