I have enjoyed my respite from Atheism and forcible irrationality immensely. Probably too much, in fact, to the point that it is difficult to come back. It takes a lot of energy to deal with those who refuse to accept logic as the proper intellectual path to a coherent worldview - and even coherent argumentation of enthymemes (syllogisms)-specifically because rationality does not support their chosen ideology.
Atheism cannot be supported by either empirical discovery or by rational deduction. Yet its adherents claim to be the arbiters of science and logic, a claim which fails immediately under the lightest of disciplined scrutiny.
I will help provide scrutiny by answering questions that anyone might have regarding Atheism and Atheists, either specific or general. So if you have questions, then go ahead and ask them.
Comments will be moderated for the time being; all comments will be published, except for those which violate the posted rules.
29 comments:
Glad your back, Stan! Truly, you've been missed. c:
Thanks, good to know!
Yay!
Those were dark times, when you weren't posting!
Now, just try to stay out of American politics. I love Bill Valicella when he talks philosophy, but I hate it when he talks American politics because it becomes "Us gooood! Them baaaaaad!" Nuthin' but a bunch of apes from Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, beating their chests at each other. Nothing destroys reason faster than winner-take-all politics. In fact, I contend that that's one reason why modern atheism has such a huge irrational streak: because it's more political than anything else.
Hello Martin,
I think you have put your finger on the issue: Atheism is very much a political driver. Atheism is very much a forcing function in the culture war. Starting with a moral void, Atheism bends to the emotional issues of the Atheist, becoming inevitably the elitist, messiah-complex saviors of the Victim Class, and warriors against the Oppressor Class.
Atheism makes politics a moral issue on the basis of a morality created for the benefit of Atheists.
That's the reason that politics can't be ignored when addressing Atheism.
The irrationality becomes morally embedded in the co-dependent relationship created to benefit the saviors/victims - and perpetuate both of their existences - at the expense of the Oppressor class upon which they both are parasites.
So I will continue to address those consequences as necessarily proceeding from Atheism.
Leftism and Atheism are two faces of the same thing: irrationality which is indiscernable from mental illness.
Stan
I will help provide scrutiny by answering questions that anyone might have regarding Atheism and Atheists, either specific or general. So if you have questions, then go ahead and ask them.
Oh great. You answering questions about atheism? I'd recommend that people ask actual atheists instead.
By the way, Stan...what religion are you? You've made it clear that you hate atheists and you once said that the bible was bull...so what religion are you?
More specifically, what is YOUR grounding for things like morality then, since you don't seem to think that atheists have any moral grounding.
That last link while still informative, was a little general, and it's for people who've already decided to chuck religion, more or less. This page is what I should've linked to originally.
You may also be interested in philosopher Stephen Law's posts about atheism and religion in general.
Given that the very first sentence in the description is not just false, it is intentionally false, then the rest of the post should be expected to follow.
Atheism is NOT just an absence of belief in God theories. That description would describe the crud growing around the lip of a never-cleaned toilet, but not the actual rejectionist Atheist.
Real Atheists DO, in fact, have theories and beliefs regarding a creator for the universe, life and sentience: they believe, without evidence or logical proof that there is no God.
When they deny their own beliefs, they reveal the intellectual and moral dishonesty which attaches to Atheism.
The reason that they have adopted this particular lie is merely to protect a second lie: their claim to be logic- and evidence-based. They have neither logic nor evidence which proves their actual belief, so they must lie about their belief in order to protect themselves from having to use logic and evidence to defend it.
Thus they are intellectually committed to falseness, lies, and intellectual charades. This is a form of cowardice, not to mention duplicitousness.
In spite of this, they consider themselves to be the elite, which demonstrates their capacity for self-deception. It is patently obvious that Atheism is not a lack of belief, and that to declare that to be the case is fallacy. Yet, if an Atheist believes his own lie, then he is self-deceived. Being given to self-deceit, such an Atheist can proceed to rationalize anything - literally.
And then he is self-enabled to declare such rationalized deceits to be True, in a universe which has No Truth.
Dealing with such individuals can be done only by holding them to the logic and evidence which they claim.
So if you have logic and/or evidence that there is no creator for the universe, life and sentience, then provide it.
If you cannot, then you have demonstrated the fallacy of Atheism.
On the subject of moral grounding, it is absolutely the case that Atheism is a VOID, morally and intellectually. Anyone adopting Atheism as a basis for a worldview also adopts a cherished liberty (many describe this emancipation as the emotional basis for their new belief system).
Starting with a moral and intellectual void (but not an emotional void), the individual Atheist is self-empowered to create whatever moral system is compatible with his own behavioral proclivities. Since his moral system is selected to match his behaviors, (and emotional issues) he cannot fail to completely moral to his own standards.
This type of moral retrofitting is quite simpatico and comfortable since it causes no difficult moral decisions to impact the behaviors of the Atheist. Atheists are jealous of this approach to morals and frequently attack the morals of other systems which do impact their lives with moral decisions outside their comfort zone. This is the essence of the culture wars which they wage, and an indicator of their intolerance, contra their claims to tolerance.
In other words, rules don't apply to them unless there are consequences; disliked rules with uncomfortable consequences are called "intolerant" by the Atheist, who in fact is intolerant of existing moral restrictions.
After decades of such attacks, there are few morals left, and the co-dependent Atheo-Left is now the majority, at least politically.
Stan, once again shifting the burden of proof:
So if you have logic and/or evidence that there is no creator for the universe, life and sentience, then provide it.
If you cannot, then you have demonstrated the fallacy of Atheism.
No evidence for any such "creator". No revelations, , no messengers, no confirmation through any holy book that the order and method of "creation" matches any such books' description, etc.
And with all the same old ranting you do...there is still no answer to my question about what YOUR religious beliefs are Stan, what are YOUR moral groundings?
If you don't give any, shall I assume that you have none, but just enjoy beating up on atheists without having to put your own belief system under the microscope?
It's like talking to a brick wall with you Stan...you just keep repeating your assertions and over-generalizations over and over. Just as a true bigot would.
As I said, try reading those links I gave earlier to see what atheists themselves say.
Starting with a moral and intellectual void...
Well, now there's two assertions right there. I gave links in my last comments, which you ignored, that show that atheism is not inherently immoral and that it is not an intellectual void. See Stephen Law's website, the man is a professional philosopher.
...(but not an emotional void), the individual Atheist is self-empowered to create whatever moral system is compatible with his own behavioral proclivities
If that was the case, why is it that countries that are more secular than the U.S. have lower crime rates and a better standard of living?
Stan,
I'm happy that you decided to come back.
Happy New Year!
>No evidence for any such "creator".
Here you go!
Reynold has previously been banned from this blog due to his inability to hold conversations which are (a) rational by the standards of disciplined logic, and (b) civil. In his first two comments since my return from my hiatus Reynold has charged me with hate and bigotry. He has not, however provided any proof for his own belief system, and he wants to use Tu Quoque to attack what he thinks is my belief system, rather than defend his own belief position.
To remind readers, this blog is about Atheism only, its positions and its consequences; it is not about Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Scientology, Latter Day Saints, or any other belief system or cult.
Atheists frequently default to charges of “hate” and “bigotry” because they cannot deny or disprove the transparent faults and fallacies of their own position. Here’s why: Atheism has no paradigm. Atheism has no principles. Atheism is a void. Atheism does, however, produce a euphoric emotional feeling of freedom from all grounding, and an accompanying feeling of eliteness. This in turn leads inexorably to arrogance and a firm attachment to irrationality, since the Atheist is also free from any restrictions of disciplined logic. The Atheist proudly bows to nothing but his own self, and the products of his own self. For the Atheist, logic becomes merely the search for some sort of support for his position: rationalization, not rationality. In terms of disciplined logic, Atheist rationalizations are defective thinking – fallacies.
