Freedom of Religion in America?

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Quote #1 - Nit-picky semantics...all it meant was that atheists do not believe there's a God. They may be wrong. You certainly can not be trying to tell me that there IS a God, but you don't believe in it ?!? If you don't have belief in a God, you don't think there is a God. The point was that they are going forth from a belief in something they can't know for sure about, which is at a disadvantage when compared to someone who doesn't even waste time believing or disbelieving, but rather admits that we can't know which way to believe.

Quote #2, #3 and #4 - You quoted these in response to my disagreement with this statement of yours:

At the very least you have problems differentiating what some atheists think or say from what Atheism means.

I have no idea why as they are all about how it's superior to believe in things we can know than to maintain beliefs that may be wrong and can not be proven to be true.
They weren't about distinctions between atheists, they were about the distinction between knowledge and belief.


I am very let down by your "dogged research" because what you are claiming is that I do not understand the distinctions between atheists, but all of those quotes are about how knowing something is superior to believing something.

Agnosticism is about admitting the truth, while Theism and Atheism are about beliefs/disbeliefs, which may be incorrect.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Look, I'm really not trying to be antagonistic, but don't you think it's worth considering that you've had to explain yourself a LOT in this thread? I mean, can it really be that everyone else is ******ed, or could it be that, in the heat of the moment, you've communicated poorly? Are you really so infallible that none of this could be your own fault?

Hahaha. No, I haven't had to explain myself very much at all.
Out of thousands of users, and hundreds who have read this thread...There are only TWO people who take continuing issue with me...one of them has trouble with simple logic and makes outrageously ridiculous exaggerations and comes to freaky, nonsensical conclusions...and the other one AGREES with me about the meaning of the word "atheism", has successfully gotten me to admit that I should make it clear that I'm not making statements about all of them in general, but inexplicably, refuses to acknowledge these two facts, while,...sometimes acknowledging them.




DUDE, l.i.s.t.e.n.
If I say that "I should've said 'some'.", that MEANS that I communicated my point poorly! ! ! ! ! !
Bill is trying to have it both ways where:

1) I don't understand the distinctions (false),

and

2) I should've said "some" (admitted).

The issue here is that he's trying to act as if my statements WERE generalizations about all atheists...and by repeatedly quoting and telling everyone that Idifferentiate between them, it should be enough for you to accept that my shorthand, less-than-clear-and-accurately-expressive, or, in your view, sloppy and incorrect, communication was not. actually. meant. to. describe. all. atheists.


It's clearly a reflection on you and Bill...that I have to explain the distinctions between atheists, and admit that I SHOULD HAVE SAID "SOME", 40,000 times, but it's ignored.

 

[BlackLantern]

Wil loves his religious debates....any thread about God and Wil is in here peeing all over the thread (but in a good way)

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Not just any thread. I can't remember which one it was, but there was one where Darthphere said, "Wilhelm in 3...2...1...", but I honestly had no interest in it.

But that was one out of scores of them over the years, yes.

 

[Aristotle]

Hahaha. No, I haven't had to explain myself very much at all.
Out of thousands of users, and hundreds who have read this thread...There are only TWO people who take continuing issue with me...one of them has trouble with simple logic and makes outrageously ridiculous exaggerations and comes to freaky, nonsensical conclusions...and the other one AGREES with me about the meaning of the word "atheism", has successfully gotten me to admit that I should make it clear that I'm not making statements about all of them in general, but inexplicably, refuses to acknowledge these two facts, while,...sometimes acknowledging them.




DUDE, l.i.s.t.e.n.
If I say that "I should've said 'some'.", that MEANS that I communicated my point poorly! ! ! ! ! !
Bill is trying to have it both ways where:

1) I don't understand the distinctions (false),

and

2) I should've said "some" (admitted).

The issue here is that he's trying to act as if my statements WERE generalizations about all atheists...and by repeatedly quoting and telling everyone that Idifferentiate between them, it should be enough for you to accept that my shorthand, less-than-clear-and-accurately-expressive, or, in your view, sloppy and incorrect, communication was not. actually. meant. to. describe. all. atheists.


It's clearly a reflection on you and Bill...that I have to explain the distinctions between atheists, and admit that I SHOULD HAVE SAID "SOME", 40,000 times, but it's ignored.

Have you ever admitted that you made a mistake? I really can't believe that you have.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

So......it is true...you do not even read my posts before attacking me.

DUDE, l.i.s.t.e.n.
If I say that "I should've said 'some'.", that MEANS that I communicated my point poorly! ! ! ! ! !

This is exactly what I'm talking about, how...I fear you need to get a thorough psychological check up or something, ....because, it's baffling...I say that I communicated my point poorly, you QUOTE it!, and then RIGHT AFTER THAT, you say that you don't think I've ever admitted a mistake.

That's either:
1) proof that you are an act, and are just ****ing with me.
2) spooky

This is becoming so ******ed and mind-bending that it's almost monumental.

• Ben Stein suggests that society suffers for turning it's back on God
• Does Wilhelm believe in God?
• WHY does he?!
• Wilhelm doesn't understand atheism even though he understands it perfectly
• Wilhelm admits a mistake so, you accuse him of never admitting a mistake, while quoting his admission of a mistake.

I'm not taking issue with Bill for saying I should've said "some",(which I went over with the thing about how saying "Black people are lazy." would come off as more of a generalization than "Lawyers are heartless."...though I HAVE explained that I obviously MEANT "some", so it's dumb to keep harping on the omission of that one word after thousands of words have been written about how I meant it.), it's that he's acting as if I did not actually MEAN "some", which is totally, obviously untrue.
You seriously need help, dudes.



Er....see you tomorrow for the next installment of "Wilhelm admits that he should've explicitly said "SOME atheists", and explains how the disbelief of all atheists is not the same for the 40,002nd time.".

 

[Aristotle]

What a stunning admission. You truly are a paragon of humility.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I'm not exceptionally humble and I've never claimed to be.
The point is that you said you don't believe I've ever admitted that I was wrong, while quoting me where I admitted that I was wrong.
You are non-sane.
It's like you're intellectually devolving before our eyes.

 

[kainedamo]

Was the real Aristotle anything like this?