Interesting. So what do you think philosophy is?yiostheoy wrote:However they have read little or no philosophy and they have no idea what Philosophy even is.
Arising_uk, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.yiostheoy wrote:Arising_uk, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.
There. Fixed it for you.uwot wrote:What atheists say;
There is no evidence of god.
What theists say:
That is irrelevant.
So wrong! Theists waste a lifetime in fear and judgement that comes from a man made institution. Followers of Christ my ass! More like followers of Christianity! (Think about it)yiostheoy wrote:
Atheists and Agnostics are not hedging their bets however and they have the most to lose if they are wrong.
Theists have nothing to lose if they are wrong.
Well, just as I don't represent all atheists, I am sure you don't represent all theists. Some theists will insist that intelligent design, irreducible complexity, the argument from morality, various takes on the ontological argument and so on, are relevant. If you are content to believe in something which you admit there is no evidence for, that is your prerogative. But you apparently believe this unsupported conviction grants you the right to treat human beings who do not share your opinion with contempt. If you think this is sanctioned by the god you believe in, then fuck your god, up the arse, with a soiled toilet brush, sideways, because it is a hateful little prik.(sic. For whatever reason, whenever I type 'p****', it comes up 'p****'.)Reflex wrote:There. Fixed it for you.uwot wrote:What atheists say;
There is no evidence of god.
What theists say:
That is irrelevant.
The shoe fits, so have the decency to wear it.uwot wrote: Well, just as I don't represent all atheists, I am sure you don't represent all theists. Some theists will insist that intelligent design, irreducible complexity, the argument from morality, various takes on the ontological argument and so on, are relevant. If you are content to believe in something which you admit there is no evidence for, that is your prerogative. But you apparently believe this unsupported conviction grants you the right to treat human beings who do not share your opinion with contempt. If you think this is sanctioned by the god you believe in, then fuck your god, up the arse, with a soiled toilet brush, sideways, because it is a hateful little prik.(sic. For whatever reason, whenever I type 'p****', it comes up 'p****'.)
Works both ways.Reflex wrote:Nothing is different, yet, everything is different.
Not at all. All one needs to do is follow atheism to its ultimate conclusion -- what atheist Bertrand Russell called "unyielding despair. (I linked to his essay in another thread.)Arising_uk wrote:Works both ways.Reflex wrote:Nothing is different, yet, everything is different.
He can think what he likes. Me, I don't tend to despair at all although I think I would if I thought that there was an entity actually like the 'God' many theists describe. There is no 'ultimate conclusion' to my atheism, it's just not holding a belief in the existence of a 'God' that many theists describe.Reflex wrote:Not at all. All one needs to do is follow atheism to its ultimate conclusion -- what atheist Bertrand Russell called "unyielding despair. (I linked to his essay in another thread.)
Of course it's logical as there has been not one jot of a sign that a 'God' exists in the way theists say 'it' does. As for Humanism I think this a choice one can make if one is an atheist.Reflex wrote:Fine. But you can't say that and call your atheism logical or humanistic.
About right apart from the redeeming and merciful bits. But I'm always amazed at Christians who use the OT?Psalms 26:11 fits you perfectly, A_uk