If religion is fantasy, isn't atheism irrelevant?

Jump to Last Post 1-27 of 27 discussions (124 posts)

0
sneakorocksolidposted 14 years ago
If your belief system is irrelevant isn't it time to face the music?
reply report
1. 67
  fatfistposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Religion is only a fantasy when there is someone who can reason and explain why it's a fantasy. Otherwise us dumb humans are known to swallow anything that is spoon-fed to us by authority.
  
  Unfortunately, fantasy IS human reality. Every individual lives in their own reality. Only Mother Nature and Father Universe live in "actuality" - yes, us humans anthropomorphize the cosmos as well :-)
  
  Atheism will cease to exist when theism ceases to exist. Who wants to hold their breath?
  reply report
  61
  UPStarposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Too bad there is no one who can reason and explain Christianity away. There's alot of rhetoric from non believers, but no solid evidence that the Bible is false and a ton that suggests it is.
  reply report
  59
  Evolution Guyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No. None actually.
  
  Too bad your beliefs have been proven to be garbage. Oh well - maybe if you say there is proof a few more times? IDK - might make you feel better. A ton? A ton of what?
  reply report
  0
  thetruthhurts2009posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Can you say broken record? MARK, Why you hiding behind this guise anyway?
  reply report
  67
  fatfistposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well, let's use the proper terms here. The bible is NOT false because "The bible" is not a proposition. "The bible" is NOT truth or belief either. Only propositions can be true, false, or believed. Objects and concepts are not true/false. That is, only statements "in" the bible or "about" the bible are propositions.
  
  Having said that, there certainly are propositions in the bible that are shown to be false. There are also contradictory propositions in the bible. And this has nothing to do with the opinions or subjectivity of non-believers. It has to do with the "objective" empirical evidence presented "by" the bible.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I believe I did that
  reply report
2. 59
  Evolution Guyposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Too bad huh?
  
  No religionist liberal haters = No atheists.
  
  Capiche? Too hard a concept to grasp? Allow me:
  
  No religionists saying jeebus sed liberals am idiots = no atheists sent to educate them.
  reply report
3. 60
  tantrumposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Belief systems are always irrelevant to atheists.
  Is that the music you want to face ?
  reply report
  0
  sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No, but if you argue against religion then you're acknowledging it's existance. Therefore you either face the music or you have to consider why you argue about something you don't believe exists.
  reply report
  60
  tantrumposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  I believe religion exists. You are a proof of it
  In what I don't believe is in God !
  reply report
  0
  sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  But without God there's no religion.
  reply report
  60
  tantrumposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  Well that's your problem I think !
  
  We atheists don't believe in God ! It's people like you that do
  reply report
4. 70
  Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  First off, can I say- Religion, isn't a belief system.
  
  That's your first misconception.
  
  Religion is a code of ethics, surrounding a higher cause purpose.
  
  Religion- itself is a business, carried out in many different cultures. To the tune of BILLIONS a year.
  
  Atheism- is a religion. It is NOT a belief system, either.
  
  Religions code of ethics is specially written in ancient mystical notations. Each is purposely written so a person is forced to make a leap. The 'force', per se, is that you have to do it willingly. That means, you are forced, regardless, to bend your own free will to believe or have faith, in a 'god' power entity. You are to live your life by the rules it dictates. You are programmed to think in a certain manner, so you fight against yourself in a never-ending battle of what's real and what's not.
  
  Unfortunately, this goes against the nature of man and/or woman.
  reply report
5. 57
  Gustavo Magnusposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Atheism excists because a lot of people are theists.
  
  If religion stops, atheism stops too, but that would require a whole lot of common sense people seem to be missing.
  reply report
6. 49
  The Paulposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  If there's no such thing as leprechauns why do you bother not believing in them?
  
  Eh?
  
  Answer that one, smart guy!
  reply report
80
Uninvited Writerposted 14 years ago
Irrelevant to what? You either believe or you don't...
reply report
63
prettydarkhorseposted 14 years ago
maybe different belief system is good, you can be a founder of a new one
reply report
0
lynnechandlerposted 14 years ago
I like to face the music when I'm listening to a live band!
reply report
62
Daniel Carterposted 14 years ago
It's really only irrelevant to you. As fatfist implied, your mind is your reality. So if you're a believer, then atheism is irrelevant. If you're an atheist, then believing is irrelevant. What's in your mind is your reality. If you want your reality to change, you change your mind first.

This way you can be right about anything in your head. So we get these wild, justified opinions that have extremely little fact to them. It's only by evidence and facts that we are proven wrong in our opinions. And as far as religion and atheism go, the facts are not that great on either side, otherwise, there would be more agreement and less opinion.
reply report
56
C.J. Wrightposted 14 years ago
No
reply report
80
Uninvited Writerposted 14 years ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmBKeuFf … p;index=24
reply report
0
sneakorocksolidposted 14 years ago
Well my point being with out us religionists your banter is irrelevant. You can't be against something that doesn't exist if you are then it must exist. The other option is you're a bunch of freaking lunatics that need a hobby. Touching yourself is not a hobby!
reply report
1. 67
  fatfistposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Atheism isn't against anything. To be "against" something automatically implies that the something actually exists. Only theists make the deliberately false claim that atheism is "against" or "denies" god. These type of statements have no rational foundation and are just self-serving.
  Atheism is a "conclusion" and a "response" to theism. It's skepticism directed towards theistic claims; not big foot or UFOs. That's it!
  reply report
  0
  sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Excuse me! Have you read any of the threads in this forum? I think you only see what you want to see.
  reply report
  67
  fatfistposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, I knew objectivity would ruffle your feathers. BTW, what you "think" is entirely your subjective opinion and a moot point in any response.
  reply report
  0
  sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You honestly are going to say the atheists in the forum aren't against religion and inparticular Christianity? When you speak against religion you've made a choice and at that point on you can only speak subjectively because you have no idea whats true, you only have hope that you're right.
  reply report
  60
  Colebabieposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed.
  reply report
  67
  fatfistposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  There is no right or wrong - there is only rational or irrational. So far, your explanations have been irrational. If you want right or wrong, take your arguments to the mathematics forums.
  I didn't speak for "atheists on this forum". This where you get hung up, and can't see the picture, and respond with subjectivity. You are speaking for some people, and without having the capability to read minds. I suggest you get a refund on your ESP lessons.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Excuse me kind sir.
  
  There is no right or wrong? There is only rational or irrational.
  
  You are kidding? Right.
  
  Right or Wrong- these are absolutes in life. Rationale or irrationality is irrelevant.
  
  Why? Because, Right and Wrong - is based on actions. A rational action can be right and wrong. An irrational action can only be wrong, because the action isn't based on rational thinking, is the first mistake(wrong), actually executing the action is the second mistake(wrong) in one movement.
  
  Moral or Immoral are the words you are looking for.
  
  Any action that is beneficial to human organisms or society is Moral RIGHT or Good.
  
  Any action that is harmful to human organisms or society is Immoral WRONG or Bad.
  
  Emotions are amoral.
  reply report
  67
  fatfistposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "Right or Wrong- these are absolutes in life."
  There are no absolutes. An absolute truth is true under every possible circumstance. There is a possible circumstance that life didn't exist on this planet. Therefore your above statement about "absolutes in life", is completely false!
  
  "Right and Wrong - is based on actions."
  Right and wrong is based on consensus of opinion, rules, or a set of axioms.
  
  "A rational action can be right and wrong."
  A rational action is rational. An irrational action is irrational. Just like a right action is right, and a wrong action is wrong, as defined by the rules or axioms. Right and wrong has nothing to do with rational. There can be 100 ways to get to a destination. They are ALL the right way, and none are the wrong way. The wrong way does not lead you to the destination. The rational way is the "shortest/quickest" way. It saves you time, gas, and money - hence rational. The irrational way is longest way; wastes time, money, gas - hence irrational.
  
  Nice try, but thanks for the comedy.
  reply report
  69
  Allan Bogleposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Just read some of this thread, you make so many self-defeating statements that I am not sure if you know what you are talking about. The above is a prime example. Your statement "There are no absolutes" is an absolute statement.
  
  One example out of dozens.
  reply report
  67
  fatfistposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "you make so many self-defeating statements that I am not sure if you know what you are talking about."
  Oh, that's flattering. Thank you
  But since you say that "you are not sure", then not only are you being subjective, but quite comical indeed!
  
  "Your statement "There are no absolutes" is an absolute statement."
  
  Nope. Not mine. Yours is. Don't see it yet? Let me help ya out. Put on your glasses allan, cause heeeeeeeere it comes:
  
  Here is YOUR absolute stmt --> "Your statement, there are no absolutes, is an absolute statement"
  
  This is my stmt --> "There are no absolutes"
  
  Get it now? No? Relax, it gets easy from here on...
  
  In YOUR stmt, the predicative nominative contains MY stmt which does not qualify any subject as being absolute. The word "statement" is the subject, and YOU qualified it with the word "absolute", as in "is an absolute statement". Hence this makes YOUR stmt absolute; not mine my friend!
  
  My predicate does NOT qualify any subject or object as being absolute. Nope. Nada!
  
  "One example out of dozens"
  
  Oh, then I guess were gonna be here all night so I can teach you not only reading, grammar, and comprehension; but also how to read & understand what YOU are writing. God help me!
  reply report
  69
  Allan Bogleposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I suggest you take an introductory course in logic, this would prevent comments such as this on your part. I see self-defeating comments like these when we get incoming freshman in the fall. You are simply trying to adopt a relativist approach (and not very good at that). I will make this very simple. You stated the following:
  
  "There are no absolutes."
  
  As everyone who has had a class of introductory logic can tell you this is an absolute statement. Your inability to comprehend this is puzzling. In fact lets be honest here, as someone who teaches political philo I noticed that your posts are riddled with self-defeating statements, logical fallacies, etc. You contradict yourself on a great number of occasions. I am disregarding your penchant for calling people names, self-promotion, etc.
  
  As the above example illustrates, by attempting to extricate yourself from a relativist approach you are encountering what the philosopher Alvin Platinga has referred to as a philosophical tar baby. Your posts are good examples of this and actually will make a useful teaching tool.
  
  In fact, in your paragraph that I pulled that comment from you make a total of three self-defeating statements in four sentences (never seen that many in such a concentrated form). Would you like some more examples from your recent posts?
  reply report
  67
  fatfistposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "As everyone who has had a class of introductory logic can tell you"
  
  "the philosopher Alvin Platinga"
  
  Two fallacies right off the bat. Arguments from authority ain't gonna get you anywhere in life. If you have something to prove, then prove it. Just prove this nonsense you are saying. Expose me as the fool that I am - please do it. There are 2 ways to prove what you are saying: 1) Using English grammar, 2) Using formal logic & predicate calculus. And please SHOW your work, instead of shouting out names of authority and crap. You can impress the kiddies with big names if you like.
  
  I already proved that your lame baiting attempt is pure nonsense by using something you obviously know nothing about --> English grammar. But this went 30 miles over your head.
  
  Any statement is absolute IF there is an attribute for a subject or object that is explicitly qualified as "absolute" in the predicate. Primary school stuff. Go have a word with your English teacher, then your logic teacher about predicate calculus.
  
  "You are simply trying to adopt a relativist approach"
  More of your subjective nonsense. I already objectively and rationally PROVED to you that my English sentence is not absolute. Yours is tho. If your mind is conditioned with the relativist/absolutist nonsense regarding propositional statements, then no wonder you haven't a clue.
  
  What are they teaching you in school these days? Are they handing out degrees like they do Nobel Prizes?
  reply report
  69
  Allan Bogleposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Unfortunately your comments read like "My day at the Zoo." If they are not filled with references to "twats" or repeated requests to look at your lone hub or other such trivial nonsense (such as calling people prostitutes) then they are populated with comments reflecting insecurity and an obsession with an individual named Lita.
  
  The statement "the philosopher Alvin Platinga" is not a self defeating statement. In fact this only reinforces to me that you do not have a clue as to what self-defeating means. Let me help you. When a statement is included in its own subject matter and fails to satisfy its own standards of acceptability, it is self-defeating. The comment "the philosopher Alvin Platinga" is not a self-defeating statement. I have now made it perfectly clear to you.
  
  Your references to English grammar are simply bizarre in light of what you write. Your posts are filled with grammatical errors such as your recent post in which you state, "Yours is tho." tho!? Other examples in this post alone include..."ain't gonna get you anywhere in life." aint!? gonna!? These examples are from your recent post, I noticed literally hundreds in this thread written by your hand. As is your modus operandi, you seemingly cannot type a single post without contradicting yourself. Even more amazingly, your charges against others merely are self-imposed reflections on your own correspondence. Paul Vitz, who teaches psychology at NYU has an interesting study entitled "Faith of the Fatherless" which would be of use to you, it is available at Amazon.
  
  Concerning your numerous contradictions here are but a few I noticed immediately scanning your voluminous exchange on this thread.
  
  "Concepts are not true." "Truth is a concept."
  Really fatfist? Is it possible that you could try to even agree with what you write from one post to the next? You wrote those two comments on the same day.
  
  "No only that, you don't even know what I believe because you can't read minds as of yet."
  "Lita was bored, has no relationship, has an inferiority complex."--Really fatfist? You can read minds now? Just you though right?
  
  "We can’t even prove that we believe it to be wrong because we cannot read people's minds."--There you go again. This of course does not prevent you from convincing others that they are wrong does it? Contradictory.
  
  "But it is NOT objective or RATIONAL because you cannot read my mind and prove in any way that I am immoral."--And yet you pass judgment on Lita for being immoral as evident by your moral evaluation of her below:
  
  "...the hooker lady talking again with her mouth full. Don't forget to swallow with your twat caught in a knot."--Self-defeating (sigh)
  
  "Rational and irrational has no benchmarks."--Yet on at least half a dozen occasions you accuse others of being irrational. Wonder what benchmark you are using...again, another in a series of self-defeating statements.
  
  "This is your subjective opinion."--That also includes every comment you make.
  
  Here comes one of my favorites:
  "..the system of determination of right and wrong a person uses is entirely believed within themselves."
  "But if someone holds the opinion that 1+1 is not 2, or that there is no water on the earth, then they can be shown to be wrong!"--Uh-oh. But what if the person believes in "themselves" that 1+1 does not equal 2? Well according to you it is decided within yet you later state that if anyone does not accept the fact that earth has water then they are clearly wrong. Can you say "contradictory?"
  
  The list of self-defeating statements and fallacies you have made could go for another two dozen examples. Reading over some of the posts I was struck concerning how many times others have accused you of fallacies, to the point where I have now deduced you are simply a troll and will now be treated as such. No one, and I mean no one is that ignorant, therefore you are simply trolling, there is no way to explain the sheer number of self-defeating comments, name-calling and boorish behavior on your part. No one is this purposefully ignorant of standard syntax, basic facts and elementary logic. If there is a remote possibility that you are actually LIKE this I implore you to get a basic education, Amazon is a great source to learn the introductory humanities.
  
  Until then I am treating you as a troll.
  report
  67
  fatfistposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  (The statement "the philosopher Alvin Platinga" is not a self defeating statement)
  Allan, when you can’t even spell Pastor Plantinga’s name correctly, then HOW do you expect anyone to even take anything you say seriously? You even used the wrong name (Platinga) in an Appeal to Authority argument (argumentum ad verecundiam) which is a logical fallacy. NOT a self-defeating statement. You need to learn logic on top of English grammar and predicate calculus. Then you say I have no clue of what I say, and call me a troll? Who is the troll allan? I’m not gonna waste my time going thru all the other nonsense you parrot when you lack the brain cells to even understand what you preach. That’s what extremist absolutism does to your brain – logic and reason are out the window.
  
  Calling me a troll will not change the fact you CANNOT produce a single propositional statement that is proven to be absolute truth. Changing the topic of discussion is a dead giveaway that you can’t prove your claims. When you create a circus atmosphere of nonsense to divert attention away from your responsibilities; in magic it’s called “misdirection”. Oldest trick in the book and nobody buys it!
  
  If you are under the impression that by calling me a “troll”, or using “childish” arguments like pointing out words like “ain’t” and “gonna”; will let you off the hook from proving that absolute truth exists, then you are 100% CORRECT! That is the only tactic that can save you. That’s your game allan. Well done! I can’t do anything but “ask” you to prove your claims. And you have no way to prove your claims. Why? Because they can’t be proven! That’s why it’s called “absolute belief” instead of absolute truth.
  
  I have already proven that there are no absolutes. If you or Pastor Plantinga can prove one, just one, absolute truth, or prove that anything in the cosmos is absolute, you know “where” to find me. Pretty high expectations to live up to for ya? Are ya up for it? I will EAT my words and post your proof on my hub and acknowledge you with FULL credit in proving that absolute truth exists. So if you can’t put your money where your mouth is (and we all know you can't), then continue your deceptive circus show here. Your nonsense is very amusing
  report
  0
  sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So you don't know what position you're taking as long as it's against me. And you're going to judge whether someones rational or not on this issue but you don't have any idea whats the benchmark. What?
  reply report
  67
  fatfistposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh please. I am not judging, I am not "against" you, nor do I "deny" you. Either you don't understand issues or you are paranoid of the world around you. Relax. These are only discussion forums. All you see is just characters on the screen. If you keep taking everything so personally, you may get a heart attack one day (knock on wood).
  
  My initial response to you was on what atheism IS - not on what any subjective position any individual atheist "can" hold. Yes, one atheist can be against you. Another atheist may not even care of that issue. Another atheist may like fishing. Another may be against gay marriage. An atheist and even a Christian theist can be against the religion of Christianity, etc.
  
  These are all subjective - relative to one's opinion or personal taste. If an atheist is a mathematician, then according to your subjective logic, does this mean that mathematics is against religion or against you? Surely you can NOW see that this is irrational when applied to atheism. You want a benchmark? Rational and irrational has no benchmarks and no authorities - it is what it is!
  
  I hope you understand what I am trying to say. If not, then I will spell it out: atheism has no prescribed rules to be against anything. That is objective. But individual atheists (and theists) are free to be against MANY things (including religion and you) for whatever subjective reason they personally hold.
  
  Hopefully you understand now. Take a deep breath and relax.
  If you'd like to discuss atheism, then please visit my hub "What is Atheism" and maybe we can both learn something.
  reply report
  0
  sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not upset at all I just wanted to point out that if an atheist feels there is no God, then why is it you debate those who believe in nothing.
  reply report
  67
  fatfistposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Great, I'm glad you're not upset.
  The issue here is the misconception of what atheism is. Some atheists may "feel" there is no god. And again, this is what they personally feel. Atheism has no feel, personality, or subjectivity. Atheism is a position of response to theism. In particular, an atheist provides a "yes" response to the question: "Do you believe there is no god?"
  
  I invite you to read and comment in my hub on what atheism is.
  reply report
  0
  sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'll do that! I have enjoyed talking with you but this is about as deep as I get it's already making my head hurt.
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That's a very profound claim. One entirely consistent with rationals an atheists and evolutionists.
  For a Pedophile, it's both rational and logical to do what he does. After all he "loves" cildren. Who are we to say he's wrong.
  If that's culturally acceptable, who are we to say it's not ok.
  I thought you had something worthwhile to contribute, but if your "worldview" is based on amorality, I guess you live in a different world to the rest of us.
  In my book WRONG is WRONG, and RIGHT is RIGHT.
  reply report
  67
  fatfistposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  aka-dj, you are confusing morality with right/wrong, truth/belief, rational/irrational. A pedophile does what he does because of what he believes; it's his opinion; it's subjective to himself what he believes is right or wrong. This has nothing to do with objectivity, rationality or logic as you have indicated in your bald assertion.
  
  Morality is not based on truths as it is subjective in nature. If it's not based on truths, then it is not based on logic. For example the statement, “setting fire to babies is wrong”, is a subjective belief. This is proven by the fact that you cannot prove that statement to be true. This is also proven by the fact that there are people that burn babies and they believe in their mind that it’s not wrong. If a proposition’s validity is dependent on the subject, it is called subjective and it cannot be proven to be valid. Subjective propositions are opinions and depend on the subject; they are beliefs! But if someone holds the opinion that 1+1 is not 2, or that there is no water on the earth, then they can be shown to be wrong! Why? Because their opinion is really not an opinion; it’s a falsehood. They might believe it’s an opinion, but they would be wrong. In the sense of justice, ethics, morals, there are no truths at all; there are only beliefs and rules on what is right or wrong. There is no logic as there is nothing to deduce. Hence there is no rationality either.
  
  It is true that we have an objective understanding between ourselves that setting fire to babies is wrong. So how do we do that? Well, that is done thru our society and consensus of opinion that setting fire to babies is indeed wrong, and we go as far as to write laws about it. But this consensus of opinion or written laws does NOT create truth because we cannot prove it to be true. Why? Because it is axiomatic or rule-based. That is, we cannot prove that setting fire to babies is wrong. We can’t even prove that we believe it to be wrong because we cannot read people's minds.
  
