I have gathered the inhumanity agenda for their lack of caring - and it is not only about God it is about humanity at large. Theists have a humanity agenda.
That isn't what I meant, and I really do not appreciate you trying to twist the meaning of what I said to fit that agenda of yours. Really, really
do not. It has nothing to do with any 'agenda', and instead of assuming that it does - which puts you in the same category as many other theists who think they know what atheism is about - you should pay attention to what the atheists here actually say.
Pay attention this time, because I'm going to spell this out for you. Atheists do not particularly care which god a theist claims as their authority, because they consider all of those gods to be imaginary due to the total lack of evidence that those same theists provide. That is categorically not the same thing as atheists not caring in general, or having an "inhumanity agenda". That's your bad assumption that you're putting up as a strawman.
It will work give it time. Mindsets are hard to change.
Sad to say, but it really won't, because you're peddling the same thing that many other theists who have wandered in here have tried to peddle. You're trying to promote some path to knowledge that is somehow necessary (according to you), even though you don't bother to explain why it's necessary, and it leads to a god that you don't have any evidence for. It's even more bizarre in your case cause you describe yourself as an atheist - yet you somehow know that "theists know god", which is more than a bit silly. And the only way to make sense of your particular belief is to accept your definitions, even though they're more than a little bizarre. You confuse gnosticism with theism, and act like everyone who doesn't "know god" is an atheist, and those who do are theists, even though the proper term would be gnostic and agnostic. For crying out loud, gnostic actually means "has knowledge"! And that means someone who knows something is referred to as a gnostic. In this case, a gnostic theist, one who has knowledge of and believes in a god. Whereas virtually all atheists are agnostic atheists, those who neither have knowledge of, nor belief in a god.
I explained this to you before. Didn't you even bother to try understanding it? Or did it upset your preconceived notion of what the words had to mean too much?
Changing mindsets is not an easy thing - People have come to identify with the wrong ideology. Christians say atheists are immoral yet we know that is not true. They say they are all sorts of things of that are negative but we know theists can control their minds. We need a better approach. If everyone is truthfully labelled as they do not know God then the process that leads them to knowing becomes a humane one and that is the theists agenda. It ditches all religious dogma and makes one accountable to the self aware. They promote humanity and it removes the atheists stigma that goes with the present one.
So what, you think that simply changing labels will somehow change everyone's minds to bring them in line with the way you see things? Boy, are you in for a shock. All you're going to actually accomplish is to get into endless arguments over terminology, and for no good reason besides. To put it bluntly, atheists don't believe that gods exist, and thus even if you succeeded in changing the term atheist to mean something else, atheists would simply pick a different word to describe themselves, or more likely coin one, and that would be the end of that. You can't force people to think about themselves differently by changing the words they use.
It is a title for debate so that we can have a real purposeful debate. All the people who do not know God are atheists. The theists are the only people we have to look to for the method of knowing. This makes the process of knowing a humane one. People keep blabbering on about God being a bad evil twisted egotistical blah blah blah but when you look at the person who brought us God we get some truths. Kings alter books to suit their own agendas they do not know God. Books are not an authority. You can always talk to the man and know what he knows. You can never talk to the book.
If you want a "real, purposeful debate", then drop this pointless argument about semantics, about how the word atheist means what you think it should mean and nothing else (even though other people use it differently than you), and focus on the actual points you're trying to make. I don't think you're likely to succeed even so, but at least we'll be past this ridiculous argument about what the word atheist means.
By the way, you are aware that people die, right? As in, the people who supposedly "knew god" are dead and gone. So just how do you expect to be able to talk to them to find out what they mean? You may not be able to talk with a book, but you can at least get information out of it. Kind of hard to do that with a dead person.
All religions already had their teacher. Religious people should listen to that teaching but they do not. Theist teach a humane way of life and it has been ongoing.
What you're saying just doesn't fly. You're just assuming that these teachers of yours had some kind of a direct line to 'god' and were actually teaching about humaneness. There certainly isn't any way to tell that, and that means it's foolhardy to make that assumption. Leaving that aside, just where did you find out that "theists teach a humane way of life"? You've never actually tried to explain that; you don't even have "god told me" to fall back on because you've described yourself as one who doesn't know god.
Well it has not leadership - you cannot lead without leadership.. Theists have solved that problem of knowing a long time ago. Using a scientific method to make the human being accountable through conscious self awareness.
Oh, please. Do you really expect anyone to swallow this? That 'theists' somehow use "a scientific method to make the human being accountable through conscious self-awareness"? That just sounds like you're stringing nouns together to make yourself sound profound, and it isn't working. It's just making you sound like you don't really know what you're talking about.
I am saying theists exist. Knowing God is not the problem of theists - it is what some of them do that causes problems.
When did I say theists didn't exist? And what makes you think that these 'theists' of yours actually do "know god"? I'm quite serious here. You keep making this claim, but you've never been able to support it. Well, it's time to provide some support for your arguments, instead of simply making the common mistake of assuming that if you just repeat them enough, people will believe you.
I am going to give you that. A true theist is just creating the highest human being possible. It takes time. We find people who get some knowledge and start their own school for money fame etc. -- pay me I can give you something as if they can. This is not the way of the true theist and these individuals simply confuse the seeking people of the world for their own gain. God has no need for money to teach his message. A true Theist is that way inclined by his nature with God. Some of his disciples want the fame, the money, the ideology. They get involved in their own egoistic gain. We see this all over the world. Ego vs humility. Chances are ego wins.
Okay, I'm guessing you've never heard of the "no true ScotsmanWiki
" logical fallacy. When you declare that a "true theist" does something, you're basically playing that card - "a true theist does X", therefore someone who doesn't do X is not a true theist. You don't get to declare what a true theist is any more than you get to declare what an atheist is.
Then join me for the title. We can move on.
I categorically refuse to accept your flawed and bad definitions of what atheist and theist mean, Jesuis. You have not even attempted to meet me or anyone else halfway on anything. It's all about what you want and what you think; you haven't shown the slightest interest in caring about what anyone else says despite preaching about humaneness (which is caring about other people, fundamentally; what they want, what they think, what they have to say, and so on). It takes more than mere words to show that you're a humane person; you have to act like it, and so far you haven't.