For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Very wise, henry, we don't want any more tantrums. Besides, the main culprits know who they are.henry quirk wrote: I won't mention any names
See, this is what I like about you, Henry. In all this sea of blather, you're the only guy who has the nerve to ante up and say something to the point.henry quirk wrote:Mannie,
Speakin' only for myself, here...
has Atheism even got one thing to commend itself as a position?
Nope...it's just a placeholder I apply to a conclusion which comes at the end of an assessment.
The assessment is on-going, the conclusion is tentative.
Can Atheism find any basis for recommending itself in its own right?
Nope...I wouldn't recommend it to any one, for any reason.
Why?
Cuz folks will arrive at what they arrive at without me poking, prodding, cajoling, or appealing.
Some will go theist, some will go atheist...never known a body to go either way without a natural skew in place to begin with.
Now, why don't you buncha doofi leave each other be for a while...you're all givin' theists/atheists a bad rep.
No its 74 pages.henry quirk wrote:this is serving no purpose whatsoever
73 pages of nuthin'...a friggin' blight to the eye...a damned shame...(largely) good folks sinkin' in a memetic swamp.
I won't mention any names
Actually your 'question' is meaningless because you refuse to define the word you claim to desperately want to know the value of. If 'atheist' means 'without superstition' then yes, it has enormous value. It shows a decent level of critical thinking, intelligence, and healthy scepticism. But until you define the word I suggest you stop being a fascist troll.Immanuel Can wrote:Aaaaand...there it is. A simply lovely collection of shiny objects.Harbal wrote: ...I've had second thoughts, I don't want to jeopardise a valued friendship.
But no attempt whatsoever to answer the question.
That was entirely expected.
Did this already, more than once.vegetariantaxidermy wrote:until you define the word
Immanuel Can wrote:Did this already, more than once.vegetariantaxidermy wrote:until you define the word
Most recently, I went over the distinction between "thin" and "thick" Atheisms, and pointed out why each, for different reasons, was simply not credible. Backtrack if you want, or not, if you don't care; but it's been done.
If you can't be bothered, then I won't either.
Mr Can, there really isn't much to discuss about atheism. It has been pointed out to you by several atheists that all that atheism entails is a lack of belief in any god. The Atheism you describe is different, in that you define it as a positive belief that god does not exist. The atheists on this forum have agreed that any such belief should be supported by evidence, and if any Atheist can provide that evidence, then we atheists would be as eager to see it as you. We have also pointed out that atheists would just as quickly debunk such a ridiculous claim as you. In that regard, Mr Can, you and atheists agree.Immanuel Can wrote:I notice that the Atheist set on this strand is absolutely DESPERATE to make the main question change to something personal. They don't want to discuss Atheism (or "atheism") at any cost.
Frankly, no, Mr Can. The Atheism you believe in has nothing to commend it; which is why nobody here subscribes to it. On the other hand, atheism has a colossal advantage over the Theism you espouse, in that it isn't compelled to selectively read and interpret an ancient creation myth and tribal saga, and/or a slightly more recent personality cult, for moral direction. Rather than making some capricious sky pilot happy, atheist moralists put mortal beings first. If there is a god, which however unlikely they think it, most atheists accept there might be, then we are not afraid to be judged on our behaviour towards others, rather than our ability to kiss arse.Immanuel Can wrote:They'd rather haggle about how to spell things, or who can come up with the more petty epithets, or slander their opposition, or even wish the poor to starve in the streets...
ANYTHING except have to address the key question: has Atheism even got one thing to commend itself as a position?
