I believe...

[lightgigantic]

I wasn't making an argument. I'm making statements regarding observed reality.

Hello?
statements of reality that don't require an argument?


(seriously, don't ever ever ever ever grow a moustache.... ok?)

There are no effects in this universe that, without positing a supernatural cause, appear as anything other than natural law or simple randomness. Just because we don't yet know the underlying mechanisms of EVERYTHING in no way points to some deity.

I guess that's where positing everything is ultimately random underthe natural laws comes in handy, huh?

 

[superluminal]

there is nothing wrong with faith. don't you think it is good to have, just in case there is some truth?

There is EVERYTHING wrong with faith. It is the willful blind acceptance of whatever crusade or jihad you god demands of you at the moment. It's the most animalistic and savage disregard for human intelligence I can think of.

[QUOTE}don't say there is not a god until you can with out a doubt prove there isn' one.[/QUOTE]
Excuse me? I observe that there is nothing we've yet noticed about our universe that even remotely says "Here be gods". And given that, I state the current lack of any kind of evidence for gods. That's all.

Now, you all (believers) are making a strident claim that, in fact, your god exists. I don't have to prove a mother fucking thing to you. You however, have the full responsibility of proving your god to me, in no uncertain terms, if you are going to insist to me that HE/SHE/IT exists. Lest I laugh you off the stage for a fool.

Go on then. Prove away...

 

[superluminal]

Hello?
statements of reality that don't require...

Ah yes. Still the master of disingenuous reading of quotes and spouting jibberish I see.

No surprises here...

 

[lightgigantic]

Ah yes. Still the master of disingenuous reading of quotes and spouting jibberish I see.

No surprises here...

Not sure if you are up to you r usual games of bypassing philosophy inorder to lend weight to your philosophical statements or if you missed the point in the other thread about misanthropic atheists + moustaches = millions of deaths

 

[lightgigantic]

What? And miss all this? This subforum needed a jolt and it's getting it tonight. All it takes is a couple of atheists and a ....well...I'm not sure...whatever it is you are. Good night

A jolt of bad rhetoric can be had anywhere

 

[superluminal]

Not sure if you are up to you r usual games of bypassing philosophy inorder to lend weight to your philosophical statements or if you missed the point in the other thread about misanthropic atheists + moustaches = millions of deaths

Unlike some, I miss very little. As for bypassing philosophy, I think we have two very different conceptions of what philosophy is for. For you it seems to be an end in-and-of itself with no practical outcome (as most philosophers seem to approach it). For me there is obviously a better use for such a tool, and a much less circuitous route to actual, useful outcomes.

You tend to blather on about the arcana of definitions (which are important when the subject is clearly arcane) but usually, in these discussions we're all perfectly clear about the fundamental entities of which we're speaking.

My "blah, blah, blah" filter automatically goes high-order for most of your paragraphs.

 

[lightgigantic]

Unlike some, I miss very little. As for bypassing philosophy, I think we have two very different conceptions of what philosophy is for. For you it seems to be an end in-and-of itself with no practical outcome (as most philosophers seem to approach it). For me there is obviously a better use for such a tool, and a much less circuitous route to actual, useful outcomes.

If you think that you don't require philosophy to back up statements of reality, then yes, we do have quite different views on the purpose of philosophy

You tend to blather on about the arcana of definitions (which are important when the subject is clearly arcane) but usually, in these discussions we're all perfectly clear about the fundamental entities of which we're speaking.

Actually my critique of your statements didn't require me to bring any of my baggage to the table.

For instance take this gem of yours

I wasn't making an argument. I'm making statements regarding observed reality.


Regardless of a persons' ideas on what constitutes reality and its observation, its simply thickheaded to think that it can be advocated without philosophy/argument

My "blah, blah, blah" filter automatically goes high-order for most of your paragraphs.

Persons fully steeped in their own values, from drug addicted parents to megalomaniacal tyrants, also display an inability to listen (and hence their views on "observed reality" usually involve gaps big enough to drive semi-trailers through)

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Yes, but knowing that, don't you want to use your intelligence to surpass such a lifestyle?

I already do. But that is my choice.

To make things a bit better through actual planning rather than beseeching a non-existent entity (which works no better than random chance)?

To "make things better", there has to be something for everyone.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

By ending up believing to protect yourself from fellow believers?

For a few this has been, is, and will be their reality. Most believers really believe.

 

[wynn]

Your faith is regarding an objective claim of existence. And it's a mindless, soulless husk of self deception. Good luck with that.

Have you ever actually given faith a try?

If not, where do you get your evidence for your claims about faith from?

 

[S.A.M.]

Use empirical reasoning

Ever consider that the biggest tools of reasoning and evidence gathering, ie abstraction, logic and mathematics have no basis in empiricism?

If you discarded them because they could not be established by empirical reasoning, what would be the basis of your thinking?

 

[wsionynw]

I need help.

Why is it so painfully obvious to me (and many others) that religion is just a series of fairy-tales that have been co-opted by those that desire power, and sold to those that desire shallow comfort?

It's so obvious that it makes my head hurt. All of the billions of words of hyperbole spent over thousands of years have resulted in nothing but employment for philosophers and rulers. Arguments about supposed good vs the supposed bad that religion has caused are moot. There is not one damned thing that religions do that conscientious atheists throughout time haven't done better. No agenda you see.

Atheists simply want religious people to keep it to themselves. We want to live in a fair and peaceful world without having to subscribe to some mythical worldview.

And no, I don't have to respect your beliefs. I can respect you as a person, but your silly beliefs need to be ridiculed for what they are: Slavish adherence to some stupid dogma that you just happened to be born into.

There is ZERO to be learned from dogma. There is no progress. There is no free thinking. This book teaches us this... That book teaches thus and such...
Bullshit. Even scientific textbooks get revised when something new is discovered. But Oh-Noes! Not my HOLY book! It's perfect as it is. In all of its glorious ambiguity that's open to any fucking interpretation you care to put on it. Like convincing all of you slaves to go to war for your god. Or belittling and damning people for who they want to love. Or for wearing the wrong clothes...

You're all (you "believers") a bunch of sheep at best and a bunch of willfully stupid humans at worst.

Don't believe shit. Test it. Demand some proof. Use empirical reasoning. Anything. Think for shit sake. Be real humans with a brain.

It's a fairy tale, for crying out loud. And you're all just succumbing to peer-pressure, just like you were in high school. Grow up.

+1, what he said, THIS

 

[soullust]

Not sure if you are up to you r usual games of bypassing philosophy in order to lend weight to your philosophical statements or if you missed the point in the other thread about misanthropic atheists + moustaches = millions of deaths

you know something, stalin has been wrote as an evil man because of his Cleansing, for say..

but in all reality, he did do allot of good for his country, he just had to make un ethical decisions, to achieve that goal.

 

[James R]

Ever consider that the biggest tools of reasoning and evidence gathering, ie abstraction, logic and mathematics have no basis in empiricism?

Reasoning, maybe. Evidence gathering: ?

Evidence is empirical, SAM.

 

[S.A.M.]

Reasoning, maybe. Evidence gathering: ?

Evidence is empirical, SAM.

Prove it. Without using abstraction, logic or mathematics.

 

[quadraphonics]

Prove it. Without using abstraction, logic or mathematics.

What a preposterous troll.

 

[lightgigantic]

What a preposterous troll.

Not really.

Can't move a millimeter into evidence without abstraction, etc.

 

[superluminal]

Ever consider that the biggest tools of reasoning and evidence gathering, ie abstraction, logic and mathematics have no basis in empiricism?

If you discarded them because they could not be established by empirical reasoning, what would be the basis of your thinking?

Hi sam, and, ummm... huh?

I did no such thing (discarding logic, abstraction, etc). But you will admit that when faced with the claim that there is a pink unicorn with amazing powers residing in a cargo container at the north pole, there's nothing for it but bit of travel and some empirical cargo-container-opening?

You certainly know that I'm not advocating anything beyond what a rational person does in their everyday life when faced with claims of fact. You all (believers) do it without thinking when it comes to your job, finances, etc.

It's your total cognitive dissonance regarding the mythology of the particular family religion you were randomly born into that drives me nuts.

 

[S.A.M.]

I did no such thing (discarding logic, abstraction

Why not? Aren't you going to use empirical reasoning when its inconvenient to do so? If there is no empirical reasoning behind logic or abstraction, should you be using them?

 

[superluminal]

Not really.

Can't move a millimeter into evidence without abstraction, etc.

Total and utter tripe. Open the container. Is there a pink unicorn? No? Issue settled.

Again, I sense you're delving into the deeper levels of metaphysical and existential abstraction that represent the symbological basis of neural network pattern holography as applied to the qualitative experience of contextual and objective material representational modes.

Am I right, or am I right?