  Some people within society think that it’s perfectly fine to burn babies but go along with consensus of opinion in their daily lives and undetectable to others, until they commit the act. Somebody can tell you that they think it’s wrong, and turn around and burn a baby when the opportunity arises. So it is impossible for someone to prove that they believe it’s wrong to burn babies, because the system of determination of right and wrong a person uses is entirely believed within themselves.
  
  In modern ethics, it is accepted by consensus of opinion that setting fire to humans is wrong. This wasn't always the case in the past, so what has changed? Laws and rules of what is right and wrong, are in place. This has nothing to do with what is true or false, or what is rational or irrational.
  
  Your strawman assertion about my worldview being based on immorality may be considered RIGHT by you because it is relative to your personal belief, which is in your domain of subjectivity. But it is NOT objective or RATIONAL because you cannot read my mind and prove in any way that I am immoral. Understand now?
  reply report
  67
  Flightkeeperposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  His was not a strawman assertion. aka-dj comes from a place where there are moral truths. According to your explanation there is no truth because it is subjective so you would not acknowledge his truth in the first place. His assertion that you are amoral is true to him but should not matter to you because according to your explanation right and wrong are set by laws and rules which are based on consensus of society. So right and wrong for you is relative. If at some point society's consensus determines burning babies is okay then burning babies is right according to your explanation.
  
  I would say that aka-dj understood what you're saying.
  reply report
  67
  fatfistposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't say truth is subjective so please don't strawman me either. Truth is objective.
  
  If "burning babies is wrong" is a truth as you so claim, then the fact someone has burned a baby proves that it's not a truth. Hence your claim is completely false. All it takes is one fact to prove a positive claim false. Therefore it is not a truth, but only a BELIEF. If a proposition’s validity is dependent on the subject, it is called subjective (non-cognitive) and it cannot be proven to be valid in terms of true/false. Subjective propositions are opinions and depend on the subject; hence they are beliefs! This is basic stuff they teach in primary school. I don't understand why you are having trouble with this.
  
  Truth is a concept. Truth only stems from a propositional statement that is proven to be true/false within our domain of classical logic. Objects and concepts are not true. Morals are concepts, hence not true. Only statements "about" objects and concepts can be shown to be true, false, or otherwise believed. I guess they aren't teaching much in school these days.
  
  If our society decides burning babies is ok, like you said, then I don't know about you, but I am moving out. Why? Because they have deemed that it is RIGHT. How can they do that? Because it has nothing to do with the concept of truth. Get it now?
  
  How can you say that aka-dj understood what I was saying? Do you read minds?
  reply report
  0
  Leta Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sigh. Ah, the guy who believes hookers are right good with society.
  
  The truth is that the nature of truth has been debated upon by great thinkers for centuries. No one should necessarily buy your proposition that truth is subjective...or objective.
  
  (Sorry.)
  reply report
  67
  fatfistposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Lita,
  When you have nothing constructive to offer to support you wild assertions and non-cognitive propositions, you go for a strawman and other logical fallacies. Nice!
  
  "hookers are right good with society"
  What does this statement even mean? You are using subjective terms like "right" and "good". If this is the finest example of an unambiguous statement you can provide, no-wonder you don't understand the conversation you are responding to.
  
  And to baldly assert that I "believe" that non-cognitive statement, well that's not only a lie, but a strawman. When you base your foregoing argument on this statement, you are committing the fallacy of "Appeal to Ridicule". A half-arsed attempt to poke fun at, and strawman someone with a statement that makes no sense. This is nonsense as it offers nothing to support your clueless position. No only that, you don't even know what I believe because you can't read minds as of yet. Please get a refund on those ESP lessons.
  
  "The truth is that the nature of truth has been debated upon by great thinkers for centuries."
  Another fallacy. This is called "Appleal to Authority". Use a rational explanation to respond to me instead of parroting what others have been parroting for centuries.
  
  "No one should necessarily buy your proposition that truth is subjective...or objective."
  Again, this is your subjective opinion. Are you implying that truth as a concept, is not used objectively to ascertain the truth of propositional statements? If this is your position on this matter, then please do tell us how outside of an objective and rational system of validation; how do we go about ascertaining truth of propositions?
  
  Seriously, this is not a matter we resolve at the ballot box or how many show of hands you can get to agree with your fallacious position. This is an objective issue.
  Skepticism is fine, but not for skepticism's sake. You have to propose an alternative rational explanation for truth that can be applied consistently and universally on all propositional statements. Otherwise you must admit you have none.
  
  Thanks for the comedy!
  reply report
  0
  Leta Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It was meant as comedy. As I viewed all of your battering of the folks here.
  
  Sneako actually came up with a pretty profound statement - Nietzche would agree. Your fallacy is to assume I resort to ridicule and strawman assertions for noncognitive reasons when actually I was just going straight for the ridicule. (I've heard of formal logic, too! Imagine! A woman, not a hooker...doing that. (More ridicule, fyi...others might not remember THAT conversation, but I do.)
  
  No more time - gotta go.
  report
0
lynnechandlerposted 14 years ago
If the bible is indeed fact and not fantasy, then you believe that Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Old Testament with little more than a few pieced together documents to trace the history of the people so that they would understand why they were going to the new promised land. Clearly much was missing since this was done somewhere around the 15th century BC or as some might propose around the 6th century BC.

Somehow I find that hard to accept since he wasn't there to begin with and the record keeping was pretty much wiped clean except for what was supposedly with Noah on the ark. Hmmm...very suspect to me.
reply report
1. 61
  UPStarposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  seems to me Moses was on the mountain face to face with God for forty days and nights. God may have been a pretty good resource for the Pentateuch.
  reply report
  60
  tantrumposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Too human and full of flaws and misleads to be dictated by a 'God '
  reply report
  0
  lynnechandlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ok, I'll give you that but whose to say that God did not dictate what he wanted his new children the ones going to the promised land to believe. Instead of what the truth of the matter really was if he indeed was the guiding hand which I don't believe because there are too many contradictions in the books of the bible for an entity who supposedly created us to make unless he really wanted you to believe these falsehoods.
  
  Tantrum: I love the new avi looks like you were having quite the celebration.
  reply report
  60
  tantrumposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I was !
  Ritz hotel suites, La Paz , Bolivia
  reply report
0
lyricsingrayposted 14 years ago
Tantrum love new avatar sexy mama and for this thread zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
reply report
0
lynnechandlerposted 14 years ago
reply report
67
goldenpathposted 14 years ago
Mutual respect and tolerance is the key. I will not slam or put down an atheist any more than I would put down a Catholic or Hindu. It's wrong and to prolong this thread in that spirit is unproductive. Would you claim the same contention in your heart and put down my faith as a Latter-day Saint? To continue in contention portrays the rellishment of such contention.

Most of us are mature adults. Investigate and become knowledgeable in all faiths and then make sound judgement on that system as it relates to you but don't suppress another for their support of that faith. If a conversation gets tense and contentious just change the subject or don't speak at all. Harsh words just take up space.

How 'bout those football games? : ) Anyone getting snow?
reply report
1. 0
  sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You are obviously a very rational individual brother, and I understand your concerns. I would never wish any ill will on anyone for any reason, I would like the non-believers to leave the other believers in this forum alone. I don't mind the debate but some are being harrassed to extreme limits and I'd rather them vent on me than run off nice people.
  