You know full well that there's no 'evidence' possible. Some things don't require evidence and aren't worth even bothering with. Which is why this is such a stupid and pointless thread. People are perfectly free to say 'there is no god', just as others are free to say there is. Neither side is ever going to be able to provide any evidence and they both know it, but it's only ONE side trying to shove their particular belief down everyone else's throat, with the other side having no belief to prove, so therefore there is only ONE side that is obliged to FIND some evidence.uwot wrote:Mr Can, there really isn't much to discuss about atheism. It has been pointed out to you by several atheists that all that atheism entails is a lack of belief in any god. The Atheism you describe is different, in that you define it as a positive belief that god does not exist. The atheists on this forum have agreed that any such belief should be supported by evidence, and if any Atheist can provide that evidence, then we atheists would be as eager to see it as you. We have also pointed out that atheists would just as quickly debunk such a ridiculous claim as you. In that regard, Mr Can, you and atheists agree.Immanuel Can wrote:I notice that the Atheist set on this strand is absolutely DESPERATE to make the main question change to something personal. They don't want to discuss Atheism (or "atheism") at any cost.Frankly, no, Mr Can. The Atheism you believe in has nothing to commend it; which is why nobody here subscribes to it. On the other hand, atheism has a colossal advantage over the Theism you espouse, in that it isn't compelled to selectively read and interpret an ancient creation myth and tribal saga, and/or a slightly more recent personality cult, for moral direction. Rather than making some capricious sky pilot happy, atheist moralists put mortal beings first. If there is a god, which however unlikely they think it, most atheists accept there might be, then we are not afraid to be judged on our behaviour towards others, rather than our ability to kiss arse. If, as you believe, your 'saviour' demands that we put his feelings before those of our fellow human beings, then he can go fuck himself with the same cheese grater that his father has already pleasured himself with.Immanuel Can wrote:They'd rather haggle about how to spell things, or who can come up with the more petty epithets, or slander their opposition, or even wish the poor to starve in the streets...
ANYTHING except have to address the key question: has Atheism even got one thing to commend itself as a position?
Anytime you decide to have a civilised debate about the relative merits of theism and atheism, I'll be happy to entertain you.
Immanuel Can wrote:...
But no attempt whatsoever to answer the question.
That was entirely expected.
What's that *chirp* *chirp* I hear to my response?I disagree HQ.henry quirk wrote:...
Now, why don't you buncha doofi leave each other be for a while...you're all givin' theists/atheists a bad rep.
It seems that the moderators have deleted the posts I was looking for, you had proposed marriage to Lacewing and she threatened to punch another tooth out of your avatar's mouth. There didn't seem to be much of a valued friendship there.Harbal wrote:I thought there was, have you heard something that I haven't?thedoc wrote: there would have to be a valued friendship there to begin with,
I don't know what you mean by "interpret what is written"! What writing are you referring to? The Bible?? I can hardly dodge a question when I'm not certain what it's asking. If the Bible is what your referring to, I would have thought that my views on that are clear. If, as it appears, it refers to what you've written then my interpretation would be though you believe implicitly in the Bible as the word God you're not ready to accept every statement in it as literal.thedoc wrote:You have been implying what my beliefs are, and I was just trying to find out what you thought I believed. So far you have it right, but the question is how do you interpret what is written? Which so far you have dodged that question. I'll give you a hint, I'm not a Creationist.Dubious wrote:That the Bible is the word of god and that Jesus is the Son of the OT god. So on and so forth…..thedoc wrote:Nice dodge, Again what do I believe according to you?
What you’re supposed to believe is a different question entirely the answer to which is not to be presumed by me. That’s what you’re own intelligence is for. Why try to bait someone else with a question that can’t be answered, since I’m not you?thedoc wrote:I was asking what you think that I am supposed to believe.
Thankyou, I try to state my beliefs as accurately as possible, but I admit that I'm still sharpening some of my points.Arising_uk wrote:I disagree HQ.henry quirk wrote:...
Now, why don't you buncha doofi leave each other be for a while...you're all givin' theists/atheists a bad rep.
You can't let such as IC play his nasty little games upon a philosophy forum with impunity.
thedoc I accept talks in good faith, IC is a piece of philosophical work.