What do you feel is wrong with atheism?

[The Voice of Reason]

No. Don't be silly. You did not think that was what I was implying. Also, why have you attacked me with such colloquial language? Don't you agree that such language goes against the imaginary image of the Voice of Reason that you are trying to display? It is as if you will not be satisfied unless you make me an enemy. Do you need somebody to fight back and to punish you? I would rather not do that. I will go ahead and respond to the rest of this post but please make your next response directed to my arguments.

I am not implying, so I did not poison any body's well. I accept the universal and self evident rules about logic. That has never been the problem but rather the atheist and agnostic will not abide by these rules. They generally attempt to insert a few extra rules of their own invention making their logic atheistic in design. That my friend is not how logic is supposed to work.

Both parties do need to agree to the premises of logic but if one party denies universal and self evident premises do not exist than no debate is rationally possible. That my friend is the sad fact about atheist in any debate if one depends on logic to determine the outcome of a debate. We don't know about agnostics unless you tell us the premises upon which your world system depends and scenes you are here to debate, please take time to tell us what your premises are.

Be real here now. On the RF there is no third party. Fouls are called like in a pickup game of basketball. The fairness of the game depends on the ethics of the players to call their own fouls. I find more ethics on basketball floor than in debates on this forum but together we can change that.

Now, about atheistic logic. It does exist. It falls under the category of operationally defined terminology. It also falls well within the universally accepted rules of debate except to use it is an automatic fallacy in the use of logic. It is poor sportsmanship to use atheistic logic. That is the reason atheist hate the term so badly. It always makes them look like they take unfair advantage of the rules of universal truth.That my friend is how logic is suppose to work.
GadFly

Gadfly -

I don't try to project an "image" on this board. I respond to statements based solely on their merit. I use logic, reason, and rational thought to reach my positions in every debate. I also use those disciplines to defend the positions that I take.

You continue to lump all atheists together with absurdly generalistic statements (i.e. "the sad fact about atheist (sic) in any debate"), even after you have had it pointed out to you ad infinitum. That fact alone makes it almost impossible to talk to you.

You seem to take great pride in using the term "atheist logic" for the simple fact that you believe that they (again with the generalization) hate it so much. You are actually compounding two errors into one thought (painting with a broad brush, and intentionally abusing the idea of logic). A rare trick indeed, but hardly one to boast of.

Yuur analogy of the pickup basketball game does not obtain. In this case, you are seeing the majority of the people tell you (repeatedly) that you are out in left field. I realize that simply being supported by a majority of the members participating in this thread is an appeal to the majority, but I'm not really relying on it. Your ability (or inability) to make and defend a point stands on it's own merits (or lack thereof).

 

[Rolling_Stone]

What does that have to do with foundationalism and relationship?

See edits and post #571

 

[Magic Man]

You didn't make yourself clear. For your answer, see my previous post.

Wow! It really does take quite a bit to get through to you, huh? Let's start with this: What is the consequence of your choosing theism?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Wow! It really does take quite a bit to get through to you, huh? Let's start with this: What is the consequence of your choosing theism?

Same answer

Really, folks. This is getting ridiculous. If it's your intentention to prove with these kind of questions I was correct about atheism's inability to extrapolate meaning, you've succeeded already!

 

[camanintx]

I understand it as the understanding that the only point in life is what we make for ourselves. I think it's following atheism to its logical conclusion with no hope for personality surivival and therefore empty of any ultimate meaning.

Would you agree that existence only has real meaning as long as we exist?

 

[logician]

"I think it's following atheism to its logical conclusion with no hope for personality surivival and therefore empty of any ultimate meaning."

Bingo, there is no ultimate meaning, only local to your own short existence.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Would you agree that existence only has real meaning as long as we exist?

See my previous post.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

"I think it's following atheism to its logical conclusion with no hope for personality surivival and therefore empty of any ultimate meaning."

Bingo, there is no ultimate meaning, only local to your own short existence.

