What do religions base their behaviors on?

[lightgigantic]

Given your last post I dont think it would be fair of me to debate you as It sounds like you aspire to become mentally handicapped.
Seriously, it seem you would rather gaze in wonderment at the invisible barriers on the bus than have the intellectual capacity to identify them as windows.
however I wil humour you this one time.

sheesh

Get back to us when you can manage a reply that doesn't entertain adhoms at a greater ration than about 1:2

 

[pavlosmarcos]

sheesh

Given your last post I dont think it would be fair of me to debate you as It sounds like you aspire to become mentally handicapped.
Seriously, it seem you would rather gaze in wonderment at the invisible barriers on the bus than have the intellectual capacity to identify them as windows.
however I wil humour you this one time.
Nothing exists in absolutes, philosophy and science have so far been unable to establish any. Because of this problem, we find nothing they are able to call an objective, absolute truth or even an absolute moral value.
So a fact is all it can be. A value is only as good as the evidence base it has, without it it is worthless, has no usefulness, and is unimportant. A belief, as said earlier MUST have infallible evidence, and therefore the latter two are merely subjective personal bias's.

You would only bypass a value if the said value is baseless, evidence-less and as such valueless.
If a person continues to be ignorant whilst all around him are trying to correct him, then he doesn't deserve anything other than ridicule, it's Compounded ignorance the Romans had a word for it "dulcis ignorantia".

Get back to us when you can manage a reply that doesn't entertain adhoms at a greater ration than about 1:2

Lol, Pot calling the kettle black comes to mind.

"Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an ad hominem or a logical fallacy. The fallacy only occurs if personal attacks are employed instead of an argument(see above bolded) to devalue an argument by attacking the speaker.
In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument."

Wikipedia.

Your argument has been defeated (see above Bolded), so in this case it is merely an insult, and one that you thoroughly deserved, as you do have compounded ignorance. You've been here for years spouting out the same drivel, even though you have been shown your error by numerous members from the onset.
You seem to delight in your ignorance.

 

[lightgigantic]

Lol, Pot calling the kettle black comes to mind.
Wikipedia.

Your argument has been defeated (see above Bolded), so in this case it is merely an insult, and one that you thoroughly deserved, as you do have compounded ignorance. You've been here for years spouting out the same drivel, even though you have been shown your error by numerous members from the onset.
You seem to delight in your ignorance.

one noble quality that you previously exhibited that your friends/possible socks sure don't is the ability to post at a lower ad hom ratio than 1:2

 

[stefan]

lightgigantic

I must of hit a nerve.

one noble quality that you previously exhibited that your friends/possible socks sure don't is the ability to post at a lower ad hom ratio than 1:2

Almost every one of your quotes has subtle insults, the difference is other people have the balls to actually say it.


Just so you know I am answering because you are not continuing your flawed argument, I am pointing out your failings.

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic

I must of hit a nerve.

Sure
I treat all potential socks in a similar manner of brevity

 

[geeser]

If it is not the books of their religion (bible, quran, etc) then what is it? How do they decide which parts to heed and which ones can be safely ignored? Like modern "good" xians and muslims tend to discount the murderous, violent, abusive parts. How is it that they don't stone the shit out of people for simple things? Or poke out eyes or cut off limbs? Or destroy infidels?

Seems to me that what "radical" xians and muslims do is closer to what their god really wants. And that the umm... pussies of their respective religions are just cherry-picking the parts that they find morally OK. Seems like self deception on their part. It must offend their god(s) something fierce to have his published work abused in such a way.

So, why do people continue to call themselves xian or muslim when they don't really follow their own books well at all?

Religious people look to there peers, elders, priests, etc, for guidance, some go as far to actually study there holy books in order to become said peers, elders, etc. However they all start from a brainwashed/indoctrinated basis, none come to god from there own fruition, well not without some kind of trauma happening in there lives. Those who claim they chose belief in a deity, are deluding themselves, if they were intellectually honest they would admit this. No rational person turns to irrationality for guidance. So their behaviour is born from their books and their peers, and never from a rational standpoint.

 

[lightgigantic]

Religious people look to there peers, elders, priests, etc, for guidance, some go as far to actually study there holy books in order to become said peers, elders, etc. However they all start from a brainwashed/indoctrinated basis, none come to god from there own fruition, well not without some kind of trauma happening in there lives. Those who claim they chose belief in a deity, are deluding themselves, if they were intellectually honest they would admit this. No rational person turns to irrationality for guidance. So their behaviour is born from their books and their peers, and never from a rational standpoint.

meh
for as long as it is rational to glean a complete understanding of philosophy from atheist hate sites

 

[geeser]

meh
for as long as it is rational to glean a complete understanding of philosophy from atheist hate sites

Firstly what is an atheist hate site?. And secondly nothing can be gleaned completely or even partially from philosophy, it is a subjective discipline all you could possibly glean is an opinion, so it wouldn't be rational. Thus it would only be possible to glean philosophical supposition from any site, atheist or not.

Having said that what does your reply have to do with the reply I gave to superluminal?.

 

[stefan]

With 82 posts in over 5 years, I wouldn't expect you to.

With 11,668 posts in 4 years, averaging out at approximately 7 posts a day, it appears you don't have a life to live and need to get out more.

Sure
I treat all potential socks in a similar manner of brevity

What a cliché!
When someone else chimes in you label them a sockpuppet, I suppose that's a good way of never having to accept criticism for what you say.
How convenient.

 

[lightgigantic]

Firstly what is an atheist hate site?.