  Games have been great! No snow in Texas yet! Don't forget conference!
  reply report
  67
  goldenpathposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It is starting to snow up here in Iowa, oh joy! I guess in the spirit of the forum I should put a spiritual reason for that remark..... Well, I guess the angels up there need head & Shoulders because they are shedding their dandruff all over Iowa and Missouri. : )
  reply report
  0
  sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Where in Iowa?
  reply report
  67
  goldenpathposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Shenandoah in the southwest corner along the Nishnabotna river.
  reply report
  0
  sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  My Dads family is from the Waterloo area. I spent many a summer there. I was raised Colorado and I miss the snow! It's time for bed I'll look forward to talking with you again. God Bless.
  reply report
58
Jeramiposted 14 years ago
flight keeper said ..
His was not a strawman assertion. aka-dj comes from a place where there are moral truths. According to your explanation there is no truth because it is subjective so you would not acknowledge his truth in the first place. His assertion that you are amoral is true to him but should not matter to you because according to your explanation right and wrong are set by laws and rules which are based on consensus of society. So right and wrong for you is relative. If at some point society's consensus determines burning babies is okay then burning babies is right according to your explanation.

I would say that aka-dj understood what you're saying.

Jerami said flightkeeper ...I agree
reply report
67
Flightkeeperposted 14 years ago
What I'm trying to point out is that aka-dj is coming from a different place than you are. You can't call his assertion a strawman because it is not a strawman for him but it is for you; you were being subjective when you said his assertion was a strawman.

And if you move out of a place where burning babies according to society's consensus which put in place rules and laws, your explanation, yes you're right truth has nothing to do with it but the question then becomes why would you move out since it has nothing to do with truth and burning babies is perfectly lawful?

And yes I can say that aka-dj understood what you were saying. His first sentence to you was "That's a very profound claim. One entirely consistent with rationals an atheists and evolutionists." He definitely understood what you're saying.
reply report
1. 67
  fatfistposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "aka-dj is coming from a different place than you are."
  How do you know where I am from, where I was raised? Again, you ESP is failing you.
  
  "You can't call his assertion a strawman"
  By misconstruing what I originally said and implying that I am immoral in order to support one's argument, IS a strawman by definition - hence objective within this discussion or any of its threads. Please read up on logical fallacies before responding with nonsense.
  
  "why would you move out since it has nothing to do with truth and burning babies is perfectly lawful?"
  I have the capacity to believe what is right and wrong in matters of morality. And burning babies is wrong for me, as it is for others too (hopefully yourself). So if the laws of the land change and my morality doesn't agree with them, I am moving out.
  
  If, like you say, morals are based on TRUTH. Then if the law states that "it is morally acceptable that burning babies is the right thing to do", which is a TRUTH, then of course YOU would stay in such a society and possibly burn a baby or two. This is what is deduced from your use of logic. I, on the other hand have my own subjective morals of what is wrong, and that law was WRONG, NOT TRUE! Hence I am leaving.
  
  You see:
  1) "it is morally acceptable that burning babies is the right thing to do" is TRUTH
  versus
  2)"it is morally acceptable that burning babies is the right thing to do" is BELIEF
  
  are two completely different things. According to your assertion that morals are truth, you would opt for #1 and stay in that society because to you, morality is TRUTH. So killing babies is right as a truth. Don't you think that is the WRONG choice?
  
  It should be obviously evident to you by now that morals are based on BELIEFS - not truth. This is why I understanding that #2 is belief. And that belief is WRONG when compared to my beliefs, therefore I am moving out of that society enforcing that law. Whereas you would STAY, because to you #1 is true, and a truth is true forever and ever amen! Scary stuff.
  
  Sometimes I have a hard time coming to terms that there are still people in the 21st Century that think like you do. Scary!
  reply report
  67
  Flightkeeperposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  From your post it sounds like you really don't know what you're talking about. You say one thing and then say something different. You also use a lot of words when a simple idea as you are proposing shouldn't require so much. I was trying to discuss things with you based on explanations that you have given me about your point of view but basically once people have called you out on it you have totally backtracked.
  
  Oh well. It's not worth it to me to go into further discussion or go into a tit for tat posting.
  reply report
  67
  fatfistposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "From your post it sounds like you really don't know what you're talking about."
  Bald assertions and subjectivity ("sounds") have no place in an academic discussion. Either rationally explain your assertions or admit you are just blowing smoke for special effects!
  
  "You also use a lot of words when a simple idea as you are proposing shouldn't require so much."
  You never once asked me for an explanation of the words that went 30 miles over your head. Ask and I will explain in kindergarten terms so you can understand.
  
  "but basically once people have called you out on it you have totally backtracked."
  Where? Copy and paste it here please? Let's analyze this strawman of yours, for the 3rd time.
  
  I welcome you to come over to my hub and HIT me with the BEST rational arguments you have to support your position on any of these matters. Don't hold back now, let me have it! I don't get offended like some people do.
  
  Thanks for the comedy.
  reply report
65
aka-djposted 14 years ago
Truth is what God says. He speaks TRUTH. When He so speaks, that truth is LAW. Yes morals are belief of truth, because His truth is eternal. NEVER changing. ( I just happen to be one of those "ignorants" who still believes that...true...I do.)
So to use the "burning babies" example, it is FOREVER wrong. Irrespective of WHAT society deems acceptable.
I find it scary that in the 21st centurey with so much information around there are still people (like you) around who proclaim "truth is relative".
Sad, really!
reply report
1. 67
  fatfistposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "Truth is what God says. He speaks TRUTH. When He so speaks, that truth is LAW."
  This statement is only true when you defined god, and proven god exists, and proven that god made those statements that are true. I don't think this is a place to discuss this. You are welcome to come over to my atheism hub and let's rationally discuss it there. Or invite me to one of your hubs to discuss it there. Last time you told me to "move on", and I respected that. So I will only come with an invitation.
  
  "I find it scary that in the 21st centurey with so much information around there are still people (like you) around who proclaim truth is relative"
  
  aka-dj, you are the KING of strawman. I never once said truth is relative. Truth is NEVER relative to one's subjective opinion. That is just dumber than dumb. Have you been reading any of the sub-threads you started on this issue? Then go read again. Truth is objective, not subjective to you, me, or anybody else. Why? Because truth is proven to be true within the domain of logic and reason - that is objective and rational. What you are proposing is irrational because it cannot unambiguously and consistently be applied to all propositions that are true/false.
  
  This is what separates truth from right and wrong. Right and wrong are based on rules - hence axiomatic, subjective, and assumptive.
  Truth is based on the validation of propositional statements - hence logical, objective, and always rational within its domain.
  
  So really, trying to put words in my mouth and saying "Sad, really", with some unhappy faces, will fool some, but not the rational. You'll have to come with better rational explanations than just throwing around unhappy faces.
  
  aka-dj, If you'd like to discuss this further please come up with some rational arguments to support your position. If you are not scared to debate me on issues of MORALITY and TRUTH, then I invite you to my hub, or your invite me to yours. It seems that we are off-topic in this forum. Let me know, I am awaiting your response.
  
