Philosophy Now Forum

Umm, yes, he does.

Umm, no, he doesn't.

Who gave you any authority?

What's authority got to do with the price of China's tea?

mind your own beeswax

You first.

henry quirk wrote:Umm, yes, he does.

Umm, no, he doesn't.

Who gave you any authority?

What's authority got to do with the price of China's tea?

mind your own beeswax

You first.

Ummm, yes he does. You are the one poking your nose in telling everyone to leave your 'dear dear friend' alone. And you talk crap. The only time the topic of 'theism versus 'atheism' ' even comes up is when 'theists' bring it up. It's only the theists on here who seem to have any interest in creating arguments of this nature.

henry quirk wrote:"Yes, IC does play lots of nasty little games"

No, he doesn't.

I wouldn't call them nasty little games, but Mr Can insists that Atheists could commit crimes to match Hitler and Stalin without reservation. He makes his own definitions and insists that people who use the correct definitions are committed to beliefs they tell him they don't hold. He calls people irrational who do not believe in a god for which there is no evidence. He implies that atheists are tolerant of paedophilia. I could go on. In short, he has the debating skills of a child.
As you say, he has the right to express his opinion on this forum; by the same token, other members are allowed to say what they think of them.

henry quirk wrote:Any one who goes by what some stranger sez without thinkin' it through for themselves is a moron.

Such as someone who believes every word attributed to a 2000 year old fictional character.

henry quirk wrote:

"Yes, IC does play lots of nasty little games"

No, he doesn't.

His only crime, as far as I can tell, is paintin' all atheists with the same brush, which -- of course - is no different than the way many here paint all theists with the same brush.

Actually, Henry, I think I would now distinguish three types of Atheist:

1. The "Thin," Non-Proselytizing Atheist. -- Says only, "I don't know if there is a God, but I choose not to believe in one."

2. The "Thin" Proselytizing Atheist -- Says, "I don't know any evidence for a God, and YOU CAN"T EITHER...but I'm not giving you any evidence for it, because I don't have any."

"Thin" here refers to how much evidence they're claiming to support their (dis-)belief, which is essentially none.

3. The "Thick" Atheist -- Says, "I disbelieve in God because I believe I have evidence or reasons adequate to warrant disbelief."

Category 1 would be the Henry type, I'm thinking. And I have no issue with those people. Of course I think they're making a decision that doesn't work out well for them personally in the long run. But hey, I'm a big believer in the primacy of a right to personal conscience: so whatever they decide they want to be, that's cool with me. They're living and dying by their own lights, and that seems perfectly fair.

As for you, your eyes seem open -- since you seem pretty straight-shooting with yourself and everyone else -- so I have no more to say except, let's get along...live, and let live. You're fine with me, even if we are on different sides of the question.

My issue's with the other two types.

Category 2 people are making a claim that is clearly overblown and beyond what they have reason to know: they're essentially telling other people what can and cannot be known, and that purely on the basis that they themselves just don't happen to know. Essentially, they're counselling people to Hell. I'm not okay with them doing that, so I call their bluff.

In Category 3, the adjective "Thick" is not pejorative, but rather describes how much evidence they claim to have to support their belief: however, at the same time they generally admit that the evidence could never be "thick" enough to warrant the conclusion they want. But it doesn't stop them campaigning, deriding everyone "religious," and generally posturing as "the voice of science," or "voice of reason": titles they've never earned and cannot rationally sustain, but alas, which seem to impress the general public more than they should.

It's interesting to me that pointing all this out is considered by them a "nasty little game." What's a "game" about being a Theist and saying so? As for "nasty," what's unfair about pushing back against the Dawkins-type Atheist, the overblown, Category 3, pedant, and asking him to put up his evidence? That's a pretty fair "game," it seems to me. If one publishes a book and calls it "The God Delusion," one is obviously asking for a fight...or supposing that nobody will have the cojones to stand up to it.

If Atheism had a case, it would have made it by now. If I'm wrong, here's an open invitation to them to try. So where is "nasty" and "game" in all that? It seems scrupulously fair play to me.

Anyway, you I would never "paint with the same brush." You're the authentic item, so far as I can see. So I don't even have an issue with you. Never would.

Funny the effect a bit of ego-massaging and arse-licking can have. Lucky Henry. He's an honorary category 1 'thin atheist'.

The only time the topic of 'theism versus 'atheism' ' even comes up is when 'theists' bring it up. It's only the theists on here who seem to have any interest in creating arguments of this nature.

Theists bring it up and some atheists -- like trained monkeys -- gotta jump in.

You want Mannie gone?

Ignore his threads, all of you (if you got the will to walk away and walk on by).

My gut tells me this thread (and others just like it) will go on and on and on and on and...

#

Mr Can insists that Atheists could commit crimes to match Hitler and Stalin without reservation

Well, of course they could (just like any theist you care to name)...sociopathy respects no (ir)religion.

This is not remarkable.

In short, he has the debating skills of a child.

And still folks like yourself keep right on dicking around with him...back and forth, back and forth, back forth...same shit over and over and over...not a jot of progress. Immovable and irresistible.

Not a single (de)conversion to show from any of it, by any of you (including Mannie).

#

Such as someone who believes every word attributed to a 2000 year old fictional character.

Difference is: Mannie, I think, has thought it through for himself...I think he's thunk himself into a culdesac, but that's his business...what I don't think is that he's simply reacted to words on a page.

I think he's wrong, but not wrong-headed.

ego-massaging and arse-licking

Get bent, bint.

henry quirk wrote:ego-massaging and arse-licking

Get bent, bint.

Make me.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: The only time the topic of 'theism versus 'atheism' ' even comes up is when 'theists' bring it up. It's only the theists on here who seem to have any interest in creating arguments of this nature.

Not at all true, there are many cases where the atheists bring up the subject with the purpose of disproving theism, usually they fail.

thedoc wrote:there are many cases where the atheists bring up the subject with the purpose of disproving theism, usually they fail.

But sometimes they succeed?

thedoc wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: The only time the topic of 'theism versus 'atheism' ' even comes up is when 'theists' bring it up. It's only the theists on here who seem to have any interest in creating arguments of this nature.

Not at all true, there are many cases where the atheists bring up the subject with the purpose of disproving theism, usually they fail.

Must have missed all of those threads. Could you post some links?

thedoc wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: The only time the topic of 'theism versus 'atheism' ' even comes up is when 'theists' bring it up. It's only the theists on here who seem to have any interest in creating arguments of this nature.

Not at all true, there are many cases where the atheists bring up the subject with the purpose of disproving theism, usually they fail.

Indeed. Who wrote, The God Delusion? Was it a Theist who put that screed together?

The first "shot" came from Dawkins. If he can't answer for it, it's no Theist's fault.

Immanuel Can wrote:

thedoc wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: The only time the topic of 'theism versus 'atheism' ' even comes up is when 'theists' bring it up. It's only the theists on here who seem to have any interest in creating arguments of this nature.

Not at all true, there are many cases where the atheists bring up the subject with the purpose of disproving theism, usually they fail.

Indeed. Who wrote, The God Delusion? Was it a Theist who put that screed together?

The first "shot" came from Dawkins. If he can't answer for it, it's no Theist's fault.

You don't have to read it, but you should. It's brilliant. And I was referring to this site, which is why I used the word 'here'.
I must say I really do feel so sorry for you poor little kkkristians. I mean, you've had it so hard and been so horribly persecuted (by each other) over the centuries. And so helpless and powerless too.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

thedoc wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: The only time the topic of 'theism versus 'atheism' ' even comes up is when 'theists' bring it up. It's only the theists on here who seem to have any interest in creating arguments of this nature.

Not at all true, there are many cases where the atheists bring up the subject with the purpose of disproving theism, usually they fail.

Must have missed all of those threads. Could you post some links?

The conversation is not limited to this forum alone except when you think you can get away with it.

http://atheist-experience.com/

These guys are constantly bringing up theism in order to disprove it.