Atheists... Your life is pointless

No I wouldn't consider that situation picking a fight.
Are you suggesting that there is a particular argument of mine that you find flawed?
If so, I would be happy to discus THAT with you.

When you are finished with this, Matt...perhaps...

... http://able2know.org/topic/207906-16#post-5254051

I'm kind of at an impasse here Frank.

I don't really know what it is you want out of the discussion.
My impression (which I will admit could very well be mistaken)
is that you would like very much for me to shut up and go home.

I feel as though I have made attempts to be amicable toward you,
especially in regards of finding a talk that I thought would resonate
with your views. I am hurt that you seem to be now using, what I
thought of as an act of generosity, as an attempted weapon against me.

You've complained before about using to much lingo, so I rephrased
ontology as "theory of knowledge" and then presented what I thought
you might use as a "jumping of point" in further discussions of
the esoteric subjects which you seem to express so much disgust for.
"Angels on the head of pins" etc.

I also have a personal distaste for the general usage "of you people" in
discourse as I think it is an underhanded way of conducting an ad-hominum
attack.

I also find you to be intelligent and funny. Which makes me very
reluctant to simply write you off or ignore you.

Jesus F*cking Christ, do you need to be lead around by the nose?

You wrote:



To which i replied:



Hell, even Spade, who is not the brightest penny in the bank, saw right away the flaw in your argument. He's at least learned that much.

Since it appears that you need this kind of specificity to keep up with the discussion:

I am suggesting that your argument to the extent that atheists require beliefs or assumptions is flawed. It is flawed because it assumes that atheists are some kind of simple-minded intellectual monolith. Not all atheists assert that there is no god. Many of them are simply saying "I don't believe that." They have no burden of proof. In fact, there are theists who fit into the same category. They do not insist that there is a god, they just state that they believe there is a god. They have no burden of proof. As a point of idle discussion, you might ask either group why they don't believe or do believe, but you cannot reasonable assert that either group has a burden of proof.

Capiche?

Matt...go back to that thread. We should discuss that issue there.

There is nothing that I said that I mean as an attack...and I have explicitly stated that I enjoy discussing the topic.

We have some differences, but they certainly are "discussable."

I consider you gracious and amicable...and I've tried to return those feelings. Not sure why you are getting the impression that I am being combative (other than defending my positions)...but it certainly is not what I mean to convey.

Let's discuss this back there.

sorry I actually thought i was sending you a PM with the last.
also ontology should be epistemology

I don't really have a dog in this fight.

The quoted response if I recall was in direct response to Spades question to me about assumptions needed for theism vs. atheism.
My very next response to him (if I recall)after this was that I thought it was important to make some distinctions between more kinds of belief ie the Dawkins scale.
My understanding of the dialogue between he and I has more the spirit of a discussion rather than a formal debate, and I think spade would agree.

But perhaps i haven't been led by the nose well enough to see this argument that you wish me to defend.

Also I see no explanation for you insulting Spade.
Pretty please with sugar on top quit insulting people, who are quite obviously more socially intelligent than you.

I beg to differ.

Not defending Setanta but questioning Spade's social skills..

Spade seems to have very good social skills and is able to hold back from attacking others most of the time but we all fall short some times.

Having read some of your posts, I question your sanity too..

But my question is a rhetorical one, it doesn't need any answer..

It's nice to know that I am not the only one.

Space has been pretty successful socially with me, in that I like him. He seems to me effective in expressing an interest in the opinions of others. He seems quite able to empathize as evidenced by the speed at which he is able to understand multiple views on topics that he is unfamiliar with

What is missing here is a consideration of those circumstances in which a lady's reputation is bound up with her piety. And what is a church if not a place where piety may be professed.

In the absence of a church, particularly one which fosters the purity of ladies, there is no place remaining where such piety may be displayed, and purity thus discovered to all the world, without risking the accusation, by interested parties, of being in that despicable condition known as FRIGIDITY.

What defence does a lady have against such a terrible accusation being whispered abroad, not sparing the word NEOROTIC, when it is very well known that the confirmation and conjunctions of her pheromones , her serotonins and that range of hormones and erogenous nooks and crannies and delicate protuberances which science is bewildered by, (see Prof Brian Cox), has evolved in an identical manner to that of a Gibraltar monkey; as Prof. Dawkins is at great pains to remind us all, except insofar as it takes more significant displays of male prowess to excite a pious lady than it does such a creature.

Which it is possible to argue is the driving force of human progress. Assuming it is progress of course.

Thus female piety not only allows a lady to maintain her reputation and avoid the horrible accusations mentioned above but it is the very power source of the entrepreneurial spirit.

That a lady might affect to believe such things as that the Holy Ghost came down to visit the Virgin Mary, or that Lazarus was the beneficiary of a Divine favour, is really a minor matter in that they might at some point be revised whereas the complex concatenation of concupiscent conveniences contained and concentrated in the conjunction of a pious and estimable lady of renown and virtue is here to stay and long may it do so.

