There is also a Muslim stall here as well from which I got a free Koran
I also got an annotated one from another stall which I read so all good

Do you feel Chrislam is not harmful, or do you feel powerless in the face of the proselytisers, or are you apathetic about it sur? "All good" is it?

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.

lol, yeah, same here. I used to quite like them coming around, for two reasons.

1. I was a single mother to two small children, so was stuck at home with no stimulating conversations a lot of the time. It was nice to be able to use a bit more of my brain. And having to argue your position is excellent for clarifying your thought process.

2. As my late granddad, also an atheist, always said, " if they're here talking to me, they're not bothering someone more vulnerable"

Quite so.

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?

Bart said up your game.

I bet those worts on that fish's head extend inside its brain....

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?

ETA: This train of thought did lead me to this hilariously inept disanalogical takedown of the meme:
https://strangenotions.com/debunking-th ... objection/

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?

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.

Organisms suffer. Organisms experience happiness. Decreasing the former and increasing the latter matters, to all but psychopaths, and even they care about those matters purely as they apply to themselves. Therefore meaning and purpose. No dog needed. Have a nice day Wortfish.

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.

Ahh, I see, you're mistaking semantics and definition for logic and rationality.

Well, an easy mistake to make, I suppose. Maybe you'll get it right next time you're pointlessly strawmanning someone.

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.

Why do you do this?

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.

Why do you think that meaning and purpose need to be imposed on us from outside?
We are social beings who find meaning and purpose amongst ourselves and our relationship to the world around us.
There is no evidence that any of the competing religious moralities have any validity or add any meaning or purpose that is not entirely imaginary.

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".

Twaddle. An atheist wouldn't make such a stupid statement. 'Theism' is by definition a belief in a God or 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."

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.

Now which of those statements is the more rational and logical?

Neither. They're both bollocks.

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?

Neither. The first a garbled version of a jocular remark by An atheist, not 'Atheists'.

Second is just vacuous assertion. - please show why a universe that wasn't created by a supernatural entity would be meaningless and purposeless. Further why would we have to accept that a 'meaningless' and 'purposeless' universe is a bad thing in the first olace?

Once again, up your game, mate.

Why does Wortfish post such obviously illogical suggestions?

He/She can't be that deluded, surely?

I dunno, he doesn’t even really engage. No matter the replies and questions, he just regurgitates the same claims.

theropod wrote:...and the “what good is half and eye” bullshit.

RS

No shit, eh? The half an eye thing, coming from people who live to adulthood with half a functioning brain.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro