RE: Would you be successful in writing Ten new Commandments?
(26-10-2012 02:19 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote: I'll take the bait.
(26-10-2012 01:10 PM)TrainWreck Wrote: Classic example of atheist circular reasoning being used, as a false hypothesis or something, for critical thinking; ultimately corresponding to the theists' circular reasoning in their doctrines of social organization - so deplored by atheists.
I don't understand what you're saying. Would you please troll me with greater lucidity or at least with less methamphetamine?
I used no circular reasoning for there was no reasoning. Just a "commandment" to question everything including the "commandment" itself. That's not even circular. It just says that we should take nothing for granted and we should be prepared to understand why we do everything while at the same time allowing for the fact that even this suggestion should be examined and not taken for granted - it might not apply to everyone, and nobody will know if it's right for them without examining and questioning it first.
It was also not a hypothesis, false or otherwise. Any chance you just used this word because it's big and impressive, but you really don't know what it means?
I don't even agree that theists have circular reasoning in their social doctrines - their circular reasoning mostly comes from believing in god because the bible says so, and believing the bible because god created it. Two really different things entirely.
(26-10-2012 01:10 PM)TrainWreck Wrote: When are atheists going to finish analysing and get to establishing Truth!?!?!
Is that our job? Do you have any idea what "atheism" means? I can't even find one dictionary that includes "establisher of Truth" in the definition.
Truth is self-defining. If something is true, then it is just true. It doesn't need to be established as true. Water is wet. Water does not need your nor I to establish the fact that it's wet. It just is. I'll grant that if someone disagrees, then maybe someone else might want to throw some facts around to convince the person who disagrees, and that might be providing evidence of the truth, but it's still not establishing truth (with or without your capital-T).
(26-10-2012 01:10 PM)TrainWreck Wrote: Let's move on to the next step in the evolution of Mankind.
Working on it. So are you (though I'm inclined, thus far, to believe just might be farther along the evolutionary path than you). We're going to evolve with or without either of us, so what's your point?
(26-10-2012 01:10 PM)TrainWreck Wrote: Oh, I forgot, we have to wait for the Christians to submit to the atheists demands in order for us to think straight.
Finally we agree - as a society we would think much straighter if Christians began thinking like atheists. That is what you meant, right? Otherwise, I guess I might have missed your point about submitting to atheists' demands - do we have a manifesto that I've overlooked? Can you link it for me? I'd sure love to learn what my demands are.
Or maybe you're just misinformed, clueless, and have no idea what atheism really is.
But thanks for playing.
Its not circular as such although a commandment that you question commandments is likely to lead to circular thinking, it is however not within the critera set by the OP, ie commandments must be beyond reinterpretation. Your commandment whilst independently reasonable flies completely in the face of this guideline and is thus not fit for purpose.
But thanks for playing
Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.