Philosophy Now Forum

The Inglorious One wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
I impose on no one so you think or believe whatever you want
Avoid telepathy however as the odds are never in ones favour

I can take that in one of several ways: the qualitative aspect of reality is irrelevant to you in which case you might as well put a bullet in your
brain for all the good it does the answer is yes in which case you have all the intellectual depth of an amoeba or you want to avoid discussing
the question of purpose altogether in which case you have nothing relevant to say. l will go with the second because you are stupid enough to invoke the overused phrase imaginary beings as though God is thought to be a being alongside other beings. You also make a liar out of yourself

The Inglorious One wrote:

attofishpi wrote: We shouldn't cry and go boo-hoo when the obvious is pointed out by those that have a different POV.

We shouldn't base our arguments that God doesn't exist on presumptions that if 'HE' existed he would be a loving fatherly figure that would PANDER to our every needs here on little Earth.

And we shouldn't call those that point these obvious flaws in such foolish atheist arguments, idiots that project contempt.

And....And...we should NOT get upset when THEISTS don't follow the traditional religious line and provide this simple shining LIGHT story, that doesnt suit the little flame of spirituality that still resides.....in....??

Good points, but I do plead guilty of having contempt for those atheists who are sanctimonious and viciously vacuous or have pride in their assumed logical and rational minds while, at the same time, they deny the logical consequences of their atheism.

attofishpi wrote: Sure, I know you have been asked this already, but i havent seen the answer and i'm rather time constrained, but....what are the logical consequences in your opinion of remaining atheist?

surreptitious57 wrote: One cannot be forced to think or believe something one does not hold to be true.
No but you can be forced to believe. And no one can think or believe all things since that would
violate the law of non contradiction.
Actually people do that all the time, often holding as true two mutually defeating positions.
Now I have no problem in discussing reality but I do not come to the same conclusion about it as you do
It matters not to me anyway what reality actually is because my own subjective interpretation of it would not make it any more true.
It's all we got.
And so
restrict myself to things that can be demonstrably stated as true. And so I am not automatically denying things about it that may also be true
It is just that I am sceptical to accept them as they may be false. But I am an observer rather than a participant and so I am less interested in
forming my own opinions about reality than I am in referencing the opinions of others about what it means to them. Because I am only human
so will have my own opinions on it also. But they are based on observation which I use as a means to understand what reality is. I accept that I
may be entirely wrong about it but even so need to have a foundational framework for understanding it from my own subjective interpretation
But even the opinions of others that are diametrically opposite to mine will be considered by me even if I do not accept them as they do. And I
both defend and encourage others to think or believe exactly what they want to. And not just upon this subject matter but on all others as well