Atheism: The Great Nothing!

[ImmortalFlame]

And I see no reason then for an Atheist to use Myths to support their views. Yet many of your bretheren in unbelief continually do that. They use all kinds of myths to support their viewpoints, which leads me to believe that is a need. A habitual need. When you argue something using myths, I don't view that as being in reality.

Using myths as an analogy of people's beliefs does not mean that the person using that analogy believes the myth is true. In fact, it's the exact opposite.

 

[mickiel]

Using myths as an analogy of people's beliefs does not mean that the person using that analogy believes the myth is true. In fact, it's the exact opposite.

Well I agree with that, and have never accused Atheist of believing in the myths they use to support their views. I don't for one minute believe they do, but I believe they depend on those myths, far too much in their defense.

In example, I believe in God, but I don't use myths to support my belief, in discussion with others. I see a weakness in that Flame. You may not, but its there. In debate, we naturally probe for weakness in the debate, in my view, the use of myths, is a weakness. It just is.

Peace.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well I agree with that, and have never accused Atheist of believing in the myths they use to support their views. I don't for one minute believe they do, but I believe they depend on those myths, far too much in their defense.

But that makes no sense. They're analogies that are useful for showing the absurdity or lack of logic in a particular position, and we no more depend on them than we do any other kind of argument. What's bad about using such analogies? In what way is the use of such analogies detrimental to our position?

In example, I believe in God, but I don't use myths to support my belief, in discussion with others. I see a weakness in that Flame. You may not, but its there. In debate, we naturally probe for weakness in the debate, in my view, the use of myths, is a weakness. It just is.

That's your argument? "It just is"? Are you serious?

The use of analogies to show a person's argument is flawed or no different to a myth is not a weakness. That's a ridiculous claim.

 

[mickiel]

But that makes no sense. They're analogies that are useful for showing the absurdity or lack of logic in a particular position, and we no more depend on them than we do any other kind of argument. What's bad about using such analogies? In what way is the use of such analogies detrimental to our position?


That's your argument? "It just is"? Are you serious?

.

What we use and how we use it, can determine ourselves, how we think even. An Analogist is one who adheres to and reasons by analogy. That, at its root, is a " Parallel world of thinking", not really in reality. Not in my view. Its something that " Resembles a point", but is not exactly the point. Why not use those things that are exact in the first place? Well if your point is weak in reality, then why not use a paralell world to strengthen your point.

And that is what I see in what you and others are doing.

Peace.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What we use and how we use it, can determine ourselves, how we think even. An Analogist is one who adheres to and reasons by analogy. That, at its root, is a " Parallel world of thinking", not really in reality. Not in my view. Its something that " Resembles a point", but is not exactly the point. Why not use those things that are exact in the first place? Well if your point is weak in reality, then why not use a paralell world to strengthen your point.

And that is what I see in what you and others are doing.

This makes absolutely no sense. The whole point of an analogy is to show the flaw in logic and leap into unreality that a person is taking. If I was to compare your belief to a belief in leprechauns, that is not me making a leap into a "parallel world of thinking", it is me finding comparison between your belief in God and a belief in something which is far more widely known to not exist, and showing the discrepancy (or lack of) in logic between the two trains of thought.

Do you even understand how an analogy works?

 

[mickiel]

This makes absolutely no sense. The whole point of an analogy is to show the flaw in logic and leap into unreality that a person is taking. If I was to compare your belief to a belief in leprechauns, that is not me making a leap into a "parallel world of thinking", it is me finding comparison between your belief in God and a belief in something which is far more widely known to not exist, and showing the discrepancy (or lack of) in logic between the two trains of thought.

Do you even understand how an analogy works?

Well this is why I don't speak with you much anymore, my thoughts make no sense to you. Explain to me what one should do in a conversation, where the other sees no sense in what you are saying? You have zeal, intelligence, an obvious willingness to engage others, but you do not understand what others are saying, and that by your own admission. Peacewise engaged you, and you him, what came of that?

Nothing.

There has to be an end to fruitless discussion, yet you seem to see no end to it. I think because of your zeal. I understand that, I used to be the same. I used to be hardcore zealous in my views, but now, I tend to look to understand the views of those I engage, all the while, never allowing myself to change what I know is not to be changed. If they are like me, then change is not the issue, only exchange of views, and learned not to be disapointed in that.