Atheism rejects all conventional morals due to its voidist position that there are no absolutes (internally ontradictorily: absolutely none). The Atheist creates his own “morality” and accompanying delusion of moral superiority as previously described, and then accuses those who disbelieve in his personal cult of moral crimes against him and his cult. Hence the Atheist commonly charges hate and bigotry when the truth is revealed regarding Atheism. Because the Atheist has no paradigm of actual logic or evidence, his only defense is to invoke his own personal, fabricated “morality” (note 1) against those he cannot answer rationally. The Atheist delusion of moral superiority breeds intolerance, which in turn finds reasons to take offense and feel abused. (This results in many, many lawsuits used by Atheists to bully small communities).
And that is why it is useless to enter into a discussion with an Atheist: his irrationality is bolstered by his personal morality, and that is a formula for time wasted.
Atheists are not to be confused with truth-seekers. Under Atheist understandings, there is no truth (except contrarily for their own maunderings which are True). The Atheist is intellectually locked down completely. He cherishes the absolute freedom from absolutes, from guidelines, from any and all restrictions save those which he creates for himself (And for everyone else). He cherishes his delusion of eliteness of intellect, and rankles when that is attacked with actual disciplined logic. The Atheist objective is self-preservation, and thus the destruction of any arguers against his superior intellect and his superior morality.
So when confronted with a demand that he provide logic and/or evidence for his beliefs, his reaction naturally is hostile, couched in his presumed superiority. And the resulting hostility produces only false moral attacks without any attending logic or evidence. But in today's legal morass the charges of "hate" and "bigotry" have legal overtones: they are threats, the last bastion of bullies.
(continued)
(from above)
Now. Let's take the idea that tiny countries which are more "secular" have lower crime rates. The secular cities of Chicago, LA and San Francisco are larger than most of these countries and their crime rates are soaring, especially Chicago, that gun-free zone. But what is notably left out of the “secular country” argument is always the large secular countries such as China, Russia, North Korea, Viet Nam, and even Cuba and other secular countries where the secular government is the producer of crimes against the citizens, and citizens are “criminals” for speaking out. Atheists in charge of governments have demonstrably committed more crimes against their peoples, and murdered more people than any other worldview. To ignore even one of these behemoth Atheist countries when making such claims is intellectually dishonest.
In addition, this claim in no way refutes the issue at hand: obeying the law is not a function of morality, it is pragmatic behavior concerned with cause and effect. If one wants to avoid government punishment, one does not break the government’s laws. There is no moral content.
Now let’s take the referenced philosopher, Stephen Law. There is no apparent single page which identifies Law’s brand of Atheism, or his moral code. The linked current home page has references to Positive Atheism, so maybe that’s it. There is nothing there to critique, in terms of Law’s beliefs. Maybe I would have to buy his books… no chance. So whether Law’s arguments are coherent, grounded, and sound remains unknown; therefore referencing this link is without merit.
And again, it is certainly possible to intellectualize and rationalize any position. That does not make the position an intellectual position. In order to be a rational position, an argument must be grounded and coherent. Otherwise it is untethered and non-coherent, i.e. irrational.
Note 1: in egregious cases, an intellectually impoverished Atheist will defer to other Atheist "experts".
Oh Stan's back! I would have thought you'd have learned a new song to sing in your absence.
Or at least looked into what being an atheist actually entails. But that would require intellectual curiosity, and a modicum of honest reflection. Although not a lot of research, as the answer is easily obtained.
If you have not yet discovered why your blog is absent respectable discourse, perhaps you should return to hiatus.
a moral void,
inevitably the elitist, messiah-complex saviors of the Victim Class, and warriors against the Oppressor Class.
Leftism and Atheism are two faces of the same thing: irrationality which is indiscernable from mental illness.
This is your first post back after bemoaning the piss poor state of your blog.
