Atheism

Sorry. I was planning to thumb it down.

Pleas move this conversation to another thread.

Apologies - I had no idea a discussion on atheism wasn't welcome in this thread. And thanks for the advice previously (this post), I had a feeling it was going nowhere there. I'd meant to thank you privately for that but (being from the old philosophy forum) my PMs are still disabled.

Thanks

I'm not inclined to answer your post unless you decide whether or not to submit to ed's pressure for us to clear off. Not that I am. I can read through these silly posts of his and Thomas's without batting an eye.

Thomas can see that you are responding to me. He can see that the quotes are from my post. What on earth is "hard" about ignoring them? We all know his position. Why he has to keep repeating it is beyond me.

If they want a private discussion why can't they use private channels of communication?

I was still trying to respond to your long post of yesterday. Then I'll try to catch up with your other two so long as you're willing to stay here.

Probably unintentionally hilarious.
In your gut, do you really think you need to move your fine posts to another thread?

spendius posts hundreds of anti atheist messages, all too often turning the focus of the thread away from the originator's stated purpose. There are a few dozen threads out there started for the sort of conversation he engages. Plus, there is the start-a-new one function. Is it asking too much to adhere to the wishes of the thread founder? We don't have the power to enforce this request. We appeal to your sense of fairness.

Agree completely and thank you very much for taking the time to let me know.

Thank you. But we would like you to be a part of the proceedings, if you like.

That assertion is not true. That you think my posts are anti-atheist does not make them so. I think your posts are anti-atheist. You present the atheist case in a manner which I think will put people off choosing to follow your calling. There is no point in a public debate unless the aim is to persuade the undecided. The site is called Able 2 Know and the undecided want to know the ins and outs of this very complex matter. There are many sites where atheists can gather and congratulate each other on their wisdom and perspicacity.

I think you are a drawing-room atheist. That's why you refuse to discuss the consequences of atheism. And that is all I am interested in and I cannot understand why anybody should be interested in anything else. If there is no effect there can be no cause.

And there is an effect of atheism. Both to individuals and to the collective. A profound effect. And the promotion of the philosophy of atheism really does have to justify itself on those effects just as every politician is required to justify his policies on the basis of their consequences.



Only today, in answer to another blithe assertion of that nature, I quoted from the first post on this thread implying, of course, that my posts are in line with what was said there.

There is nothing unfair going on. Everything here is out in the open and above board. It is grossly unfair on young people reading here to present atheism without reference to contervailing arguments or to the consequences of adopting it. As Bob Dylan once said --"You can fry somebody's brain."

and you are the one able to know that can guide the undecided.

Not at all. I make an argument. The undecided can decide for themselves on the basis of those arguments rather than on silly-soddery of that nature.

FA, no worries. Thanks for your valiant effort. I love the quote - it reflects exactly how I feel I fit into the universe. Thanks for the video.

Laurence Sterne, a writer who I quoted the other day to the approval of Khethil, wrote in Chaper XIII of Volume VII of Tristram Shandy--



I do my best to put aside my congenial humours. What is the point of listening to somebody with a large mortgage explaining why low interest rates are a good thing.

I drew your sting Khethil. Your congenial humours have got the better of you. And Pythagoras is one of the most famous scientists in the whole history of the known universe. And was persecuted by a mob for his pains.

I think, little, that your use of "valiant" is disgusting and particularly so in the light of the recent news from Afghanistan.

Spendi. Bite me.

I just did. You will wreck your very language to prove your point.

I knew all those user ignored posts looked familiar.

My language is far more wrecked than that and always has been. You've been trotting around being an ass to me for quite a long time. I have no qualms being an ass back to you occasionally.

Oh --I don't mind. I'm only interested in letting the atheists on here have the opportunity to impress the undecideds. The decideds are a complete waste of time on both sides.

Let spendi work himself into a froth. One of his favorite games is pretending that A2K is some sort of grand stage where we battle over minds who are struggling and looking for guidance on matters just like this. More amusing is that he misses the irony in telling others that their posts will only turn others off to their ideas.

He's all checkers on the chess table: oblivious, proud, and grinning.

Keeping with the original thread premise, I had a thought about how media has failed to ever show something which I think is crucial to atheists being accepted.

Can anyone think of an atheist family in a movie or television series? If so, to what degree did this define their characters or the story? If not atheist, what about media families that portray no religion, are they presumed to be atheists? What characteristics do they assign them?

I think a lot of conversation goes into the acceptance and struggle of individuals, but I've never personally been a part of a conversation about that. I think it's a pretty important one.

A
R
T