Why rip your opponant apart, and then still seek to engage them in discussion, if your taking a warriors viewpoint. You need to win, to kill, but then you want to pick apart the remains. Like an animal, just totally dominate, and through that have satisfaction in the spoil.

All the while missing the fruits of discussion.

Peace.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well this is why I don't speak with you much anymore, my thoughts make no sense to you. Explain to me what one should do in a conversation, where the other sees no sense in what you are saying? You have zeal, intelligence, an obvious willingness to engage others, but you do not understand what others are saying, and that by your own admission. Peacewise engaged you, and you him, what came of that?

Nothing.

Because Peacewise refused to acknowledge my points and made unrelated arguments about atheism and denial.

The reason I don't find your arguments make sense it quite simple: because they don't make sense. Even when I ask you to elaborate, you still make no sense. You're just babbling on and on trying to justify an argument which you know has no basis.

There has to be an end to fruitless discussion, yet you seem to see no end to it. I think because of your zeal. I understand that, I used to be the same. I used to be hardcore zealous in my views, but now, I tend to look to understand the views of those I engage, all the while, never allowing myself to change what I know is not to be changed. If they are like me, then change is not the issue, only exchange of views, and learned not to be disapointed in that.

You have stated to me, several times in different threads, that you do not take on board the opinions of others and refuse to involve yourself in discussions. You say that your only intention in these threads is to display your views to others, and that you have no intention of taking the opinions or arguments of others on board. It's your attitude that renders discussion with you fruitless. For example, instead of engaging with me and acknowledging my argument you either just re-assert your own claims or go on one of these unrelated rants.

Why rip your opponant apart, and then still seek to engage them in discussion, if your taking a warriors viewpoint. You need to win, to kill, but then you want to pick apart the remains. Like an animal, just totally dominate, and through that have satisfaction in the spoil.

All the while missing the fruits of discussion.

Says the guy who refuses to acknowledge the opinions of anyone or debate in any meaningful way.

There is no fruit to be gained in a discussion with you, since everything you offer is entirely void of any logic - even under a cursory inquisition such as my own.

 

[mickiel]

Because Peacewise refused to acknowledge my points and made unrelated arguments about atheism and denial.

.

He offered you the door which you cannot enter.

These conversations we are having, are really those of inside out; those who have a consciousness which is inside, as opposed to those who think on the outside of God existing.

Its academic.

Peace.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

He offered you the door which you cannot enter.

These conversations we are having, are really those of inside out; those who have a consciousness which is inside, as opposed to those who think on the outside of God existing.

Its academic.

Are you using a random sentence generator?

 

[mickiel]

Are you using a random sentence generator?

Its Academic, there is nothing you can do about it.

Peace.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Its Academic, there is nothing you can do about it.

Re-stating something does not make it any less of a delusion.

 

[mickiel]

Re-stating something does not make it any less of a delusion.

I have you now flame, if you continue, I will use you to show the foolishness of that. Its your choice of zeal.

Peace.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have you now flame, if you continue, I will use you to show the foolishness of that. Its your choice of zeal.

Still using that random sentence generator, I see.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

I have you now flame, if you continue, I will use you to show the foolishness of that. Its your choice of zeal.

Peace.

*Waits with baited breath*

 

[DeitySlayer]

I have you now flame, if you continue, I will use you to show the foolishness of that. Its your choice of zeal.

Peace.

See, what does that even mean? You're unable to write a coherent sentence in your facepalm-inducing attempts to sound deep and mystical. Can we move back into the real world and start using proper logic?

 

[mickiel]

Still using that random sentence generator, I see.

I have changed my mind, I am done with you, its just useless, as I already knew.

Peace.

 

[DeitySlayer]

If it was useless and God created atheists to be godless, then why the heck have you spent all this time trying to persuade us otherwise? You're more inconsistent than the Bible.

 

[mickiel]

If it was useless and God created atheists to be godless, then why the heck have you spent all this time trying to persuade us otherwise? You're more inconsistent than the Bible.

I ignore Atheist who accuse me of foolishness, and I certainly don't spend time trying to persuade them of anything. I couldcareless what Atheist believe. I post only to share what I believe.

Peace.

 

[LuisDantas]

Still, is there any point to it, Mickiel?

 

[DeitySlayer]

I ignore Atheist who accuse me of foolishness, and I certainly don't spend time trying to persuade them of anything. I couldcareless what Atheist believe. I post only to share what I believe.

Peace.

The sum total of your audience is one. Peacewise. No-one else is actually listening to your illogical delusions.