I have no need for you to do anything. You make claims of a personal nature against me when you say that I have said such and such but you do not back those claims up, even when asked to.
I have on numerous occasions asked for you to do this on the possibility that you have misunderstood me so that we can get past this, but you consistently ignore my requests so I have to assume you are being dishonest.
Meanwhile, I actually have backed my claims up directly, multiple times, and adding to that, you've repeatedly requested me to back up my statements when there were multiple examples specifically identified
in the very same posts that you were responding to when you asked for them. Given that, I have no choice to consider your requests to be nothing more than a dishonest attempt to try to save face. Frankly, though, anytime when I point my position out clearly probably around 40 times and the other poster is still trying to claim that I'm arguing something that's actually the opposite of my position, I don't tend to think highly of the other poster's honesty.
No. Ignored because of personal bias.
Amusing how you think you can claim that I'm employing personal bias when I stated a perfectly valid reason for why the claim in question could be dismissed. Since this and the next part is, apparently, you losing track of what's going on, again, I will, yet again, remind you of the nature of the statement in question here -
One can claim 'oh I lack belief just as I did when I was a baby'.
Now, since you are again having difficulty, the claim that can be ignored because it's fallacious is "oh I lack belief just as I did when I was a baby." One can claim it, yes, but they will simply be wrong, because it's an inherently fallacious statement and position, which means that that particular position does not qualify as an atheistic position. Certainly, if a person claimed that seriously without specifically intending deceit, they likely would be an atheist, but not in the way they claim.
As you are aware, I lack belief in any ideas of gods. As such, you may see me as an atheist because I fit the criteria of what an atheist is.
However, there are things which others who call themselves atheists participate in which I understand are not expressions of atheism and this is misleading.
See?
I'm quite aware of your stated position, having actually paid attention to what you've said. This and the following are not relevant to the quote that you're addressing, however, as I've already explained. Either way, stamp collecting is also not an expression of atheism, yet some atheists do collect stamps. That kind of relationship is what you seem to find misleading.
An atheist lacks belief in gods.
Yes.
And... you really don't have a remotely defensible argument here. Atheist addresses one attribute. That attribute has nothing to do with ridicule. Some atheists do indeed engage in ridicule. Some theists engage in ridicule. People engaging in ridicule is based on numerous things, with atheism or particular brands of theism frequently having nothing at all to do with such. Where it's even arguable that they do, it's generally a case of how a person responds to having a different position than the other.
An atheist is able to contemplate and investigate god ideas as possibly true without having to believe those ideas. This applies equally to ideas which are possible in relation to afterlife or any other idea sourced in theism.
A theist can just as well. Again, this is referring to a trait that is not relevant to whether one is an atheist or a theist.
An atheist does not have
'memes' which poke fun (or worse) at theism
Again, that's not even a remotely defensible statement, for the same reasons as above. Theists have similar, either way, both for atheists and each other.
That which ridicules, baits, makes personal statements about what individuals are supposed to have claimed without backing up those statements with evidence, is not the expression of atheism.
Heh. Take a step back. Try rereading the previous posts in this fairly simple discussion and note how this entire section of your reply is, at best, completely irrelevant to the topic that was being discussed. If that's too much for you, reread the second response in this post, which spells out what was under discussion, yet again.
If you are actually interested, go back and review our previous discussions and you'll repeatedly find similar cases where your answers don't actually respond to the quoted... and then, usually, you became irate when I pointed out that they don't.
Or, if it is, then I am not an atheist, even that I lack belief in god ideas.
I'm pretty sure that I've more than addressed this already, but... no, the previous isn't an expression of atheism. It's an expression rooted in love of comprehensively understanding what's likely the truth and the best means to do so.
It is not argument. It is observing the many expressions of that those who call themselves 'atheists' and realizing that it is not as clear cut as you are claiming. In expressing those observations i do so not as argument but as simply stating what is truly being observed.
I am certainly open to being shown that my observations are incorrect but so far no one has been able to do so. Getting personal - as you often do with me, is not (and cannot) count as showing me my observations are incorrect.
You're trying to make it an argument by adding fallacious logic. Each of the things that you've identified are not rooted in atheism, nor are they expressions of such. Atheism may be "related in some fashion," certainly, but it really cannot be the cause.
You self identity as an atheist is perhaps incorrect because you understand it to mean that you do not accept any god ideas as 'the case or likely to be the case' whereas atheism is simply the lack of belief in god ideas. Those are two different positions.
They are two different statements, yes. One is a subset of the other, though, which removes any potential contradiction.
Otherwise confusion can arise and the need to distinguish 'what type' of atheist one is becomes relevant.
We've been though this before, too. Remember the color analogy?
Unlike theism, there is no need to further elaborate as to what type you are,
And you base this on...? Atheism and theism deal with a particular trait. It is frequently reasonable to identify a person by something more accurate, though, which includes that they are an atheist or theist as part of that. Since you like to bring it up, a baby being called "ignorant" on the subject is a more accurate description, which, as part of it, does
include a lack of belief as part of it, much like being a Mormon includes theism as part of it.
or if there is then I can claim therefore that neither position (atheism or theism) are the only positions a human being can have, in the sense that I have to decide from one of the only two options permitted.
No. Your premises are deeply flawed from the start.
Because the only 'type' of atheist I am is one who lacks belief in god ideas.
Which would leave you at 'atheist.'
And I do not allow such lack to prevent me from investigating the possibility of such things as consciousness pre existing big bang or consciousness surviving the death of the body, any more than I allow theism to dictate to me what the conditions/positions of those two ideas are.
And considering myself an atheist has not affected my investigation in those areas, either. Other things have, certainly, such as understanding the existing evidence on the topic and the nature of the possibilities in question. Either way, what seems to have affected your investigations, by previous statements of yours, is hope and desire that some of it's true and that it would somehow mean far more than it intrinsically does or would.
