jump to last post 1-27 of 27 discussions (124 posts)

If religion is fantasy, isn't atheism irrelevant?

  1. profile image0
    sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago

    If your belief system is irrelevant isn't it time to face the music?

    1. fatfist profile image77
      fatfistposted 7 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?

      1. UPStar profile image60
        UPStarposted 7 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.

        1. Evolution Guy profile image61
          Evolution Guyposted 7 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? lol

          1. profile image0
            thetruthhurts2009posted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Can you say broken record? MARK, Why you hiding behind this guise anyway?

        2. fatfist profile image77
          fatfistposted 7 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.

        3. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
          Mikel G Robertsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          I believe I did that

    2. Evolution Guy profile image61
      Evolution Guyposted 7 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. big_smile

    3. tantrum profile image61
      tantrumposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Belief systems are always irrelevant to atheists.
      Is that the music you want to face ?

      1. profile image0
        sneakorocksolidposted 7 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.

        1. tantrum profile image61
          tantrumposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          lol
          I believe religion exists. You are a proof of it
          In what I don't believe is in God !

          1. profile image0
            sneakorocksolidposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            But without God there's no religion.

            1. tantrum profile image61
              tantrumposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              lol
              Well that's your problem I think !

              We atheists don't believe in God ! It's people like you that do

    4. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 7 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.

    5. Gustavo Magnus profile image54
      Gustavo Magnusposted 7 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.

    6. profile image53
      The Paulposted 7 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!

  2. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago

    Irrelevant to what? You either believe or you don't...

  3. prettydarkhorse profile image64
    prettydarkhorseposted 7 years ago

    maybe different belief system is good, you can be a founder of a new one

  4. profile image0
    lynnechandlerposted 7 years ago

    I like to face the music when I'm listening to a live band!

  5. Daniel Carter profile image87
    Daniel Carterposted 7 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.

  6. profile image59
    C.J. Wrightposted 7 years ago

    No

  7. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago
  8. profile image0
    sneakorocksolidposted 7 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!

    1. fatfist profile image77
      fatfistposted 7 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!

      1. profile image0
        sneakorocksolidposted 7 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.

        1. fatfist profile image77
          fatfistposted 7 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.

          1. profile image0
            sneakorocksolidposted 7 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.

            1. Colebabie profile image60
              Colebabieposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Agreed.

            2. fatfist profile image77
              fatfistposted 7 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.

              1. Cagsil profile image60
                Cagsilposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Excuse me kind sir. lol

                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.

                1. fatfist profile image77
                  fatfistposted 7 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.

                  1. Allan Bogle profile image79
                    Allan Bogleposted 7 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.

              2. profile image0
                sneakorocksolidposted 7 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?

                1. fatfist profile image77
                  fatfistposted 7 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.

                  1. profile image0
                    sneakorocksolidposted 7 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.

              3. aka-dj profile image77
                aka-djposted 7 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. sad

                1. fatfist profile image77
                  fatfistposted 7 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?

                  1. Flightkeeper profile image72
                    Flightkeeperposted 7 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.

  9. profile image0
    lynnechandlerposted 7 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.

    1. UPStar profile image60
      UPStarposted 7 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.

      1. tantrum profile image61
        tantrumposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Too human and full of flaws and misleads to be dictated by a 'God '

      2. profile image0
        lynnechandlerposted 7 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.

        1. tantrum profile image61
          tantrumposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          I was !
          Ritz hotel suites, La Paz , Bolivia
          big_smile

  10. profile image0
    lyricsingrayposted 7 years ago

    Tantrum love new avatar sexy mama and for this thread zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  11. profile image0
    lynnechandlerposted 7 years ago

    lol

  12. goldenpath profile image73
    goldenpathposted 7 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?

    1. profile image0
      sneakorocksolidposted 7 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!

      1. goldenpath profile image73
        goldenpathposted 7 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.  : )

        1. profile image0
          sneakorocksolidposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Where in Iowa?

          1. goldenpath profile image73
            goldenpathposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Shenandoah in the southwest corner along the Nishnabotna river.

            1. profile image0
              sneakorocksolidposted 7 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.

  13. Jerami profile image73
    Jeramiposted 7 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

  14. Flightkeeper profile image72
    Flightkeeperposted 7 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.

    1. fatfist profile image77
      fatfistposted 7 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!

      1. Flightkeeper profile image72
        Flightkeeperposted 7 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.

        1. fatfist profile image77
          fatfistposted 7 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.

  15. aka-dj profile image77
    aka-djposted 7 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  Sad, really!

    1. fatfist profile image77
      fatfistposted 7 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

      1. aka-dj profile image77
        aka-djposted 7 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?

        1. fatfist profile image77
          fatfistposted 7 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 smile

          Thanks

          1. profile image0
            Leta Sposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            This is really the worst marketing approach I have seen for gaining viewers for one's work.

            wink

            1. fatfist profile image77
              fatfistposted 7 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.

              1. profile image0
                Leta Sposted 7 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, wink) 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.

                1. fatfist profile image77
                  fatfistposted 7 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.

                  1. blue dog profile image74
                    blue dogposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    hopefully she won't give you that satisfaction.

              2. yoshi97 profile image81
                yoshi97posted 7 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. smile

                1. fatfist profile image77
                  fatfistposted 7 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

                  1. aka-dj profile image77
                    aka-djposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    That's a total misrepresentation. I concede nothing of the sort. And NO, Im not paranoid either.

                  2. profile image0
                    Leta Sposted 7 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.

                  3. yoshi97 profile image81
                    yoshi97posted 7 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. smile

  16. profile image0
    Leta Sposted 7 years ago
  17. profile image0
    Leta Sposted 7 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.

    1. fatfist profile image77
      fatfistposted 7 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.

      1. profile image0
        Leta Sposted 7 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.

        1. fatfist profile image77
          fatfistposted 7 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?

  18. Colebabie profile image60
    Colebabieposted 7 years ago

    Oh man Lita, glad I wasn't in here sooner.

    1. profile image0
      Leta Sposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Yours now Cole (don't recommend it).  lol  Woman-hater.

      1. Colebabie profile image60
        Colebabieposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Peace out!! smile

      2. yoshi97 profile image81
        yoshi97posted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Guys like him make me look like an Adonis. smile

  19. Colebabie profile image60
    Colebabieposted 7 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.

    1. yoshi97 profile image81
      yoshi97posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      That's from Jaws, right? smile

      1. Colebabie profile image60
        Colebabieposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        smile

  20. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 7 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.

    1. profile image0
      lyricsingrayposted 7 years agoin reply to this
    2. Allan Bogle profile image79
      Allan Bogleposted 7 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).

  21. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 7 years ago

    Thank you Lyricsingray.

    1. profile image0
      lyricsingrayposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Just trying to be nice lol

  22. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 7 years ago

    I know big_smile

  23. Jonathan Janco profile image73
    Jonathan Jancoposted 7 years ago

    It's debates such as this that remind me why institutions like the Church of Bob exist.

    1. profile image0
      Star Witnessposted 7 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.

  24. Jonathan Janco profile image73
    Jonathan Jancoposted 7 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'.

    1. fatfist profile image77
      fatfistposted 7 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."

  25. fatfist profile image77
    fatfistposted 7 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 smile

    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.

  26. profile image0
    AdviceDoctorposted 7 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.

  27. donotfear profile image90
    donotfearposted 7 years ago

    Ha! I love that question!

 
working