Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip
Fallible wrote:They don't come to us anymore.I saw them on the estate the other day, but they stayed away. I think it's because I tried to engage them too much in conversation every time they came here.
BlackBart wrote:Yeah, seriously Wortfish, up your game mate. That was really pathetic. We need something a little less hackneyed and desperate to chew on.
Wortfish wrote:BlackBart wrote:Yeah, seriously Wortfish, up your game mate. That was really pathetic. We need something a little less hackneyed and desperate to chew on.
Atheists like to say to theists: "You are an atheist in that you don't believe in all but one of a number of possible gods".
Theists like to say to atheists: "You cannot claim to be an atheist if you treat existence as anything other than meaningless and purposeless which is what a possible universe without a god would be like."
Now which of those statements is the more rational and logical?
Suppose someone skeptical about Euclidean geometry said:
"When you understand why you regard all the particular triangles you’ve observed as having sides that are less than perfectly straight, you will understand why I regard Euclidean plane triangles as such to have sides that are less than perfectly straight."
Thommo wrote:Wortfish wrote:BlackBart wrote:Yeah, seriously Wortfish, up your game mate. That was really pathetic. We need something a little less hackneyed and desperate to chew on.
Atheists like to say to theists: "You are an atheist in that you don't believe in all but one of a number of possible gods".
Theists like to say to atheists: "You cannot claim to be an atheist if you treat existence as anything other than meaningless and purposeless which is what a possible universe without a god would be like."
Now which of those statements is the more rational and logical?
The first one. It's the first one you're insinuating towards, right?
What do I win?
Wortfish wrote:Thommo wrote:Wortfish wrote:BlackBart wrote:Yeah, seriously Wortfish, up your game mate. That was really pathetic. We need something a little less hackneyed and desperate to chew on.
Atheists like to say to theists: "You are an atheist in that you don't believe in all but one of a number of possible gods".
Theists like to say to atheists: "You cannot claim to be an atheist if you treat existence as anything other than meaningless and purposeless which is what a possible universe without a god would be like."
Now which of those statements is the more rational and logical?
The first one. It's the first one you're insinuating towards, right?
What do I win?
You don't. Just because I don't believe in one type of god, or representation of the divine, does not mean I am an atheist.
However, it would inherently contradictory if an atheist, who believes in no higher power or objective morality, supposed that life and existence is actually purposeful and meaningful. He/She should see it as pointless and accidental. The fact that most atheist live their lives caring about things, is an indication that they have not fully come to terms with their atheism.
Wortfish wrote:Thommo wrote:Wortfish wrote:BlackBart wrote:Yeah, seriously Wortfish, up your game mate. That was really pathetic. We need something a little less hackneyed and desperate to chew on.
Atheists like to say to theists: "You are an atheist in that you don't believe in all but one of a number of possible gods".
Theists like to say to atheists: "You cannot claim to be an atheist if you treat existence as anything other than meaningless and purposeless which is what a possible universe without a god would be like."
Now which of those statements is the more rational and logical?
The first one. It's the first one you're insinuating towards, right?
What do I win?
You don't. Just because I don't believe in one type of god, or representation of the divine, does not mean I am an atheist.
However, it would inherently contradictory if an atheist, who believes in no higher power or objective morality, supposed that life and existence is actually purposeful and meaningful. He/She should see it as pointless and accidental. The fact that most atheist live their lives caring about things, is an indication that they have not fully come to terms with their atheism.
However, it would inherently contradictory if an atheist, who believes in no higher power or objective morality, supposed that life and existence is actually purposeful and meaningful. He/She should see it as pointless and accidental. The fact that most atheist live their lives caring about things, is an indication that they have not fully come to terms with their atheism.
Twaddle. An atheist wouldn't make such a stupid statement. 'Theism' is by definition a belief in a God or gods.Wortfish wrote:Atheists like to say to theists: "You are an atheist in that you don't believe in all but one of a number of possible gods".
Presumptuous delusional twaddle. 'Godless' does not equal meaningless and purposeless. Kowtowing to a 'god' or 'gods' stunts, and in some cases prevents, exploration and understanding.Theists like to say to atheists: "You cannot claim to be an atheist if you treat existence as anything other than meaningless and purposeless which is what a possible universe without a god would be like."
Now which of those statements is the more rational and logical?
Wortfish wrote:BlackBart wrote:Yeah, seriously Wortfish, up your game mate. That was really pathetic. We need something a little less hackneyed and desperate to chew on.
Atheists like to say to theists: "You are an atheist in that you don't believe in all but one of a number of possible gods".
Theists like to say to atheists: "You cannot claim to be an atheist if you treat existence as anything other than meaningless and purposeless which is what a possible universe without a god would be like."
Now which of those statements is the more rational and logical?
theropod wrote:...and the “what good is half and eye” bullshit.
RS
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest