Atheism

You are a liar and you are showing it every moment.

I told you already I don't want you dead, it would deprive me from the pleasure of watching you playing the clown and running around like a beheaded chicken..

You know ****, little ****.

You are just demonstrating how naive you are with the crap you talk.

Don't try that crap of being the same species as me.

We have nothing in common, not even a speck.

Drop dead, poor old guy..

Frank wrote:

You just essentially wished me dead.

I don't, it's just an idiom, you know that.

I think every little thing as a right to existence, so does a little dung beetle like you.

Timur wrote:

Frank wrote:

You just essentially wished me dead.

I don't, it's just an idiom, you know that.

I think every little thing as a right to existence, so does a little dung beetle like you.

You are a wicked son of a bitch, Frank, I never meant that you really drop dead.

You know ****, little ****.

You are just demonstrating how naive you are with the crap you talk.

Don't try that crap of being the same species as me.

We have nothing in common, not even a speck.

Drop dead, poor old guy..

when you are as angry as you are in this discussion.

you also charged that I am "wicked" ...and a dung beetle.

Frank wrote:

when you are as angry as you are in this discussion.

Another lame and wild assumption.

I couldn't be more serene..

You, on the other hand, are over your head..

Frank wrote:

you also charged that I am "wicked" ...and a dung beetle.

Those are mild statements..

You gotta get a handle on that, Ole friend.

Okay. The argument put forward by most atheists is that "the (independent) existence of a deity" cannot be proved.

But "independent existence" of anything at all is unprovable because it requires at least one observer to assign the nature of thinghood within a social context, in order to denote what might constitute "evidence".

Frank wrote:

You gotta get a handle on that, Ole friend.

I have all handles I need, I don't need your crappy advice.

I'm not your friend, to say the least..

Naive realism, then, may be too simple-minded for your sophisticated tastes, but your claim that its reasoning is circular remains unsupported.

Contemporary philosophical realism is the belief that some aspect of our reality is ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc...Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality and that every new observation brings us closer to understanding reality...

Naïve realism, also known as direct realism, is a philosophy of mind...

In contrast, some forms of idealism assert that no world exists apart from mind-dependent ideas and some forms of skepticism say we cannot trust our senses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism#Na.C3.AFve_realism

You oughta stop taking yourself so seriously, Timur. You are sounding very stilted.

I am delighted so many are challenging him with such vigor.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Re "tree in the forest", which is an oxymoron because if I said to you...

"if a grok jilled in a spling unobserved would it make a throop ?",

Quote:

I am delighted so many are challenging him with such vigor.

I guess I'm just a soft touch, Frank. When someone begs long enough and hard enough for something, I almost always end up breaking down and giving it to them, ya know?