Posted: Jan 22, 2011 11:05 am
What?If you simplify as such, yes it is of the brain, but to associate it without difference as the same thing as any other natural process is explicitly showing similar illiteracy in reference to grouping physical processes with chemical processes.
Or you could just use your braind ans swithc the order of words and say that atheism is true means : “It is true that God does not exist“.A thousand gratitudes for fucking proving what I just said according to your context. According to what you said for the umpteenth time, pay attention to my emphasised reiteration: atheism is true is grammatically the same as gawd does not exist is true i.e. your expression of atheism is god does not exist which is linguistically inaccurate. Your failure to realise this grammatical error is duly noted once again. Even in the common understanding of atheism it does NOT even express that someone does not believe in gawd, but that it is the absence of theistic belief. Note that it doesn`t concern an individual, it`s merely the bloody definition. An atheist is someone who does not believe in gawd. Repeating this bullshit at this juncture will just be dismissed for your lack of research.
By promoting theism you a promoting a certain vorldview. And you are certainly promoting another worldview by promoting atheism. Ideas have consequences. If you promote the idea that there is no God, then by definition you promote the idea that there are no objective moral values, thus you are promoting moral relativism. By negating one idea, a different one automatically follows. If it's not night, then it's either noon, evening, morining or day.The term THUS (or therefore) is a sentence connector that mandates consistency by following the premise and subject thereof, but my explanation above similar to your variation is precisely pointing out that [the fact that a theist means a person who believes in gawd] is NOT consistent or does not follow (non sequitur) with the premise of the promotion or fancy of theocracy and whatnot. Albeit a fact that being a theist is to believe in gawd, it is an irrelevant conclusion (ignoratio elenchi) and I may go so far as to establish it as a red herring as this has prolonged long enough.
No, you can't dismiss it, becasue that's my definition.In other words, your orgulous and vacuous assertion can be dismissed, as I requested a significant reference.