Only misogynists of the lowest types would seek to set aside the only defence ladies have for their reputations. Unless the government legislated to the same effect and judging by the members of our governments that seems unlikely especially since it would entail the complete redesign of suburbia.

Believing that one has won a silly argument is neither here nor there when all that is offered are absurd abstractions and a repetitive clunkety-clunk delivery of them.

Believing that one has won a silly argument is neither here nor there when all that is offered are absurd abstractions and a repetitive clunkety-clunk delivery of them.

You made the argument, so it appears that you lead your dog to the fight and then abandoned him. You're weaseling now. It is immaterial to me what Spade would or would not agree with. You made a bullshit statement and i called bullshit, and did so in an acceptably civil manner, and you've gotten your back up about it and indulged a hissy fit. Now you want to disown the argument you made, apparently because it's been challenged.

As for Spade and what you are pleased to call "social intelligence," look at the very first thread he started here. He sneered at and insulted the first person to respond to the thread, and then began flailing at other people who responded even though he had, in the title, invited people who don't believe in christianity to comment. So don't feed me some bullshit about social intelligence, and then get self-righteous about people being insulted. That you couch your insults in a more veiled manner doesn't alter that you are insulting people.

It appears to me that you are a whiner, who can't hold his end up in debate, so you weasel out, and then call your interlocutor on insulting people, while you are being insulting yourself. You're pathetic.

I am confused.

Are you asking me to stop my "hissy fit"?
-or-
Asking me to,
Engage with you in a debate as to whether I should have pointed out the need to look at assumptions not just in terms of atheism and theism:
"In a single post" vs. "In one post and the very next post" ?

If your request is the first, consider my "hissy fit" ended.

If your request is the second, then I refuse to engage in such a trivial debate. Which I suppose you may also take as ending my "hissy fit".

Words of wisdom within this site mate...Don't become entangled with people who make it clear their sole intentions are nothing but just to try to bring others down...

I think it has to do with certain people never getting a handle on their own superior/inferior ego, and it manifests its ways that are not conducive to anything productive....And there are a great many they do this too...

One can see they accomplished nothing but trying to use me as an example of how I understood a flaw, in order to try to bring your case down, and then explain how I am no reputable source to even convey the flaw in question(s) So it is easy to see the problem was internal...and nothing you did or have said, nor me or anyone else...

Others who question others social skills and sanities, do not even post in most threads (like this one) that would require one to evaluate social skills and sanities of themselves, and others...

So it is hard for me to see how they are a good example of someone who can rationalize these social skills and sanities themselves...


As far as myself...I did make a thread in which I was not empathetic at the start, but I would say that the ones who are around me much know that I have made drastic changes regarding myself, and the way I view life and others perspectives...

Most people live their life in number of illusions. Religion was simply the first illusion, the first escape from the harsh realities of life. Man’s ego will simply never allow him to accept the fact that life ends just as it begins. Everything that has a beginning has and end and people ultimately end. The illusion of life ever after would soon become a nightmare with no escape available. If there was no death I seriously doubt there would be as many religious cults today.

Each person has what is called a personal narrative this for most part is illusion. For instance those who belong to a religious cult could never accept that they are part of a cult as part of their personal narrative. Theirs is the one true religion while billions of other people belong to religious cults. This is the age of illusions and as more people escape reality by retreating into illusions this world becomes a more dangerous place for all, it is much like those who live in the illusion that they can text and drive at the same time and drive into another car killing a child.

Economics use to drive wars but now religion will become the prime reason for war in this century as religious zealots motivate others to make war on nonbelievers.

Christopher Hitchens demonstrated a lot of courage in criticizing religious cults in the not too distant past he would have been burned at the stake for speaking out against religious cults. During the baby Bush administration some of his more radical allies had proposed that a law be passed against blasphemy that was punishable by death. Since what is religious dogma for one religious cult is blasphemy to another most Americans would have been executed for exercising free speech. In a society where the majority are cult members or at least cult believers it is difficult to speak out. One always has to face the tyranny of the majority.

Izzy why is that religious cult members throughout history have always felt it was their right to execute others who did not believe as they believed? That has to tell you something about religious cults in general.

Christopher Hitchens is like other people, they have many different opinions, and some you like some you don’t. I have read thousands of different authors Hitchens is just one among many.

It is almost impossible to debate a religious cult member because they employ “magical thinking.” When one employs “magical thinking” the most fantastic claims can be stated as irrefutable truths and magical thinking doesn’t have to conform to any know law of the universe. Magically thinking has all the advantages of writing a fictional novel.

Tell me was there any difference between the torturing and burning at the stake of nonbelievers and eugenics? Eugenics is not a product of reason. Criminal actions are never a product of reason but lack of reason.

Well said Spades