  Thanks
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, but I don't need to write paragraphs to explain myself. Jesus called Himself to BE THE TRUTH. How do you propose that I explain that to you "rationally".
  Just because you can't test it scientiffically or rationally, does not negate the truth. But because you don't believe in Him, you have no avenues to persue other than what you can see and feel and touch.
  As for asking you to move on from my hub, I answered your last post and told you what my motive was, with explanation. Did you read it?
  reply report
  67
  fatfistposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, I know you somehow feel threatened and attacked when asked to explain your assertions in a rational manner. It is not my intent to threaten or attack you. I am just responding to your responses. That's what these forums are for. Is there any rule that states we are not allowed to have intellectual and academic discussions? I mean, is hubpages for childish and emotional discussions only? This response from you PROVES that all you parrot is without merit or rationality. It is just for brainwashing the weak-minded.
  
  Anyway, you are very welcome to come into my atheism hub and continue this discussion with your best explanations of why you think all I have said is WRONG. That's IF you have any legs to stand on. Otherwise you concede that you are irrational. We are way off-topic in this forum. See you at my hub
  
  Thanks
  reply report
  0
  Leta Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  This is really the worst marketing approach I have seen for gaining viewers for one's work.
  
  reply report
  67
  fatfistposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ahh yes, the hooker lady talking again with her mouth full. Don't forget to swallow with your twat caught in a knot.
  reply report
  0
  Leta Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You know, one area of study within logic is analytic semantics. Something I'm actually relatively good at. (lol, ask a few alter ego/trolls on the forums, ) I see you have reverted to what I 'profiled' in you from that conversation about hookers not having souls and being an better option for you instead of relationships (evidently, they are much better looking...for you, too, right?). All of which is quite dysfunctional...as is the tone of your argumentation.
  reply report
  67
  fatfistposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh the hooker has enrolled in psychic lessons too. Yeah, prophecies are always predicted after the fact. Instead of offering something intellectually and academically constructive to this thread, you show unbridled disdain for hookers. Past career perhaps? Regrets? Or has your hubby been enjoying this fruit in the past? I'm not a psychic, but I'm known to offer emotional help. Let it all out. It's ok to cry. Only time can heal. Bottling up your emotions can lead to strokes and heart attacks. The religion forums won't do anything for your problem. Get help. If you need someone to talk to, you can PM me.
  reply report
  59
  blue dogposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  hopefully she won't give you that satisfaction.
  reply report
  0
  Leta Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, oh certainly, lol, . And this one is a >little< less scary (in my judgement) than the one guy we had here...forget his name...who seemed 'intellectual' and just hated women.
  
  Have you noticed tksensei seems to have been banned for more than the usual 3 days?
  reply report
  59
  blue dogposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  yes, i've noticed. he and his super fanning alter ego have both gone awol.
  reply report
  0
  Leta Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah. Misha I always thought was OK...I think because of his English (not understanding), etc. he sorta got sucked into the trolling on the forums. Cool kid stuff or being part of the crowd...lol.
  
  Actually, I should get the hell off of here, too.
  reply report
  55
  yoshi97posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So ... when we run out of logical words to debate with we resort to calling a person names?
  
  You seem very good with words and capable of forming a coherent argument ... why not just stick to the topic at hand and prove your point through logic?
  
  You didn't expect everyone to just succumb to your opinion, did you? If you did, then I can assure you that degrading them to receive their vote will almost certainly fail. You'll form many more accolades by backing up your words with proof and not bantering with the crowd for room on the podium.
  reply report
  67
  fatfistposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And what is the argument at hand? Lita needs some emotional support for her past deeds and needs someone to talk to.
  If you are referring about my previous response with aka-dj, that has been settled. He conceded that he cannot be asked to provide any rational explanations to support his position, because this makes him feel attacked. A lot of Christians are paranoid about a lot of things I guess. It might be time to explore other options: http://hubpages.com/hub/What-is-Atheism
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That's a total misrepresentation. I concede nothing of the sort. And NO, Im not paranoid either.
  reply report
  0
  Leta Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No, Aka-dj. I'm afraid he might be the one with those tendencies...but I'm done here.
  reply report
  67
  fatfistposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well, you haven't responded with any rational explanations that support your position. And you certainly haven't answered any of my questions. Ok I'll wait, let me know when you're ready.
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  How can I offer a rational answer, when any one I give is "thrown out".
  Is it RATIONAL, to declare something you do not understand as non-existant?
  reply report
  67
  fatfistposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Great then, help me understand. Show the existence of whatever it is you are referring to. I am here to learn.
  Thanks
  reply report
  0
  Leta Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Still the worst sell I've ever seen in marketing one's ideas. (BTW, that's what I do professionally.)
  
  You stick to the hookers.
  reply report
  67
  fatfistposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ahh, so now it comes out. It is your "current" profession. See, I knew you'd let it out. That's why you wrote all that emotional stuff on the link you referenced. Sounds like a scary profession. You can always get out of the business you know. Don't give up.
  reply report
  0
  Leta Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Stick to berated poor saps in the forums with your 'excellent' knowledge. You may NEED a psychologist, but you do poorly analyzing words and tone.
  reply report
  67
  fatfistposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't analyze any words. You brought up the issue and you typed what you typed Lita. Regrets?
  reply report
  55
  yoshi97posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, I was referring to you basically calling Lita a hooker ... and yes ... I have seen where you can hold your own in a debate, which is why I offered some wisdom to keep your words seen as credible.
  
  Disagree with Lita ... call her wrong ... ignore her ... but calling her a hooker doesn't serve your cause. The topic is atheism, which you seem to be able to debate quite well ... so throw away the deuces that cheapen your hand and keep dealing out those worthy queens and kings you have in your hand.
  reply report
  67
  fatfistposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I think you have the wrong impression of me. I'm not here to get votes, hub scores, or be popular. I raise issues in discussions and unfortunately the Christians automatically get paranoid and feel beat up. And all this with God on their side for protection?
  
  Lita was bored tonight, has no relationship, and plenty of time to burn responding to me in this thread. Now she is crying like a baby. Did I force her to have a conversation with me? Nope!
  
  According to her, her psychic ESP powers had already predicted that I was a troll. Then why did she engage me in conversations? That is very contradictory behavior for a woman who claims is SMARTER than me. Ahhhhh, the passions of the heart always break down a woman and leave a bitter taste in her mouth.
  
  If anybody wants to engage me in any intellectual discussion regarding morals, god or whatever, then all you have to do is ask - not change the topic after I have CRUSHED all their irrational nonsense, and then cry like a baby. I expect to talk to adults here - not children!
  reply report
  55
  yoshi97posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  *psst* the secret to get them acting like adults is to set a good example ... don't call them names ... stick to the topic ... give your points, not your debased opinions of others ... then, they are forced to at least listen ...
  reply report
  59
  blue dogposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  speaking of time to burn...
  
  unless you're her alter ego, here's something you probably don't know. it's highly unlikely that you or any other troll will make her feel crushed.
  reply report
  67
  fatfistposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So let me get this straight. You have nothing to hit me with and crush my rational arguments...and you think that calling me a "troll" is somehow gonna make you win the argument you are arguing with yourself? You have to drop the bottle if you want to talk coherently. Let's talk again after your hangover. Okay?
  reply report
  0
  Leta Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I was here 'engaging' you (ha, that's a joke), because as far as I'm concerned, you are the worst example of an 'intellectualized' bully, besides one, that I have seen on these forums. We already have a much more charming, humorous atheist who actually is friends and is decent to the people he debates...who does not debase them to prove his vast 'superiority.'
  
