"Atheism" is just a modern sect of Pharisaism with a more straightforward name

Flat denials.

A person doesn't have to exist for another person to take after them. People with the psychiatric disorder of Munchausenism take after Baron Munchausen, a fictional character.

I'm not for calling atheists atheists. I'm for calling them Satanists. Make up a less sloppy comparison and get back to me.

But Satan rejected god while acknowledging his existance, he got kicked from heaven afterall. Atheists dont even do that, neither do they feel consequences of it on earth.

You are making the sloppy comparisons here.

>>obvious troll/baitpost that I reported and the mods do nothing
>>idiots stream into the thread to debate the giggling moron who likely made this thread in between forays into /d/ for dickgirl porn
I hate you people. At least use sage to not bump the thread when you reply.

Explained in the third paragraph of OP. Phariseeism rejected God even when He showed up.

Coincidentally Marxism, then after that failed new atheism, then after that failed atheism plus were all movements pushed by ethnic Jews.

Thanks for the agreement Satan is a fictional character.

You're redefining words to fit your agenda. You're not worth engaging.

You don't need to acknowledge the existence of God to reject Him. Like I said, denial of the existence of God is merely an intellectualized post-hoc rationalization for a spiritual rejection that has already taken place.

My comparison is hardly sloppy since that comparison is the origin and original technical use of the term in question.

...

You just admitted defeat in the argument at hand and seized on a red herring to save face.

I'm using the original 16th century definition of the word. Consider yourself disengaged.

Definitions change. You can't just handwave this away based on your vague notions of 'the mataphysics involved.'
Atheism in the modern age means 'without belief in a god or gods', period.

>I'm using the original 16th century definition of the word. Consider yourself disengaged.

So you admit you are deliberately making a fallacious argument.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy

You're the one that equated Satan to Baron Munchausen.

Yes I can if I define my terms at the opening of the argument, like I did in the OP.

Definitions change, and we can change them how we want as long as we're upfront about it, which is especially rewarding when it pisses off your interlocutor.

Pffft. The etymological fallacy doesn't apply when you explicitly point out the etymology as part of your prescriptive argument for word usage. That isn't what the etymological fallacy is.

Cling to that straw, drowning man.

"And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:"

And I'm free to reject those definitions.

>The etymological fallacy doesn't apply when you explicitly point out the etymology as part of your prescriptive argument for word usage.

It very clearly applies. You are arguing about the modern day attitudes of people labelled 'atheist' by using a 16th Century definition.

>this level of desperation

Consider that I'm not arguing that we use the term "atheist" at all, especially not in its original sense, but instead use the term "Satanist." That isn't an etymological fallacy.

And you're also free to reject God, and truth, and life. You don't even have to listen to people who know better. Glad we could agree to disagree.

The question of whether or not Satan is real is besides the point. You don't need to believe that Satan is real to be a Satanist. The Church of Satan teaches that Satan is just a metaphor. Are LeVey Satanists not Satanists? Your red herring is pathetic.

You can't reject what you don't believe in.

There are more religions and yours smells like butt catholicuck.
No wonder people are atheist when the only option presented reeks so badly.

>The Church of Satan teaches that Satan is just a metaphor
Snakes are real and they bite.

Not believing something is just a form of rejection. It's called denial.

no u

So you're back to arguing Satan is not real.

My uncle was once saved from a snake bite by the prodigious beard he had grown below his chin. Nice to see you're ahead of the game.

Rejection implies there's something to reject.

Gnosticism is an interesting read for curious atheists, it agrees with your notion that yhvh is evil.

>This sense was the original usage of the word in the 16th century, and remains implicit in all usages of the word to this day for people who truly understand the metaphysics involved, despite whatever protestations posted below.

Quit moving the goalposts.

...

Atheists don't believe Yahweh is evil, they think he doesn't exist.

I take it youre not familiar with fedora books on gentlemanry.

Actually that's a separate argument completely apart from the argument we were actually having, the outcome of which (which was in my favour) didn't depend on the question of the existence or nonexistence of Satan. Either present a new counterargument or I'll consider the matter settled. If you want to insist on your red herring fallacy after I've pointed out how it is fallacious then you've just abandoned sanity.

Pfft rattle off some more terms you don't understand.

I've got to hit the hay, my godless interlocutors. If the thread is still up tomorrow night I'll continue the discussion. Sleep tight, Satanists.

You have clearly misunderstood whatever "fedora books on gentlemanry" you claim to have read.

>I won because I said so
>despite the fact all my "arguments" were demonstrated to be fallacious

Not an argument.

Now that has been settled with me as the clear victor let's discuss the actual Greek / Roman origins of the word. It was used to describe groups such as Christians who did not worship the Greco-Roman pantheon.

>child rants about people denying the existence of his imaginary friend

Maybe its just a phase.....

Understand then all of you, especially the young, that to want to impose an imaginary state of government on others by violence is not only a vulgar superstition, but even a criminal work. Understand that this work, far from assuring the well-being of humanity is only a lie, a more or less unconscious hypocrisy, camouflaging the lowest passions we posses.
Passage written for for The Law of Love and the Law of Violence (1908), released in 1917, as quoted in Equality in Liberty and Justice (2001) by Antony Flew, p. 89
en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Leo_Tolstoy

this is one big semantical argument. nice poem.

*tips for christ*

>child treating religion like it's not extremely important to the keeping of moral justice and probity
Maybe its just a phase...

Your logic applies only if one presupposes the existence of God. Closed thought system, unfalsifiable. In other words, fuck off,

It isn't.