The Philosophy Discussion Forum

uwot wrote:

Walker wrote:This is the prime mover for atheists.

To destroy God.

Right at the beginning I wrote:What atheists say;
There is no evidence of god.
What theists hear:
There is evidence of no god.

Walker, at least, is determined to prove that true.

Well, if you can understand what in blazes he is talking about, you are a better man than me.

sthitapragya wrote: Well, if you can understand what in blazes he is talking about, you are a better man than me.

And me.

sthitapragya wrote:Well, if you can understand what in blazes he is talking about, you are a better man than me.

Harbal wrote:And me.

Well, to be honest, most of the time I don't bother trying. What sense can anyone make this, for example?

Walker wrote:Riddle me this: Who in their right mind would deny that the concept of God is ineffable while experiencing conceptual non-existence’s ineffable-ness?

Riddle me this, Walker: Who in their right mind can put those words, in that order, and believe the resulting sentence is something other than gibberish?

But in his rare coherent moments, what he says is frequently untrue.

Walker wrote:Oh you must have ignored or missed that. It has been decided that rubbing out is the PC term for destroy.

This is the prime mover for atheists.

To destroy God.

Rub out.

Thus this infects other things.

Such as addressing the content of a discussion.

Naturally the atheists are insecure and must therefore convince themselves by means of affirmation of the consequent that their fallacies of argument from ignorance somehow have validity or merit. None does.

The best that can be said for Religion or Science is that neither one really exists. They are merely figments of people's different and diametrically opposite model of existence.

And atheism is simply yet another belief system, whereas agnosticism is a non-belief system. Yet atheists think of themselves as agnostics however they are not even close.

Philosophy is the only thing that anyone can actually trust as an analytical tool of discovery. But then it only exists in people's minds as well.

Even so, atheists think of themselves as clever philosophers. However they are not even that because they violate the rules of fallacy. Their arguments are all fallacy from ignorance.

yiostheoy wrote:

Walker wrote:Oh you must have ignored or missed that. It has been decided that rubbing out is the PC term for destroy.

This is the prime mover for atheists.

To destroy God.

Rub out.

Thus this infects other things.

Such as addressing the content of a discussion.

Naturally the atheists are insecure and must therefore convince themselves by means of affirmation of the consequent that their fallacies of argument from ignorance somehow have validity or merit. None does.

The best that can be said for Religion or Science is that neither one really exists. They are merely figments of people's different and diametrically opposite model of existence.

And atheism is simply yet another belief system, whereas agnosticism is a non-belief system. Yet atheists think of themselves as agnostics however they are not even close.

Philosophy is the only thing that anyone can actually trust as an analytical tool of discovery. But then it only exists in people's minds as well.

Even so, atheists think of themselves as clever philosophers. However they are not even that because they violate the rules of fallacy. Their arguments are all fallacy from ignorance.

Guys, I think these guys have figured out our kryptonite. Gibberish. All is lost.

yiostheoy wrote: Naturally the atheists are insecure and must therefore convince themselves by means of affirmation of the consequent that their fallacies of argument from ignorance somehow have validity or merit. None does.

The best that can be said for Religion or Science is that neither one really exists. They are merely figments of people's different and diametrically opposite model of existence.

And atheism is simply yet another belief system, whereas agnosticism is a non-belief system. Yet atheists think of themselves as agnostics however they are not even close.

Philosophy is the only thing that anyone can actually trust as an analytical tool of discovery. But then it only exists in people's minds as well.

Even so, atheists think of themselves as clever philosophers. However they are not even that because they violate the rules of fallacy. Their arguments are all fallacy from ignorance.

What a shame, Walker, you get an ally and it turns out to be one that will diminish your credibility. Life can be a bastard.

yiostheoy wrote:Naturally the atheists are insecure and must therefore convince themselves by means of affirmation of the consequent that their fallacies of argument from ignorance somehow have validity or merit.

Are you trying to out Walker Walker?

yiostheoy wrote:And atheism is simply yet another belief system...

And again:

You may have missed it, but twice I wrote: What atheists say;
There is no evidence of god.
What theists hear:
There is evidence of no god.

yiostheoy wrote:Even so, atheists think of themselves as clever philosophers. However they are not even that because they violate the rules of fallacy. Their arguments are all fallacy from ignorance.

Give us an example, yiostheoy.

uwot wrote:

yiostheoy wrote:Naturally the atheists are insecure and must therefore convince themselves by means of affirmation of the consequent that their fallacies of argument from ignorance somehow have validity or merit.

Are you trying to out Walker Walker?

yiostheoy wrote:And atheism is simply yet another belief system...

And again:

You may have missed it, but twice I wrote: What atheists say;
There is no evidence of god.
What theists hear:
There is evidence of no god.

yiostheoy wrote:Even so, atheists think of themselves as clever philosophers. However they are not even that because they violate the rules of fallacy. Their arguments are all fallacy from ignorance.

Give us an example, yiostheoy.

There are amateur non-thinking philosophers all over this forum.

They have come here to call themselves philosophers.

However they have read little or no philosophy and they have no idea what Philosophy even is.

There are examples here everywhere like termites crawling out of the woodwork.

Difference is that termites have brains. These morons do not.

yiostheoy wrote:There are amateur non-thinking philosophers all over this forum. ...

True, what academic or professional qualifications do we think yiostheoy has?

They have come here to call themselves philosophers.

And he's come here to do what?

However they have read little or no philosophy and they have no idea what Philosophy even is.

True, although a few of us have the academic credentials he appears to lack.

There are examples here everywhere like termites crawling out of the woodwork.

Bit like theists on a philosophy forum then.

Difference is that termites have brains. These morons do not.

How very Christian of him.

yiostheoy wrote:

uwot wrote:

yiostheoy wrote:Naturally the atheists are insecure and must therefore convince themselves by means of affirmation of the consequent that their fallacies of argument from ignorance somehow have validity or merit.

Are you trying to out Walker Walker?

yiostheoy wrote:And atheism is simply yet another belief system...

And again:

You may have missed it, but twice I wrote: What atheists say;
There is no evidence of god.
What theists hear:
There is evidence of no god.

yiostheoy wrote:Even so, atheists think of themselves as clever philosophers. However they are not even that because they violate the rules of fallacy. Their arguments are all fallacy from ignorance.

Give us an example, yiostheoy.

There are amateur non-thinking philosophers all over this forum.

They have come here to call themselves philosophers.

However they have read little or no philosophy and they have no idea what Philosophy even is.

There are examples here everywhere like termites crawling out of the woodwork.

Difference is that termites have brains. These morons do not.

Then you should get out of here as soon as possible. Remember, if you argue with a fool, onlookers might not be able to tell the difference.

And I see you still delude yourself by calling this philosophy because it makes you feel important. This is not philosophy. If discussing the existence of invisible beings is philosophy, then God help us all. You are the only one I see here who keeps harping on this crap being philosophy.

sthitapragya, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.

Arising_uk, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.

yiostheoy, who is currently on your things that crawled out from under a rock list, made this post.[/quote]

yiostheoy wrote:sthitapragya, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.

Doesn't matter. Others can read what I have written. And no one cares a f@ck whether you read it or not.

Harbal wrote:yiostheoy, who is currently on your things that crawled out from under a rock list, made this post.

Sir, I salute you. This post is the product of genius.