  Many not particularly used to debate or real discourse cannot see what you are doing...I however, can. There is a fine line (or sometimes not so fine) with these things. You crossed that line. Actually, to me it looks like hitting people with a sledge hammer. ...And that's just me. I don't care for nasty bullies, of any sort.
  
  And you have been guilty here of every logical fallacy in the book. For starters, you have taken nearly every person's words out of context for your own means. I don't respect that and would never engage you for real.
  report
  67
  fatfistposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "I was here 'engaging' you (ha, that's a joke)"
  Then what do you call this engagement you are doing? Yes, you are comical indeed.
  
  "because as far as I'm concerned, you are the worst example of an 'intellectualized' bully, besides one, that I have seen on these forums."
  Ok, the truth comes out. You have an inferiority complex. You have ZERO academics to offer in the topic of discussion. So what do you do? You change topics and somehow "think" that you are attacking me. But as we've seen, and as "blue dog" has stated, you ended up attacking and CRUSHING yourself. That's why you couldn't sleep at all last night and decided to come back for more. Self-inflicted wounds. Those are the ones that HURT the most. There is nobody on this planet that can hurt you more than "yourself" - these words you will remember for the rest of your life. As for me, I hope that you will forget me one day. But somehow I don't see that happening.
  
  "We already have a much more charming, humorous atheist"
  In case you didn't notice, I am not here to charm YOU, or tickle your fancy to release your endorphins. Do you honestly think that I'm here to rub your tush and make you happy? Boy, you are really FULL of yourself! Blinded by your self-induced aura. I didn't believe this at first when somebody on HP told me last night. But now I know that they were right after all. They said that you keep engaging me because you have some type of feelings for me; passion or some crap like that. I'd like to say I'm flattered, but I'm not; as your obsession with me borders along the lines of the movie FATAL ATTRACTION. Disguistingly sick at all levels. I am NOT here to give you attention - do you understand that? Why don't you have anybody in your life who will give you some attention, or at least say "hi" to you once a day. Your behavior here is the best rational explanation that answers that question.
  
  "Actually, to me it looks like hitting people with a sledge hammer"
  Your subjective and heart-felt attitude towards me has beaten you to a pulp. I already explained to you that YOU are harming yourself in this matter. It's not my problem that prostitution and your compulsive obsessions with it has caused mental anguish in your life. You only have yourself to blame for that. Engaging me like you continue to do is really not healthy for your current state of mind. Did you stop taking your anti-depressants? Please seek help.
  
  "And you have been guilty here of every logical fallacy in the book."
  Um. What do you call what you are doing by engaging me again? It doesn't bother me. I don't lose sleep over it. The comedy you portray has made me fall off my chair in laughter several times, but that's about it. BUT, it obviously bothers and harms you. If that's the case, why do you continue to engage me with responses that were not even directed at you? Read your posts from yesterday. On two occasions you stated that you were done with me. Yet you keep coming back like that psycho lady from the movie. You are VERY mentally ill. Get help now!
  
  Ahhh, the passions of the heart, the epitome of self-induced harm for the purpose of getting attention .....priceless!!!
  report
  0
  Leta Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  O M G.
  
  I recommend anybody who sees this not to talk to this person. I thought he was a little...but I didn't realize it was this bad.
  report
  69
  Allan Bogleposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Once an individual has been determined to be a troll (in this case name calling, tantrums, self-promotion, contradictory statements and other such foolishness) it is always wise to simply ignore them.
  report
0
Leta Sposted 14 years ago
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/24055?page=3#post493041
reply report
0
Leta Sposted 14 years ago
Want to explain how your 'position' on truth stands in regards to the thought of Foucault, Derrida, Nietzsche, or Kierkegaard? Instead of beating people up who profess to a certain FAITH, which is their right?

(I assume you read about logical fallacies somewhere, also, yes?)

You do not fool me.
reply report
1. 67
  fatfistposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "Want to explain how your 'position' on truth stands in regards to the thought of Foucault, Derrida, Nietzsche, or Kierkegaard?"
  
  Sure! Obviously you see them as very credible sources or you wouldn't be asking me. The only thing I ask of you is to please summarize their position on "truth" and I will respond. After all, I don't want to interpret their position in my favor.
  
  "Instead of beating people up who profess to a certain FAITH"
  Oh please, do you honestly feel like I bet you up or someone else? Look at the threads. I only responded to people who commented to me. If characters on the screen beat you up, get your hormones on fire, or cause your heart to beat just a bit faster; then hubpages is the least of your worries. You either need to get into a relationship with someone who will pay >>some<< attention to you OR get out and see the trees, nature, the sun, and get some fresh air.
  
  "logical fallacies somewhere"
  Tell me my logical fallacies then why don't you.
  You seem to be looking for people to agree with you. I don't need that emotional fulfillment.
  reply report
  0
  Leta Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I guarantee that says much more about you than it does anything about me. The word choice and the structure.
  
  Bye-bye. Doesn't look like anyone is going to give you what you want.
  reply report
  67
  fatfistposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't want anything. You are the one who wanted me to contrast my truth to the truth of your heroes.
  
  You know you lost before I was even able to answer your question. You've said bye-bye before. Is this time for good?
  reply report
60
Colebabieposted 14 years ago
Oh man Lita, glad I wasn't in here sooner.
reply report
1. 0
  Leta Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yours now Cole (don't recommend it). lol Woman-hater.
  reply report
  60
  Colebabieposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Peace out!!
  reply report
  55
  yoshi97posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Guys like him make me look like an Adonis.
  reply report
60
Colebabieposted 14 years ago
Show me a way to go home... I'm drunk and I wanna go to bed... I had a little drink about an hour ago and it got right to my head.
reply report
1. 55
  yoshi97posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That's from Jaws, right?
  reply report
  60
  Colebabieposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
70
Cagsilposted 14 years ago
Can I interject something gentleman?

If you're arguing about the statement "There are no absolutes." and whether or not, the statement itself is an absolute statement.

First off, no it's not an absolute statement. It's not, because it's not true to begin with.

There are absolutes in life. If there weren't then mankind wouldn't exist as it does today. How ever, what are absolutes in life? If you don't know them, I would suggest more knowledge is needed on your behalf. And, a little compassion and understanding for those things, for which you are unaware of.

You want to know what the TWO only absolutes in life are?

I'll tell you, so you don't have to go running anywhere.

Your morals.

Any moral action that is beneficial to the human organism or society is GOOD or RIGHT!

Any immoral action that is harmful to the human organism or society is BAD or WRONG!

Emotions are amoral.

Those are the only two absolutes in life.

