Atheists... Your life is pointless

Ah, more revelation of the intent of Barfikus--rhetorical questions with the intent to bring your interlocutors into disrepute.

On October 29th, i wrote, flippanly:

Setanta wrote:

This goofy thread title wrote:

Atheists... Your life is pointless

That being the case, there's no reason to respond.

Subsequently, on November 7th, i wrote:

Quote:

There is actually a very pathetic aspect to the thread title. By inference, it states that a theist's life is meaningful because of the theist's belief in a deity. It externalizes the individual's sense of self-worth, and worse, identifies it with their imaginary friend, whose existence cannot be demonstrated. All rather sad, really.

So, in fact, i've added my comments on this idiotic thread long, long ago. I rather suspect that you showed up somewhere between page 90 and page 100, didn't bother to read the thread, and just started flailing away with your personal imaginary friend superstition. My original reponse to this thread, on October 29th, was in response to its character as a "have you stopped beating your wife" conundrum. Basically, John Creasy showed up with an inferential demand that atheists prove that their lives have meaning, and an assumption that all devotees of the imaginary friend supestition have meaningful lives by definition.

Then you show up, don't bother to read the thread, pay little heed to either the title or its implications, and start spouting largely meaningless mumbo-jumbo which constitutes religious sound bytes--and so i characterize your "contributions" as drivel, and assert that you have contributed no cogent comment on the topic of this thread.

That is what is known in the trade as drivel.

Setanta wrote:
You wouldn't know wisdom if it bit you in the ass . . . how precisely does that junior high drivel purport to relate to this topic?


You tell me....

Setanta stated:

Not necessarily . . .
(In regards to all of man agreeing on any one thing to be true)
That would simply be the most gross case of argumentum ad populum . . . it would not be unreasonable to assert that at one time, every human on earth believed that the sun orbits the earth . . .

Anatole France says it best: If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.

The sky might not be blue.
Water may not be wet.

Mankind might not be the final authority on.....anything.?

Does anyone agree or disagree with what is here?

What points do you agree or disagree with? Why(means not just calling it drivel) Give arguments please I want to see the your views?

Go spread your religious poison someplace where you'll be more welcomed. Religius drivel is worse than horse shet. AT least horseshet has good use.

and you have no substance of argument.