|
Post by pim on Feb 18, 2016 10:41:16 GMT 10
Yes I agree with that, but an inability to admit to a mistake, or to say "yes you were right and I was wrong" isn't just confined to NTB. It's a malaise that seems to be endemic to online discussion boards where people tend to come looking for an echo chamber rather than a forum where people share ideas. The problem would appear to be the medium rather than the individual participants.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 19, 2016 11:58:23 GMT 10
Facts always trump opinions. I agree. But your claim that facts are culturally relative seem based on personal opinion, more than actual fact. The fact we can look at the past and agree on consensus of wrongdoings, only furthers my point that there is an objective moral standard. For example, how can you weigh the statement 'atheists are more altruistic ', If we don't correlate on the terms of what it means to be 'altruistic' , in the first place? You are either suffering from cognitive dissonance, or you are dishonestly hopping the philosophical fence and hoping I didn't notice.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 19, 2016 12:17:45 GMT 10
Mantras don't win debates, madmonk. Here's a song to play you out:
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Feb 20, 2016 7:01:29 GMT 10
Well, until I see an Atheist soup kitchen, I'll remain unconvinced. Red Cross Oxfam UNICEF Fred Hollows Foundation Water Aid Save The Children Doctors Without Borders The Gates Foundation SHARE (Secular Humanist Aid & Relief Effort) OzHarvest I see that facts didn't convince
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 25, 2016 11:46:08 GMT 10
Red Cross Oxfam UNICEF Fred Hollows Foundation Water Aid Save The Children Doctors Without Borders The Gates Foundation SHARE (Secular Humanist Aid & Relief Effort) OzHarvest I see that facts didn't convince Few of those examples are exclusively atheist. So no, it fails to meet the criteria
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Feb 25, 2016 19:18:28 GMT 10
I see that facts didn't convince Few of those examples are exclusively atheist. So no, it fails to meet the criteria Only ONE needed to be, you asked for "an" Atheist soup kitchen, Sir Exy exceeded your demands.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 25, 2016 22:25:26 GMT 10
I see that facts didn't convince Few of those examples are exclusively atheist. So no, it fails to meet the criteria Few of those examples are exclusively atheist. So no, it fails to meet the criteria Only ONE needed to be, you asked for "an" Atheist soup kitchen, Sir Exy exceeded your demands. Ed's OCD overwhelmed him before he had a chance to properly answer the question. These organizations aren't exclusively soup kitchens, neither are they exclusively atheist... so neither criteria was met. Neither does one exclusively atheist charitable organization trump the manifold organizations of religious ones in terms of altruism.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 25, 2016 22:52:30 GMT 10
It's not called moving the goalposts when you fall short of meeting the criteria. If a teacher asked you name a well known atheist soup kitchen, and you answered with UNICEF they might consider putting you in a special class.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 25, 2016 23:05:27 GMT 10
...Says the man who looks to himself as though gazing through a fun house mirror.
Even if such things were the case; it's a separate issue. You are just being dismissive;. It's still unethical to discriminate based on a perceived mental condition.
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Feb 25, 2016 23:20:37 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 25, 2016 23:30:28 GMT 10
Is this really Matt coming here pretending he's having an atheist moment?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 26, 2016 2:03:42 GMT 10
Consider the spelling and grammar of this pronouncement, and follow it to it's terribly unfortunate conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Feb 26, 2016 7:07:23 GMT 10
'Non-religious' and 'atheist' are not synonymous. Hmmmm. I am atheist and 100% non religious.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 26, 2016 7:32:25 GMT 10
Good for you.
A deist is 100% non-religious, yet believes there is a God.
Your belief isn't the only valid one; Reconcile that, you ignorant dick!
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Feb 26, 2016 9:13:59 GMT 10
Good for you. A deist is 100% non-religious, yet believes there is a God. Your belief isn't the only valid one; Reconcile that, you ignorant dick! I simply DON'T BELIEVE .... period .... in hocus pocus imaginary bullshit dreamed up by insecure people who cannot stand on their own two feet and need the crutch of religion to justify their existence.
The term ATHIEST is a label which is dreamed up by weak-minded religionists who feel the need to stick that label on those who don't blindly believe the religionists' imaginary bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 26, 2016 9:42:33 GMT 10
BTW ... A Deist is not a Theist. There is a distinction between the two. Deists reject the "revelation" that Theists believe in. Subtle difference, a bit of nuance that requires a level of brain power that you don't seem to possess. I agree with the thrust of your case, of course, that one can believe in "God" yet be non-religious, it's just that you are hopelessly muddled in your attempt to explain it. Never mind, better luck next time ... but thanks for playing! I never said a deist was a theist; I said a deist was non-religious. A deist still believes in a deity, hence the name. I applaud your reluctant acceptance of my point, while still maintaining your prominence as a condescending jackass. Nice work, few people could pull that off.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 26, 2016 9:52:37 GMT 10
That doesn't make any sense.
If you understood the point, then it was hardly deficient; that would make my explanation 'sufficient '.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 26, 2016 9:59:31 GMT 10
Not self-evident for your idiot counterpart, apparently.
I guess he needs remedial help.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 26, 2016 10:04:47 GMT 10
It is self-evident. Your attempt to convey it however? ... well ... You are a floundering flunky. Allow me to simplify it for you then:
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 26, 2016 10:17:02 GMT 10
Oh Ed, there is so much more to me than your awry alliterations.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Feb 26, 2016 19:33:00 GMT 10
Good for you. A deist is 100% non-religious, yet believes there is a God. Your belief isn't the only valid one; Reconcile that, you ignorant dick! Why the abuse? I have been nothing but civil.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Feb 26, 2016 19:35:07 GMT 10
Not self-evident for your idiot counterpart, apparently. I guess he needs remedial help. Abuse not just once, but twice. Anger management classes are in order. There is help available, seek it. For your own good.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Feb 26, 2016 21:18:23 GMT 10
Not your fault if someone abuses me for no reason. Just tells us about their state of mind and their communication skills.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 26, 2016 22:20:39 GMT 10
Pack behaviour? Not nice.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 26, 2016 22:44:55 GMT 10
You mean you disagree with me.
|
|