Thank you! Finally, some consistency! And from someone with guts enough to place his bets.

 

[camanintx]

See my previous post.

The one where you say "I think it's following atheism to its logical conclusion with no hope for personality surivival and therefore empty of any ultimate meaning?"

I'll take that as a "yes".

Now, would you agree that existence is meaningless if there is no possibility of not existing?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

The one where you say "I think it's following atheism to its logical conclusion with no hope for personality surivival and therefore empty of any ultimate meaning?"

I'll take that as a "yes".

Now, would you agree that existence is meaningless if there is no possibility of not existing?

Wrong post. Post #584.

I wasn't kidding, Logician. No sarcasism at all.

 

[camanintx]

Wrong post. Post #584.

I wasn't kidding, Logician. No sarcasism at all.

I don't see anything in that post that answers either question.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I don't see anything in that post that answers either question.

I said, "Really, folks. This is getting ridiculous. If it's your intentention to prove with these kind of questions I was correct about atheism's inability to extrapolate meaning, you've succeeded already!"

 

[camanintx]

I said, "Really, folks. This is getting ridiculous. If it's your intentention to prove with these kind of questions I was correct about atheism's inability to extrapolate meaning, you've succeeded already!"

Which doesn't tell me if you believe that existence has meaning if you don't exist.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Which doesn't tell me if you believe that existence has meaning if you don't exist.

By golly, you're right!

 

[UnTheist]

See how easy it is to get an answer out of him?

 

[camanintx]

See how easy it is to get an answer out of him?

It's only because he knows that theism offers no more meaning than atheism, despite what he wants to believe.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Wow! It really does take quite a bit to get through to you, huh? Let's start with this: What is the consequence of your choosing theism?

Mball -

I can see the response now:

Since you obviously haven't memorized every word I've written in every thread I've posted on, let me give you a road map to the answer to this question:
Refer to posts #322, #512, #299, and #438. Once you have read them, extrapolate the meaning of "wagers", and then see my previous post (which I will not refer to, lest I confuse myself). You see, choosing to choose choices is explained quite clearly in the book Selections, Elections, Options, Preferences, and Discretionary Alternatives by Will Power.

And for God's sake, do not overlook my statements made in posts #533, #336, #222, and #2 in the thread "Obfuscation, Confusion, and Outright Gibberish".

If you can't understand that, then you are simply proving my point that all atheists are exactly alike in every sense of the word.

Atheists!

 

[Sententia]

Mball -

Since you obviously haven't memorized every word I've written in every thread I've posted on, let me give you a road map to the answer to this question:
Refer to posts #322, #512, #299, and #438. Once you have read them, extrapolate the meaning of "wagers", and then see my previous post (which I will not refer to, lest I confuse myself). You see, choosing to choose choices is explained quite clearly in the book Selections, Elections, Options, Preferences, and Discretionary Alternatives by Will Power.

And for God's sake, do not overlook my statements made in posts #533, #336, #222, and #2 in the thread "Obfuscation, Confusion, and Outright Gibberish".

If you can't understand that, then you are simply proving my point that all atheists are exactly alike in every sense of the word.

Atheists!

BINGO!!!!!

Seriously... what broad and probably negative statement are you making about atheists?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

BINGO!!!!!

Seriously... what broad and probably negative statement are you making about atheists?

LOL - Am I limited to only one unfounded overgeneralization, or can I throw nine or ten half finished thoughts out there prior to claiming that the faulty atheist mind cannot follow my flawless line of argument?

 

[Sententia]

LOL - Am I limited to only one unfounded overgeneralization, or can I throw nine or ten half finished thoughts out there prior to claiming that the faulty atheist mind cannot follow my flawless line of argument?

Sure shoot. Biased hatred and ridicule I am quite used too.

Faulty atheist mind? .. blah I wont go there yet.

hehe

Do your worst. Let the fools suffer the might of your glorious intellect. For the EMPEROR!