Words fail me.
-
Why? Why do you people get so bent out of shape when other people behave in ways consistent with the philosophy and metaphysics you yourselves espouse?
How do we 'espouse' this?! Fuck you. Go die.
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
This too: baby 'murdered in microwave' [^]
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Her name is 'China'? Interesting name. Reminds me of that actress, America Ferrera, or whatever it is. It's just so perverted, though. :(
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
Her name is 'China'? Interesting name. Reminds me of that actress, America Ferrera, or whatever it is. It's just so perverted, though. :(
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
Why? Why do you people get so bent out of shape when other people behave in ways consistent with the philosophy and metaphysics you yourselves espouse?
Apparently he was a born again christian...
-
Why? Why do you people get so bent out of shape when other people behave in ways consistent with the philosophy and metaphysics you yourselves espouse?
How is torturing a baby consistent with atheism? I don't need a fear of eternal punishment to tell me that causing extreme pain and disfigurement in an innocent child is bad. You've stooped really low here.
-
Her name is 'China'? Interesting name. Reminds me of that actress, America Ferrera, or whatever it is. It's just so perverted, though. :(
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
In SA, everyone's name is 'china', or rather, 'my china'.
-
How is torturing a baby consistent with atheism? I don't need a fear of eternal punishment to tell me that causing extreme pain and disfigurement in an innocent child is bad. You've stooped really low here.
See, he doesn't understand the concept of helping other people for the sake of it. He thinks it will win him a ticket to eternal salvation, so essentially he is a selfish bastard.
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
Why? Why do you people get so bent out of shape when other people behave in ways consistent with the philosophy and metaphysics you yourselves espouse?
Isn't that right Ilíon? I don't hurt other people because I don't want to, whereas you don't hurt them because your God doesn't want you to? Doesn't that make me a better person than you?
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
Why? Why do you people get so bent out of shape when other people behave in ways consistent with the philosophy and metaphysics you yourselves espouse?
Ilíon, I'm confused. You wrote this; this is your ultimate logic debunking atheism: IF 'materialism' is the truth about the nature of reality, THEN minds (or 'souls' if you prefer that word) cannot exist. BUT minds do exist. THEREFORE, 'materialism' (and 'physicalism,' and 'naturalism,' and 'atheism,' and 'agnosticism') is clearly seen to be false. But I don't get it.
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
In SA, everyone's name is 'china', or rather, 'my china'.
Really? Why?
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
Why? Why do you people get so bent out of shape when other people behave in ways consistent with the philosophy and metaphysics you yourselves espouse?
-
You, Ilíon, are an abusive obnoxious little man. :mad: I was tempted to mark your post as Abuse.
I did it for you.
-
How is torturing a baby consistent with atheism? I don't need a fear of eternal punishment to tell me that causing extreme pain and disfigurement in an innocent child is bad. You've stooped really low here.
Brady Kelly wrote:
How is torturing a baby consistent with atheism?
How is it not consistent? If atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, then there are no such things as right and wrong (or, to write the words consistent with your atheistic metaphysics, "right" and "wrong"). If atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, then "all things are permissible." If atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, then no one is responsible for his actions[^], for no one is responsible for *anything* (You children freak out when I point out that in this very piece Mr Dawkins admits to being a liar about the very things he's asserting.)
Brady Kelly wrote:
You've stooped really low here.
No; you *refuse* to think clearly, logically, rationally.
-
Why? Why do you people get so bent out of shape when other people behave in ways consistent with the philosophy and metaphysics you yourselves espouse?
Ilíon, have you always been like this?
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Her name is 'China'?
Aparently. Her mum probably mistook her for a China Plate, slapped a chicken pie on her and stuck her in.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
You do like to dish it out, don't you?
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
How is torturing a baby consistent with atheism?
How is it not consistent? If atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, then there are no such things as right and wrong (or, to write the words consistent with your atheistic metaphysics, "right" and "wrong"). If atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, then "all things are permissible." If atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, then no one is responsible for his actions[^], for no one is responsible for *anything* (You children freak out when I point out that in this very piece Mr Dawkins admits to being a liar about the very things he's asserting.)
Brady Kelly wrote:
You've stooped really low here.
No; you *refuse* to think clearly, logically, rationally.
You have no idea what atheism is all about, do you? Kinda funny actually.
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
You, Ilíon, are an abusive obnoxious little man. :mad: I was tempted to mark your post as Abuse.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
You, Ilíon, are an abusive obnoxious little man. :mad:
And you're an ass and a fool: rather than *think* you must resort to lying about me.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
I was tempted to mark your post as Abuse.
Do it. Do you really imagine I care that fools who refuse to think cannot abide having the truth spoken?
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
How is torturing a baby consistent with atheism?
How is it not consistent? If atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, then there are no such things as right and wrong (or, to write the words consistent with your atheistic metaphysics, "right" and "wrong"). If atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, then "all things are permissible." If atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, then no one is responsible for his actions[^], for no one is responsible for *anything* (You children freak out when I point out that in this very piece Mr Dawkins admits to being a liar about the very things he's asserting.)
Brady Kelly wrote:
You've stooped really low here.
No; you *refuse* to think clearly, logically, rationally.
I refuse to think, so I guess I'll just annoy you.
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
You do like to dish it out, don't you?