3 questions for atheists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 8 Votes - 1.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-02-2014, 08:24 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(03-02-2014 08:14 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  You're just toxic, noisy and dull.

No, that's you and I would add ignorant, dishonest and unintelligent to that list.

You are a duplicitous old hag with a jaundiced view of the world.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2014, 08:32 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(03-02-2014 08:24 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(03-02-2014 08:14 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  You're just toxic, noisy and dull.

No, that's you and I would add ignorant, dishonest and unintelligent to that list.

You are a duplicitous old hag with a jaundiced view of the world.

No - my view of the world is just fine. I'm a happy person, Chippy.
However, No........I don't like internet creeps. Never have. Go figure.

That online Thesaurus is coming in handy for ya huh?

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2014, 02:45 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(03-02-2014 02:21 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(03-02-2014 01:00 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  This forum is better than most atheist forums. I'm not sure if that's a compliment or not.

The bar is set pretty low so it's not a great achievement.

We have a good collection of bona fide retards here that don't know that they post retard, e.g. coconut head and Tourette's Chimp, and they eventually coalesce--via the mutual attraction of retards--to form a retard-mass. When a retard-mass forms--as it has here--then the results can be unpredictable. Even if you understand the individual retards it does not mean that you understand the retard-mass.

There are those, but they're at every site. These types don't do much for atheism as position and is possibly why I want nothing to do with it. Their dogmatic atheism just counters the supposed free-thought, when in reality, it's just free from religion. They've read too much Dawkins and feel empowered by his vitriol. It bores the hell out of most people, who have thought about questions beyond the superficial. Perhaps they stop there and feel perfectly justified in their emotions. Fucking boring.

People don't know they're retards, and yes they don't require much validation to form a retarded posse. I find it funny, when I can be bothered. Other times their futility is just exasperating. My children have a better innate understanding of philosophy than them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2014, 02:46 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(03-02-2014 02:54 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I was considering the party to be over but as Chippy is still there draining the empties, I'll add this...

(03-02-2014 12:49 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  You guys accept tourette's, so you can hardly get mad when flies hang around shit.

I ain't mad bro.

I have only two people on ignore because they litter the threads with banalities.

I check their input sometimes as they occasionally post something worth reading.

Chippy's thoughtful and thought-provoking contributions outweigh his shit-flinging so he is not one of the two.

This forum, with all its faults, has some good shit and there are people here (not just avatars) who contribute by offering support and empathy... openly and via PM.

Some of those people are now getting insulted for not being women of substance.

I'm saying that 'substance' is a matter of opinion.

So who's mad?

Nah sorry, I wasn't addressing you at all. You don't seem like the mad type.

Substance is a subjective term and people will get different things from people. For example, I think Tourette's is a complete waste of space, yet many here seem to share his perspective and presumably think he reflects their perspective. Difference is inevitable, and is conflict. I agree it must be a pain for people not predisposed to it. I will use a forum for whatever, and wherever it goes. It gets a bit monotone otherwise.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Brownshirt's post
03-02-2014, 02:51 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(03-02-2014 02:46 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(03-02-2014 02:54 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I was considering the party to be over but as Chippy is still there draining the empties, I'll add this...


I ain't mad bro.

I have only two people on ignore because they litter the threads with banalities.

I check their input sometimes as they occasionally post something worth reading.

Chippy's thoughtful and thought-provoking contributions outweigh his shit-flinging so he is not one of the two.

This forum, with all its faults, has some good shit and there are people here (not just avatars) who contribute by offering support and empathy... openly and via PM.

Some of those people are now getting insulted for not being women of substance.

I'm saying that 'substance' is a matter of opinion.

So who's mad?

Nah sorry, I wasn't addressing you at all. You don't seem like the mad type.

Substance is a subjective term and people will get different things from people. For example, I think Tourette's is a complete waste of space, yet many here seem to share his perspective and presumably think he reflects their perspective. Difference is inevitable, and is conflict. I agree it must be a pain for people not predisposed to it. I will use a forum for whatever, and wherever it goes. It gets a bit monotone otherwise.