I know you feel no empathy for your opposition, but consider your reaction should I charge theists with such drivel. It is statements such as these which create an atmosphere of mudslinging on your treasured "intellectual" blog.
Shall I elaborate on how theism is an abdication of morality? On how Christianity is in an eternal position of victim-hood? On how belief in the invisible, intangible and otherwise indistinguishable from the non-existent is synonymous with mental instability?
Or would you consider this the intellectually half baked argument of an emotionally immature. The answer of course is pathetically obvious. Regardless of any validity to your claim, you have thrown civility right out the window. On your first post no less.
Note 1: in egregious cases, an intellectually impoverished Atheist will defer to other Atheist "experts".
TIL referring to experts makes one intellectually impoverished.
TL:DR
Stan's back and his brick wall hasn't even been repointed.
godless,
You have been one of the biggest disappointments in the comments section of this blog. You started as a ridicule monger; you still are that, only. You do not and cannot answer any of the charges which Atheism invites against itself, so of course you resort to insult and trash talk such as "drivel" and "mudslinging".
This will be the last time I shall address you unless you actually come up with arguments in support of your position which are not trivial juvenile insults.
If you want to demonstrate your ability to fit your arguments into the discipline of deductive arguments, grounded in first principles, then do it.
Otherwise, presuming that you cannot because you never have done so in the past, your comments will not be published.
That is precisely how the tenor of this blog will be forced to rise to the level of measured, deductive reasoning, rather than the silly statements such as this:
"Shall I elaborate on how theism is an abdication of morality? On how Christianity is in an eternal position of victim-hood? On how belief in the invisible, intangible and otherwise indistinguishable from the non-existent is synonymous with mental instability?
Or would you consider this the intellectually half baked argument of an emotionally immature. The answer of course is pathetically obvious. Regardless of any validity to your claim, you have thrown civility right out the window. On your first post no less."
None of your attempted Tu Quoques (Fallacy Arguments which you try to invoke) come even close to contact with any part of the argument given to you. It does, in fact, illuminate the fallacious thought process which possesses you, on top of your inability to address the issues straight on.
Fallacy and irrationality are, in fact, indiscernable from mental illness, especially when they are argued as Truth (from a vantage point which claims there is no absolute Truth).
If you have an actual argument in support of Atheism, then make it.
Make it here. Make it now.
Make it with grounded deduction and/or material evidence.
Or be silent.
Godless,
Why should we regard atheism as the "default" view?
If one fails to deliver an iron-clad case for theism, then atheism is true by default? Why?
Stan,
I have repeatedly offered reasonable arguments for why the claim that any specific theistic deity exists is untenable.
However that was not what I was addressing in my previous comment.
I was addressing your observation of the poor state of your blog. It stems from you. Your comments are frequently indiscernible from a Poe. You frequently resort to hostile and demeaning language.
Worse, you hypocritically condemn these actions in others. You invite the poor state of this blog, and then ignore your own actions.
Let me be clear. THIS IS NOT ABOUT ATHEISM. I am offering you my honest opinion because I can enjoy discussions about theism, atheism and the general nature of reality.
If you wish your blog to encourage such discussion, one does not open by stating their opposition consists of the mentally unstable, and then cry about Tu Quoque Fallacies when they retort, "no you're retarded". (Which I didn't even do...I wouldn't. I know how sensitive you are.)
No no, easier to dismiss whatever I say as a fallacy, rather than address the truth.
Chris,
http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/1075-is-atheism-the-default-position/
Theism is a claim of existence. Atheism is the disbelief of that claim.
Does that not seem an prime reason to consider atheism the claim that does not shoulder the burden of proof?
I will also comment that it is not the lack of an "iron-clad" case for theism. It is that the very BEST evidence for theism that has been presented by this blog consists of Martin's Prime Mover and Stan's "You can't prove Lourdes isn't real".
The evidence presented is sorely lacking in proportion to the extra-ordinariness of the claim.4
Aiy, yai, yai
No one is born a physicalist. To be a materialist, one would first have to have a notion of the immaterial and to then, reject it.
I've noticed that there are many a-theists out there who don't call themselves atheists. Why? Because they wish to distinguish themselves from the "atheists"- those who are dogmatically committed to reductionist scientistic and quantitative understanding of reality. Reality without teleology.
Are people really born that way?
godless said,
”I have repeatedly offered reasonable arguments for why the claim that any specific theistic deity exists is untenable.”
Except for the actual specific challenge made to you, of course; you refuse to address that because you have no case against it. You have refused to do that repeatedly, and you know it; don't misrepresent your participation here.
”However that was not what I was addressing in my previous comment.
I was addressing your observation of the poor state of your blog”
What I observed was the poor quality of comments. This includes not just the ridicule, but the refusal to address actual issues raised, as well as the emotional charges which are now surfacing again. This comment from you is an example. Here you do not address the issues raised, you merely take offence at them without any attempt to refute them. Apparently you wish to have the charges removed by virtue of your moral issues with them rather than to actually even attempt to refute them. I will not be bullied by moral charges from the amoral.
“It stems from you. Your comments are frequently indiscernible from a Poe. You frequently resort to hostile and demeaning language.”
Let me clear it up for you: I do not mock or use satire; my assessment of Atheism is serious.
You seem to dislike the truth about Atheism, but are powerless to refute it because it is true. So you resort to accusations of “hostile and demeaning language”, rather than address the issues which have been raised. It is definitely demeaning behavior, so I can understand why you feel that revealing is demeaning, and hostile to your equinamity.
”Worse, you hypocritically condemn these actions in others. You invite the poor state of this blog, and then ignore your own actions.”
What I do is to state my observations and then invite refutations. But rather than address and refute, your response is “hypocrisy”. This clearly supports my observations.
(continued below)
(from above)
”Let me be clear. THIS IS NOT ABOUT ATHEISM. I am offering you my honest opinion because I can enjoy discussions about theism, atheism and the general nature of reality.”
If you wish your blog to encourage such discussion, one does not open by stating their opposition consists of the mentally unstable, and then cry about Tu Quoque Fallacies when they retort, "no you're retarded". (Which I didn't even do...I wouldn't. I know how sensitive you are.)”
If you wish to make a case that your comments were not Tu Quoque, then make it. Go ahead, make it! You are merely whining and complaining without making an actual case in your own defense.
If you wish to make a case that your worldview is rational rather than irrational, then make it.
If you have logic and/or evidence to support your worldview, then provide it.
If you “enjoy discussions about theism, atheism and the general nature of reality”, then presumably you would either address the issues with something other than attempting to suggest that the issues are a moral affront to you, or you would initiate a discussion on your own. But of course you do not do that.
”No no, easier to dismiss whatever I say as a fallacy, rather than address the truth.”
Actually, you used the Tu Quoque to avoid addressing the issue by making a counter claim rather than an actual refutation. You don’t even deny it, you just misrepresent it and claim injury.
You prove my points with your above comments. Your response is to claim injury rather than to address the issues which you claim injure you. That is a standard deflection response, not a rational rebuttal. If you could rebut specific issues, then you would; but you can’t so you try to Red Herring the conversation away by lamenting your injuries.
You have long since found that your ridicule doesn't work here and you have changed over to moralizing and emotional bullying. That, of course, doesn't work either.
In the past I have put up with your nonsense. No longer. Either make genuine arguments using logic and/or material evidence, or be ignored.
No more of your responses will be published unless you provide deductive rebuttals to whatever issues you deem to be false.
godless said (to Chris):
"Theism is a claim of existence. Atheism is the disbelief of that claim.
Does that not seem an prime reason to consider atheism the claim that does not shoulder the burden of proof?"
Absolutely NOT. If a respondent rejects a claim, he has the burden of justifying his reasons for rejecting the claim using the same exact conditions for justifications which are placed on the claimant.
And the idea that an effect (e.g. the universe, containing life and intellect) has a cause proportional to the effect is certainly not extra-ordinary: it is perfectly ordinary and expected.
What would be extra-ordinary is to claim that an effect has no cause which is proportional to the effect, or that DNA created itself from atoms in a random accident (similar to a miracle according to Dawkins), or that intellect is an expectation of the juxtaposition of subatomic particles.
Except for the actual specific challenge made to you, of course; you refuse to address that because you have no case against it. You have refused to do that repeatedly, and you know it; don't misrepresent your participation here.
This is ridiculous.
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.ca/2012/08/re-post-persistent-avoidance-by-godless.html
You addressed a specific post to me, in which I numerically responded to each point you made. Points which I had likely already addressed in prior threads no less.
You barely participated in the thread. Yet you claim I refuse to address challenges made to me?
It is you who misrepresents. It is you who are disappointing.
The rest of your post follows from this incomprehensible genesis, and is such completely irrelevant.
Honestly, it's like you intentionally insist on not understand the subject.
Because again, you ignore the point being made (your own debate-ending language) and act as though I am the one affronted?
Moral affront? Moralizing and emotional bullying? Are you kidding me? I'm pointing out that calling your opposition mentally insane is not a constructive methodology to reasonable discourse.
Even this simple concept you refuse to address and instead can do nothing but create straw men and throw ad hominems.
In the past I have put up with your nonsense. No longer. Either make genuine arguments using logic and/or material evidence, or be ignored.
In the past, you have admitted that the language of your challenge creates a logical barrier which is impossible to reconcile coherently.
You cannot provide material evidence for the immaterial, nor can you argue logically against something so ill defined.
So I again charge you with breaking the very rules of your own blog. Civility, and arguing with logical reasoning.
Absolutely NOT. If a respondent rejects a claim, he has the burden of justifying his reasons for rejecting the claim using the same exact conditions for justifications which are placed on the claimant.
I have repeatedly provided reasons for rejection of your barely discernible claims. Lourdes and Prime Mover, again that's the best you've got.
If you honestly believe Lourdes and Prime Mover both valid and sufficient evidence to convince of the existence of a theistic god, I concede we are at an impasse.
And the idea that an effect (e.g. the universe, containing life and intellect) has a cause proportional to the effect is certainly not extra-ordinary: it is perfectly ordinary and expected.
No one claims this. The atheistic claim is that there is insufficient reason to conclude the "effect" is necessarily caused by something recognizable as a god. Straw man.
What would be extra-ordinary is to claim that an effect has no cause which is proportional to the effect, or that DNA created itself from atoms in a random accident (similar to a miracle according to Dawkins), or that intellect is an expectation of the juxtaposition of subatomic particles.
Again, no one says there is No Cause. The rest is an Argument from Ignorance.
Besides which, I've addressed BOTH these issues before. You refuse to listen.
“It stems from you. Your comments are frequently indiscernible from a Poe. You frequently resort to hostile and demeaning language.”
Let me clear it up for you: I do not mock or use satire; my assessment of Atheism is serious.
This is a great summation of your style of discourse.
No where did I say you were mocking, satirical or not serious. Yet your way of "clearing up the issue" is by asserting you do none of these things.
It so perfectly mirrors your attack on atheism. You don't listen.
Anywho. I'll try and keep it civil, and on topic, if you can do the same. But .. I've made one originating point, and restated it multiple times .. and you just avoid it. Imagine my bewilderment as you charge me with avoiding challenges.
Stan,
I'm glad you are still persisting in your efforts.
Tollerance is quite difficult to achieve these days.
Good to see you refreshed in this new year!!
Kind Regards
Reflecting on the exchange above, I begin to see why C. S. Lewis thought that (1) the religion most likely to make a man happy, while it lasted, was the worship of one's self and (2) the expansion of one's ego eventually corrupted everything else, including, finally, one's ability to reason.
godless has evaded the Question for so long, I honestly believe he/she is no longer capable of answering it - or detecting that lack - or even caring about the loss.
The same tired cliches, the same rebuttal by Stan, the same cliches trotted out again *as if Stan had not refuted them* and on and on and on.
godless is buzzing in a vacuum, spouting pseudo-rational nonsense. He/she acts as though no one has caught on. I would smile if the performance wasn't, frankly, terrifying. Any one of us could become that. Any one of us could get sucked into the Nothing in any number of ways.
I see godless and his/her statements and I am reminded of the horrible traffic movies we were forced to watch back in high school driving class. "Red Asphalt", indeed.
godless, your responses were merely exercises in avoidance. Each and every one.
Where is your logic proving deductively that there is no creating entity which is proportional to the created effect?
Your response was this:
“ 1. Theism is the claim. There is no evidence to support it. The "logical deductions" which lead to theism I do not accept. I've never seen a logical argument for a deity which I found to be both sound and valid. Certainly not convincing. Thus the claim is not accepted.”
In other words, you don’t accept the logic merely because: you don’t accept it. You provide no analysis of “sound and valid”, probably because you don’t know what those terms mean in the world of disciplined logic. Your position is not one of logic, it is one of cherished ignorance.
Bottom line: You reject because you want to. That is your idea of logic. You provide no deductive process, you merely reject; you do so because you are godless and can do no other. You do not provide actual analysis because you do none; you do none because you have the answer you need. Persistent rationalization is irrational.
This response is especially revealing:
”Re 4a) Yonose provided a definition of "basic theism", which I addressed. You later in the conversation said "that's not even the claim of basic theism" (paraphrased). Soo YOU are a theist who is rejecting the "basic theist claim". Emphasizing my point, theists can't even agree on theism.”
Bottom line: godless will avoid answering the stated issue using any tactic, however juvenile, to avoid it.
And this response, which delineates your ignorance of the meaning of the words you use:
” Re 4b) Your claim of theism is not falsifiable. If you think this lends strength to your position, you are not even wrong.”
The concept of falsifiability has been explained to you, yet you still do not comprehend its proper use. Of course the logic of theism is non-falsifiable: it is a non-material conceptualization of a non-material entity; however, the suggested material manifestation of theism (Lourdes) is a falsifiable material entity, which you merely shrug off rather than address with material evidence to support your refusal to accept it.
” Moral affront? Moralizing and emotional bullying? Are you kidding me? I'm pointing out that calling your opposition mentally insane is not a constructive methodology to reasonable discourse.”
You take no pains to rectify your irrational behaviors with disciplined logic; in fact you persist in them. You want the description of Atheism changed to be beneficial so you whine that the description itself is the reason you cannot engage in “reasonable discourse”. Never have you engaged in “reasonable discourse”. You feint and dodge and accuse and whine.
Enough. Your attachment to your irrational dodges is pathological; your refusal to provide either deductive logic or material evidence is transparent to everyone but you. Persistence in irrational thought processes and the inability to release oneself from such irrationality indicates mental issues. You don’t even try to analyze the information given you, you just reject it. Why would anyone wish to continue to have discourse with a person like that?
I stand by the position I have taken regarding responses such as yours, and again, if you do not provide deductive logic or material evidence, no more of your irrational blather will be posted. Very likely this is your last comment here.
...godless: I have deleted your current comment. It was merely a continuation of your previous behaviors.
Stan
You're such a chicken shit.
Ignore the solitary originating point I made and bury the conversation in a mountain of bullshit.
Delete even the challenge of a fair debate.
Chris was the only person here who actually engaged in civil discussion. He asked questions which I directly responded too.
It's fine Stan. Keep pretending you are actually interested in discussing the beliefs of atheists.
godless, you are permenantly done. Get help.
Regarding China
Youtube
Slavoj Zizek in Conversation with Jonathan Derbyshire at Central Saint Martins
1:22:30 to 1:23:40
1 minute and 10 seconds of your time
Post a Comment