.... come now, don't play coy

And secondly nothing can be gleaned completely or even partially from philosophy, it is a subjective discipline all you could possibly glean is an opinion, so it wouldn't be rational. Thus it would only be possible to glean philosophical supposition from any site, atheist or not.

so you're willing to accept that your philosophical take on theism is not even completely or partially rational?

Having said that what does your reply have to do with the reply I gave to superluminal?.

It says that your reply is a mere opinion trying to play the charade of a fact.
IOW your whole notion that a departure into theism is a departure into the irrational is simply an attempt to bypass philosophy.

 

[lightgigantic]

With 11,668 posts in 4 years, averaging out at approximately 7 posts a day, it appears you don't have a life to live and need to get out more.

What a cliché!
When someone else chimes in you label them a sockpuppet, I suppose that's a good way of never having to accept criticism for what you say.
How convenient.

Feel free to make an attempt to discuss the topic.
Otherwise disappear into the mothballs for another 5 years.
okay?

 

[geeser]

.... come now, don't play coy

No playing coy here, sunshine. What is an atheist hate site? either explain or retract the statement.

so you're willing to accept that your philosophical take on theism is not even completely or partially rational?

I don't have a subjective take on theism, I leave that to the theist, Supposition, assumption, is all the theist has, it would be cruel to deny them the only thing they have.

It says that your reply is a mere opinion trying to play the charade of a fact.

How so, explain.

IOW your whole notion that a departure into theism is a departure into the irrational is simply an attempt to bypass philosophy.

It is simply to include philosophy not bypass it, without any objective evidence, philosophy is all the theist has. I'm really glad you noticed that.

 

[lightgigantic]

No playing coy here, sunshine. What is an atheist hate site? either explain or retract the statement.

at one stage you even had one posted under your avatar

I don't have a subjective take on theism, I leave that to the theist, Supposition, assumption, is all the theist has, it would be cruel to deny them the only thing they have.

phew that's a relief
for a moment I thought you trying to say something substantial about theism

How so, explain.It is simply to include philosophy not bypass it, without any objective evidence, philosophy is all the theist has. I'm really glad you noticed that.

its your attempt to place "evidence" on a higher pedestal than "philosophy" that makes it obvious you can't/won't pay attention to detail

 

[stefan]

Feel free to make an attempt to discuss the topic.
okay?

Already have, but you seem to have a selective memory.

Otherwise disappear into the mothballs for another 5 years.

How mature of you.

 

[stefan]

Double post, I apologise.

 

[lightgigantic]

Already have, but you seem to have a selective memory.

ok

How mature of you.

ok

 

[geeser]

at one stage you even had one posted under your avatar

What?, supply a link to a known atheist hate site or retract the statement.

phew that's a relief
for a moment I thought you trying to say something substantial about theism

There is nothing substantial one could say about theism it is all supposition, assumption, imagination, opinion, Didn't you understand that from my last post, or was this just your poor attempt at sarcasm.

its your attempt to place "evidence" on a higher pedestal than "philosophy"

Well duh! philosophy is purely subjective, is it hard for you to grasp the difference, between objective and subjective.

that makes it obvious you can't/won't pay attention to detail

You know me how.
Anyhow are you saying that I should simply accept the musing of a theist, above the facts. You are kidding Right.

 

[lightgigantic]

What?, supply a link to a known atheist hate site or retract the statement.

Just think of a site you would reference for any of your material on theism

There is nothing substantial one could say about theism it is all supposition, assumption, imagination, opinion, Didn't you understand that from my last post, or was this just your poor attempt at sarcasm.

Its hard to work out what you are saying. First you say that you aren't offering a subjective take on theism ... the next moment you offer a subjective take on theism

Well duh! philosophy is purely subjective, is it hard for you to grasp the difference, between objective and subjective.

ha

Not as hard as it would be for you to establish the grounds for something being objective or even subjective without calling upon philosophy

You know me how.

Its not so much knowing you but seeing the glaring errors you make in trying to relegate philosophy to the realm of the subjective (and without calling upon the tools of philosophy too, I might add ....)

Anyhow are you saying that I should simply accept the musing of a theist, above the facts. You are kidding Right.

actually at this point I am just trying to point out the incoherency that one makes by declaring evidence can be approached before or even without philosophy

 

[geeser]

Just think of a site you would reference for any of your material on theism

I can't think of a one, So we can take it you're talking bollocks and leave it at that.

Its hard to work out what you are saying. First you say that you aren't offering a subjective take on theism ... the next moment you offer a subjective take on theism

Where? anyhow that's your job, your the theist.

ha
Not as hard as it would be for you to establish the grounds for something being objective or even subjective without calling upon philosophy

Why would anyone other than the theist, need philosophy. You don't need philosophy, to prove reality. Reality is mind-independent, talk sense, for f**k sake.

Its not so much knowing you but seeing the glaring errors you make in trying to relegate philosophy to the realm of the subjective (and without calling upon the tools of philosophy too, I might add ....)

If you believe philosophy to be something other than subjective, then the floor is yours.
Show me

actually at this point I am just trying to point out the incoherency that one makes by declaring evidence can be approached before or even without philosophy

As said, show me. Just spouting of at the mouth isn't going to cut it. Either show me or retract the statement, We've seen how well you tackled the atheist hate site, so I'm keen to see the impossible, so go right ahead.

 

[stefan]

Philosophy is purely subjective, every idea is valid within philosophy. If I were to propose that transcendent trans-dimensional universe building pixies were the first cause(quote of matt dilluhunty), it would be just as valid as the Christian, Hindu, or Muslim perspectives.
Thus philosophy is not an accurate way of discerning the truth.