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?
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
I refuse to think, so I guess I'll just annoy you.
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
dish ... plate ... Oh well, I did try...
-
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?
Ilíon wrote:
Do it. Do you really imagine I care that fools who refuse to think cannot abide having the truth spoken?
Egocentric righteousness: the natural tendency to feel superior in the light of our confidence that we are in the possession of THE TRUTH.
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
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?
Egocentric infallibility: the natural tendency to think that our beliefs are true because we believe them.
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
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?
Egocentric oversimplification: the natural tendency to ignore real and important complexities in the world in favor of simplistic notions when consideration of those complexities would require us to modify our beliefs or values.
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
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 have to admit, out of all the people with whom I have *arguments* (that is so feeble when you do that) you are by far and away the most completely ignorant, bigoted and just plain thick. You clearly have not a single idea of your own, do not understand anything outside of your own selfish world view, have never read anything other than that which supports your twisted ideals and generally have not got a clue. Even when challenged you shy away and refuse to answer simply asserting that only you know the truth. Well I hope your happy with it. I suspect you are quite alone and very lonely which is sad but you bring it on yourself. In short, you are a fool.
-
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?
-
Apparently he was a born again christian...
digital man wrote:
Apparently he was a born again christian...
Anyone can *claim* anything. You know, sort of like you are tendentiously doing here. His actions are consistent with atheism; his actions are consistent with what you fools assert is the truth about the nature of reality. *YOUR* (plural) actions in this thread are not consistent with what you (plural) assert is the truth about the nature of reality. You fools are acting as though this man is morally responsible for what he did. You fools are acting as though there is such a thing as objective morality (which you verbally deny), and that he has violated it. You fools are acting as though there is such a thing as justice (which cannot really exist were atheism true), and that justice demand that this fellow be punished, and worse than punished, for his violation of morality.
-
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.
:laugh: You know what's funny? Chalk. :laugh:
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
China Plate = mate. Cockney rhyming slang. Dog = telephone etc etc etc
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Cambridge Punt = Illion