Fair comment. Thanks for the reply.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2014, 02:52 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
Ya know, I think I forgot the questions... Huh

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Anjele's post
03-02-2014, 02:57 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(03-02-2014 02:52 PM)Anjele Wrote:  Ya know, I think I forgot the questions... Huh



Crissakes Blush- ya think? LOLWeeping

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2014, 02:32 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
Quote: But by the 1950s logical positivism started to decline--as it flaws became apparent--and with it also went the enthusiasm for theological noncognitivism.

The logical positivists were right on the money when they said that such sequences of alphabet letters as "God", "soul", "divine", "holy" made no sense to them. However, they were very wrong because they thought they could do something to label "prove that it makes no sense". They didn't realize that they had no burden of proof. No burden of proof can be rationally placed on a person claiming that a configuration of alphabet letters is not a coherently defined word. If you think you "disagree" with a person who claims that a row of letters is not a coherently defined word, you really don't. You're just judging that he is ignorant of what you claim to know about the row of letters that he doesn't. So it's up to you to educate him and teach him what you know about the row of alphabet letters that he is ignorant of.

We theological noncognitivists claims that you cannot be speaking intelligibly if you think you are doing something that could be labeled "talking about what no human can imagine". I maintain that nothing can be imagined that any Christian or Jew would label "God". I also maintain that no activity can be imagined that could be labeled "to create the universe". You may think you can imagine a universe coming into existence. I'm not so sure you can, but even if you think you can, there is one thing for sure -- you cannot imagine a being doing anything labeled "creating a universe".

We can only have learned the word "to create" from cases of usage of "X created Y" when both X and Y were parts of the already existing universe. So when we say "X created Y" we are saying "The part of the universe X created the part of the universe Y". That's the only way we could have learned to speak "X created Y" -- from just such cases. Therefore when we hear "God created the universe" that's the same as "God is the part of the universe that created another part of the universe called 'the universe'" That makes no sense at all. Christians and Jews are simply tricked by words that make no sense. They don't believe in any god at all. They are word-tricked into believing they believe in a god. But they don't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2014, 04:27 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(11-10-2014 02:32 AM)EdwinMcCravy Wrote:  
Quote: But by the 1950s logical positivism started to decline--as it flaws became apparent--and with it also went the enthusiasm for theological noncognitivism.

The logical positivists were right on the money when they said that such sequences of alphabet letters as "God", "soul", "divine", "holy" made no sense to them. However, they were very wrong because they thought they could do something to label "prove that it makes no sense". They didn't realize that they had no burden of proof. No burden of proof can be rationally placed on a person claiming that a configuration of alphabet letters is not a coherently defined word. If you think you "disagree" with a person who claims that a row of letters is not a coherently defined word, you really don't. You're just judging that he is ignorant of what you claim to know about the row of letters that he doesn't. So it's up to you to educate him and teach him what you know about the row of alphabet letters that he is ignorant of.

We theological noncognitivists claims that you cannot be speaking intelligibly if you think you are doing something that could be labeled "talking about what no human can imagine". I maintain that nothing can be imagined that any Christian or Jew would label "God". I also maintain that no activity can be imagined that could be labeled "to create the universe". You may think you can imagine a universe coming into existence. I'm not so sure you can, but even if you think you can, there is one thing for sure -- you cannot imagine a being doing anything labeled "creating a universe".

We can only have learned the word "to create" from cases of usage of "X created Y" when both X and Y were parts of the already existing universe. So when we say "X created Y" we are saying "The part of the universe X created the part of the universe Y". That's the only way we could have learned to speak "X created Y" -- from just such cases. Therefore when we hear "God created the universe" that's the same as "God is the part of the universe that created another part of the universe called 'the universe'" That makes no sense at all. Christians and Jews are simply tricked by words that make no sense. They don't believe in any god at all. They are word-tricked into believing they believe in a god. But they don't.

But that is not the claim. They tend to claim their god is 'outside the universe', so your argument is misdirected.
You need to adjust your aim and take another shot.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2014, 06:33 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(11-10-2014 02:32 AM)EdwinMcCravy Wrote:  We can only have learned the word "to create" from cases of usage of "X created Y" when both X and Y were parts of the already existing universe. So when we say "X created Y" we are saying "The part of the universe X created the part of the universe Y".

In most cases we are saying "The part of the universe X rearranged other parts of the universe to form Y". "Created" almost always implies ex materia. With god and the universe theists often equivocate creation ex materia and ex nihilo.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: