Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Sat Jun 25, 2016 5:19 am**

Amazing. It's as if Nick_A couldn't see, or couldn't admit that this post existed:

uwot wrote:
Nick_A wrote:Typical blind denial normal for a positive atheist. No substance; just attack.
You obviously do not understand your own quote. I have never insisted that there is no god, I have repeatedly said that I do not believe there is one, which exactly matches the definition of a negative atheist you provided:
Wikipedia wrote:Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist; negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any other type of atheism, i.e. where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities and does not explicitly assert that there are none.
If you could understand and respect the person you are talking to, they are more likely to respect you.

Fuck me, I do believe the little twerp is a blind denier.

Posted: **Sat Jun 25, 2016 5:54 am**

Walker wrote:A lot of that blind denial stuff is likely habitual pettiness, like bored louts hanging around a street corner.

Exactly what is being denied?

Walker wrote:Academic analysis may be over-thinking human nature.

You need to finesse your understanding of the difference between profound and really, really, really stupid.

Walker wrote:The one you write to exists in your mind.

Funny you should say that. I get people telling me I believe things that I tell them I don't all the time.

Walker wrote:The one who writes to you does not.

See above.

Posted: **Sat Jun 25, 2016 2:39 pm**

There is no reasoning with an emotionally driven mind, uwot. It's a waste of time.

Posted: **Sat Jun 25, 2016 2:58 pm**

uwot wrote: uwot wrote:
Nick_A wrote:
Typical blind denial normal for a positive atheist. No substance; just attack.

You obviously do not understand your own quote. I have never insisted that there is no god, I have repeatedly said that I do not believe there is one, which exactly matches the definition of a negative atheist you provided:
Wikipedia wrote:
Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist; negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any other type of atheism, i.e. where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities and does not explicitly assert that there are none.

If you could understand and respect the person you are talking to, they are more likely to respect you.
Fuck me, I do believe the little twerp is a blind denier.

Instead of using his power of reason uwot's only concern here is for getting laid by a blind denier.

negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any other type of atheism, i.e. where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities and does not explicitly assert that there are none.

uwot wrote: I have never insisted that there is no god, I have repeatedly said that I do not believe there is one, which exactly matches the definition of a negative atheist you provided:

If this were true there would be nothing for you to be so emotional about. Blind denial is emotional denial and that is what you express and what makes you incapable of discussion about God.

Posted: **Sat Jun 25, 2016 3:57 pm**

Hi Nick,

What you are basing your (eternal) life on is an emotionally driven illusion. If you were born without being taught about a God, you would not base your life around it.

If, it turns out, there is no God, how you have wasted your life living as if there was one.

The fear you live in...the one that you can't ever be fully sure if you are to be damned or live eternally in heaven, is a hopeless emotion/idea.

How would you live your life if you did not believe in God? Just curious....

Posted: **Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:10 pm**

artisticsolution wrote:There is no reasoning with an emotionally driven mind, uwot. It's a waste of time.

I dunno, if you can point out a flaw in their logic which they are not too stupid to understand, they generally Foxtrot Oscar. We got rid of Satyr and Kuznetzova. The current crop of undesirables are basically harmless, but rude. I'm just in the mood to kick the metaphorical poop out of them, because they say fatuous drivel like this:

Nick_A wrote:Instead of using his power of reason uwot's only concern here is for getting laid by a blind denier.

Mr_A; if you ever develop the balls to pit your power of reason against mine, you will find me ready.

Posted: **Sat Jun 25, 2016 5:07 pm**

Hi Artisticsolution. You wrote:

How would you live your life if you did not believe in God? Just curious....

I take the Simone Weil approach so it isn't a problem for me. The trick is knowing how to avoid slavery to either blind belief or blind denial so one can become capable of opening to the mind, body, and heart, to the conscious experience of reality. This genuine effort is hard and takes time. I try to be a part of it. Then the God question will clarify itself.

"To believe in God is not a decision we can make. All we can do is decide not to give our love to false gods. In the first place, we can decide not to believe that the future contains for us an all-sufficient good. The future is made of the same stuff as the present....

"...It is not for man to seek, or even to believe in God. He has only to refuse to believe in everything that is not God. This refusal does not presuppose belief. It is enough to recognize, what is obvious to any mind, that all the goods of this world, past, present, or future, real or imaginary, are finite and limited and radically incapable of satisfying the desire which burns perpetually with in us for an infinite and perfect good... It is not a matter of self-questioning or searching. A man has only to persist in his refusal, and one day or another God will come to him."
-- Weil, Simone, ON SCIENCE, NECESSITY, AND THE LOVE OF GOD, edited by Richard Rees, London, Oxford University Press, 1968.- ©

Posted: **Sat Jun 25, 2016 5:15 pm**

uwot wrote: Mr_A;

if you ever develop the balls to pit your power of reason against mine, you will find me ready.

I have never experienced your power of reason when it is free of the blind denial making it powerless. Under these circumstances it is impossible to judge who would win the battle of the balls.

Posted: **Sat Jun 25, 2016 5:42 pm**

Nick_A wrote:I have never experienced your power of reason when it is free of the blind denial making it powerless.

Could you give an example of an argument that I have presented that is rendered powerless by my blind denial?

Nick_A wrote:Under these circumstances it is impossible to judge who would win the battle of the balls.

Do you not think it is easier to judge the winner of a battle after it has been fought?

Posted: **Sat Jun 25, 2016 8:43 pm**

Nick_A wrote: This genuine effort is hard and takes time. I try to be a part of it. Then the God question will clarify itself.

Yep, a waste of life. Why should 70+ years be hard? It's goes by faster than the blink of an eye...better time spent having fun than putting effort into something that is pointless, as a good God will still love you no matter what and a bad God will still punish you no matter what...and no god....makes no difference.

Posted: **Sat Jun 25, 2016 10:48 pm**

Artisticsolution wrote:

Yep, a waste of life. Why should 70+ years be hard? It's goes by faster than the blink of an eye...better time spent having fun than putting effort into something that is pointless, as a good God will still love you no matter what and a bad God will still punish you no matter what...and no god....makes no difference.

I think you are confusing God with women unless of course your god is a woman. A good woman will still love you no matter what and a bad woman will still punish you no matter what...and no woman....makes no difference. The God question is another matter.

Posted: **Sun Jun 26, 2016 12:09 am**

Nick_A wrote: Instead of using his power of reason uwot's only concern here is for getting laid by a blind denier.

Has Walker given you your reacharound yet?

Posted: **Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:26 am**

FlashDangerpants wrote: Has Walker given you your reacharound yet?

Wrong department, freak. I don't wrestle guys.

Posted: **Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:50 am**

I'll try again:

uwot wrote:Could you give an example of an argument that I have presented that is rendered powerless by my blind denial?

Posted: **Sun Jun 26, 2016 6:41 pm**

uwot wrote: uwot wrote:
Could you give an example of an argument that I have presented that is rendered powerless by my blind denial?

Uwot, this is just typical emoting justifying blind denial:

I dunno, if you can point out a flaw in their logic which they are not too stupid to understand, they generally Foxtrot Oscar. We got rid of Satyr and Kuznetzova. The current crop of undesirables are basically harmless, but rude. I'm just in the mood to kick the metaphorical poop out of them, because they say fatuous drivel like this:

All this means is that your blind denial prevents you from opening to experience what your blind denial blocks.

“How good bad music and bad reasons sound when we march against an enemy”. Friedrich Nietzsche

You believe you are marching against the enemy or in this case opposing the enemy so blind denial appears good.

Philosophy Now Forum

Who Really is an Atheist?

Re: Who Really is an Atheist?

Re: Who Really is an Atheist?

Re: Who Really is an Atheist?

Re: Who Really is an Atheist?

Re: Who Really is an Atheist?

Re: Who Really is an Atheist?

Re: Who Really is an Atheist?

Re: Who Really is an Atheist?

Re: Who Really is an Atheist?

Re: Who Really is an Atheist?

Re: Who Really is an Atheist?

Re: Who Really is an Atheist?

Re: Who Really is an Atheist?

Re: Who Really is an Atheist?

Re: Who Really is an Atheist?