Hope I helped.
reply report
1. 0
  lyricsingrayposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
2. 69
  Allan Bogleposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That is the whole point Cagsil, it is a self-contradictory statement. It is like writing "I cannot type in English." Obviously I am typing in English.
  
  It is circular; when one states that there no absolutes then that is an absolute statement.
  
  I have another example, the other day one of my students stood up and stated "Everything is meaningless." I then replied that this would include her comment. And if the comment that "everything is meaningless" is meaningless in itself then she has said nothing of value. Yet she used this comment as a meaningful statement to describe what she believed.
  
  Here some others I have heard:
  
  "It's morally wrong to judge others."--When one states that those who judge others are immoral that person is casting a moral judgment on those who judge.
  
  "You are wrong because you do not tolerate the beliefs of others."--Then why are you intolerant of my belief?
  
  "There is no objective truth that applies to all people."--The statement is positing an objective truth that applies to all people.
  
  etc. Fatfist is an excellent example of trying to hold to self-defeating propositions. Their position self-destructs the more they try to defend it (a simple look at his posts are a clear indicator).
  reply report
70
Cagsilposted 14 years ago
Thank you Lyricsingray.
reply report
1. 0
  lyricsingrayposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Just trying to be nice
  reply report
70
Cagsilposted 14 years ago
I know
reply report
60
Jonathan Jancoposted 14 years ago
It's debates such as this that remind me why institutions like the Church of Bob exist.
reply report
1. 0
  Star Witnessposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  LOLO. No.... Someone here clearly is not firing with all cylinders. Not mentioning any names, but they need to unclench their hands.
  reply report
60
Jonathan Jancoposted 14 years ago
Thought I would die of old age while reading some of these long-winded posts, but I just thought I'd point out that, according to Webster's dictionary, endorphins are released as a result of trauma, not as a result of getting your 'fancy tickled'.
reply report
1. 67
  fatfistposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, Star Witness is right. Someone is not firing with all cylinders. This is typically seen in the religions known as "Dictionary Scientism" and "Appeal to Authority".
  
  Endorphins are endogenous opioid polypeptide compounds. They are produced by the pituitary gland and the hypothalamus in vertebrates during strenuous exercise, excitement, pain and orgasm, and they resemble the opiates in their abilities to produce analgesia and a feeling of well-being. Endorphins have also been shown to be released in profound relaxation in a float tank. Endorphins also work as "natural pain relievers."
  reply report
67
fatfistposted 14 years ago
So “Here” is where we are on the status quo with Bogle.

1) The Bugle is signing “Reveille”, and Bogle is caught with his skirt down. He can't prove a single absolute.

2) Bogle can’t even spell his Idol’s name, “Pastor Plantinga”. He spells it as “Platinga” because his contention is that religious absolutist extremists make up their "own" rules, and then they call them: absolute truth.

3) An inspection of all his posts throughout hubpages reveals that he calls everybody’s posts as “self-refuting”, even tho “his” responses fall into the same axiomatic assumptions he preaches. This tactic, along with his “Argument From Authority” logical fallacy, are both TRICKS we call “misdirection”. He uses them to change topics because he cannot handle the pressure of the academic discussion that scraped off all his skin.

4) He hasn’t been able to provide a single example of an absolute truth. Quite embarrassing for him despite his childish rants that the statement “there are NO absolutes”, should be an absolute statement because “He” says so. That’s why he collected all his toys and ran away. He doesn’t even understand English grammar. Never mind the “syntactical” RULES of English grammar, which PROVE the statement not to be absolute by virtue of “grammatical predication alone”, without even resorting to the contextual rules of English. But such academia goes 50 miles over Bogle’s head anyway - priceless

5) Bogle’s so-called “absolute truth” is proven to be an “absolute belief”. The extremist ideology of the “absolute” proves that it is EQUIVALENT to the extremist ideology of the “relative”. That is, ABSOLUTE TRUTH = EXTREMIST RELATIVE TRUTH. Why? Just like extremist relative truth depends on a “single” authority to specify, so does his so-called absolute truth. Who is the authority of absolute truth? Is it Pastor Plantinga or Pastor “God”? His "God" is based on the benchmark of "God" himself. Hence a circular argument of extremist relative truth. One authority, one conclusion, one belief! Open your mouth people and we’ll ram it down your throat. Absolute Truth = Extremist Relative Truth!

6) Bogle is from the school of thought where he is allowed to call people names like “troll”, and that would automatically excuse him from conceding intellectual defeat. He won’t admit that he is not only “irrational”, but also “100% WRONG” on the issue of the “absolute”, as is DICTATED by English grammar. And this is where the “authority” of English grammar kicks him off the altar.

Let me give you a TIP, bogle: When arguments from authority are used “outside of context”, or outside of the “axiomatic system”, they are automatically logically fallacious, or in other words: BOGUS! Not because I say so, but because of the logical context implied in the argument in question. You can only use as an AUTHORITY, the axiomatic system that is in CONTEXT of your logical argument. Why? Because it IS “systemic”.

This didn’t sink in yet? Went 50 miles over your head again? I thought so! Seems like your messed-up hair in your picture, has also messed up your brain. Don’t you wash your face or comb your hair when you get up in the morning?

Let me speak it to you in KINDERGARTEN terms so you can hopefully understand: In English, you can say a statement like “there are NO absolutes”, has a given property, ONLY when you use the AXIOMS of the English system to show that it has the given property you “claim”. It is systemic! Otherwise you become EASY bait for people like me, who among other things, showcase your ignorance in English comprehension.

If you want to play with English grammar, then you MUST play by its rules. You can't just call people names and run off hiding under Pastor Plantinga's skirt and expect people to take you seriously.

Next time, before you jump inside a lion’s den to attempt to save a damsel in distress (who jumped in there herself to get attention), try and understand what an “Authoritative” argument is, and “where” it can be applied. You are LUCKY I didn’t go thru all the other nonsense, bit by bit, you posted earlier. Calling me a troll has truly saved you in a way where God can't even save you. You see, I’m a nice person. I didn’t strip you out of ALL your dignity – I left your ignorance intact.

Bogle: If you are able to grow up and be a “man” who can stand face-to-face with me in an intellectual exchange, or if you can REIFY your so-called “absolute” into reality - then you know where to find me. Otherwise you are finished! Cheers.
reply report
0
AdviceDoctorposted 14 years ago
It's nice to believe in something, you know? I mean, we see blood and gore in the news every day, get stories of children in Africa dying and all sorts of sad news, so you really wanna believe there is something better after our time on this earth. I technically believe in God. I don't believe he's an invisible man, who lives on a huge cloud and watches every move I make. I believe God is the good spirit around us. I believe God is all the good stuff that happens every day. I just want to believe there is a good side to all of us, you know?

And as for hell, I don't believe there's a place full of fire and torture if you do something bad, but I believe you won't find eternal peace.

Maybe this is stupid, but it's what I believe in.. I guess I have to be a little proud.
reply report
83
donotfearposted 14 years ago
Ha! I love that question!
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

If religion is fantasy, isn't atheism irrelevant?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

If religion is fantasy, isn't atheism irrelevant?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies