|
|
Post by pim on Feb 2, 2017 8:27:05 GMT 10
For what it's worth, this is not an argument against atheism, just against the hubris of paleo atheists!
|
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Feb 2, 2017 10:43:58 GMT 10
I'm neither an athiest, nor a religionist.
I simply refuse to believe unproven stuff that cannot be seen, or heard, or tasted, or smelled, or touched, or measured, or mathematically calculated in a scientific tense.
I don't need labels, because I don't believe in any creed when it comes to the existance or non-existance of gods, devils, angels, tooth fairies, santa claus, and other unproven hocus-pocus.
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 2, 2017 12:04:21 GMT 10
To channel a well-known redhead: I will not be hectored on rational thinking and lucid discourse by this troll, I will not!
|
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Feb 3, 2017 21:19:26 GMT 10
That speaker, whatever his claim to fame is, is incredibly smug when trying to describe the alleged smugness of atheists. It is he who is suffering from hubris.
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 3, 2017 21:46:58 GMT 10
And yet he himself states that he is an atheist. And this is the point I've been making on this board for ... I can't believe it's been years but it has. I have zero problem with atheism as a philosophy. And I have encountered enough atheists and read enough that has been written by atheist writers - about belief and non-belief - that I can respect their point of view. Without atheism we wouldn't have secularism and the secular society with its separation of church and state is what makes the modern democratic state possible. That isn't sufficient to persuade me that atheism is somehow so "correct" that it ipso facto invalidates all other positions but I don't think that that's what atheist thinkers, writers and philosophers - humanists - are trying to argue. But it's what you're trying to argue and I put it to you that you're the one suffering from hubris.
|
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Feb 4, 2017 6:31:11 GMT 10
Whoever he is, I very much doubt it he is an atheist. He is just some random internet guy with an opinion.
There are no facts here.
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 4, 2017 8:31:40 GMT 10
I said:
Your response is in fact not to respond. Instead you double down by attacking in a personal way the integrity of the guy in the video.
I realise you're going to keep doing this because it's all you've got.
I repeat: I have no problem with atheism per se. I don’t have to be an atheist to respect atheism. Likewise I don't have to be a convinced believer to respect religious faith.
But just as you don't have to look very far to find ratbags among the god botherers, by the same token you don't have to look very far to find lazy shallowness among the god deniers.
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 4, 2017 9:57:28 GMT 10
I didn't, but you - in your hubris that gives you the fantasy that you are the board's Town Cryer ("oyez! oyez!" that kinda thing), you just did.
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 4, 2017 14:01:35 GMT 10
Deflect, introduce phony issues, introduce personal agendas but above all avoid addressing the point about certain people - definitely not all, just a few members of this board - whose "atheism" is shallow, suspect and riddled with hubris, and whose hubris leads them to claim that they "own" rationalism and humanism and to assert with peerless arrogance that no other position is possible. You guys don't do atheism - a respectable and eminently defensible position - any favours.
|
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Feb 4, 2017 14:25:27 GMT 10
That guy pretending to be an atheist in the video doesn't do atheists any favours.
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 4, 2017 15:19:17 GMT 10
Maybe he doesn't and maybe he does. But you guys certainly don't! To reiterate, notwithstanding that Troll One/Hubris Man will keep desperately introducing distractions and personal agendas. Basically because it's all he's got. The last thing he wants is for the following point to be raised. So I'll keep raising it  |
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Feb 4, 2017 15:27:09 GMT 10
It is not irrational to not believe in God. It is the natural result when all evidence is weighed up.
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 4, 2017 17:08:17 GMT 10
It is not irrational to not believe in God. It is the natural result when all evidence is weighed up. I never said it was irrational. Atheism is a perfectly rational position to hold. I have no problem as such with atheism as a philosophical position. I knew you wouldn't address the fundamental point. I realise you never will. Nevertheless I'll just keep making the point: |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 4, 2017 2:48:39 GMT 10
Whoever he is, I very much doubt it he is an atheist. . ...'Cause no true Scotsman would ever put sugar on his oatmeal. |
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Mar 4, 2017 11:29:19 GMT 10
Whoever he is, I very much doubt it he is an atheist. . ...'Cause no true Scotsman would ever put sugar on his oatmeal. Only an idiot & moron would use the words sugar and oatmeal in the same sentence. Honey is the sweetener one should use with porridge if one feels the need to sweeten it. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 4, 2017 12:08:01 GMT 10
...'Cause no true Scotsman would ever put sugar on his oatmeal. Only an idiot & moron would use the words sugar and oatmeal in the same sentence. Honey is the sweetener one should use with porridge if one feels the need to sweeten it. I was referring to the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_ScotsmanYou really need to learn your rhetorical fallacies, if you want to claim to be a friend of rationality. |
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 4, 2017 14:23:58 GMT 10
KTJ? Rational?  |
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Mar 5, 2017 10:02:48 GMT 10
Well, at least I don't blindly believe in an unproven god.
I'd call that considerably more rational than people who blindly believe the delusion inside their heads.
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 5, 2017 10:39:14 GMT 10
Blah blah blah. Do you have a "replay" button that you can use to spam the Religion Board with?
|
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Mar 5, 2017 12:07:54 GMT 10
You seem to.
|
|
