See what the recommendations in the second sticky thread in Great Debates stipulate: “The general rule is to attack the other poster’s arguments, rather than the other poster him- or herself.” I myself have specifically to discuss my statements, not my person, background, beliefs or whatever.
Sorry, but you don’t get to bring up your background as verification and not have it questioned.
I haven’t initiated the thread in order to engage in a debate, but to obtain the arguments I have referred to. I got something, not as much as I had hoped to, but I’m good at budgeting scare resources. As for any other issues, I’d rather leave it for other occasions. I think it’ll be fun.
Don’t do this. I initially insisted to focus on ideas only but you kept asking for personal information, which I provided, in brief supply indeed, only to prove my good faith. If you keep revolving around the details of my person, background and beliefs, I will have strong reason to believe you avoid discussing the ideas.
Where else could it go? Some atheists are strict Kantians; some are utilitarians; some are Marxists, some swear by Nietzsche; some are existentialists, some aren’t; some are what you’d term absolutist, some relativist. As has been pointed out, it’s like asking what redheads would say about philosophy, or what folks who dislike ice cream would say about morality: the one thing they have in common is irrelevant.
No. You got more than you hoped for.
You understood less than you believed. Again, people are not always as rational as they believe themselves to be.
Maslow’s hierarchy says nothing about a meaning to life, let alone an a priori meaning of life. It also would not conclude that such would make fulfillment more easy or effective.
I’m sensing a pattern here…
- Anything of a so-called “personal” nature was a direct response to a statement you made.
- You have yet to answer any of those questions, in good faith or otherwise.
- You were given the only answer possible, but you refused to accept that answer, and it seems to me that you refuse to accept that answer because you already believe a lot nasty things about atheists and you would rather promote those ugly so-called “facts” then listen and learn directly from atheists.
In good faith, my ass.
What is self-sufficient about being dependent on a supreme being for fulfillment?
Did I say Maslow’s hierarchy says anything about the meaning of life? I pointed at Maslow’s hierarchy to show and example of what human basic needs are and I stated: “An a priori meaning to human life seems to enable a person to feel fulfilled more easily and/or effectively.” Pretty straightforward.
Me too. I’m expecting an allegorical joke any minute now.
Self-sufficiency is not to fight your own ignorance, regardless of your beliefs. Both believers and non-believers can be dogmatic and narrow-minded. Personal beliefs have nothing to do with it. I’m not sure why you ask me this.
Because you raised self sufficiency as an argument. About what, I am not entirely sure.
I refuse to make any assumptions related to what in your past might have caused you to make such hasty assumptions and rush to conclusions. I have no advice for you. Let’s just end this, give it some thought if necessary and move on. Life is to short to waste it on fruitless ping pongs.
And too important to let ignorance run rampant. Sorry, but your free pass seems to have expired.
You seem to drift off subject whenever you’re asked a question you don’t want to answer.
Indeed. I’ll ask the same question I’ve asked twice so far, and it’s extremely on-topic.
UY Scuti, you say this:
Please expand on this. On which occasions is an atheist a “rotten apple that may bring suffering and destruction to the whole group”?
This is the ‘Great Debates’ forum. You shouldn’t be surprised to be challenged when you ignorantly disparage such a philosophically diverse group as atheists. And when you make such disparaging remarks, you shouldn’t be surprised when people challenge your personal beliefs.
yeah - because its not like we don’t have examples within Muslim and Christian faiths of ‘bad apples’ that bring suffering and destruction to the whole group…
I’ve asked similar direct, easy to answer questions of UY and was either ignored outright or the response was nowhere near what I asked.
Before you ask me to cite them UY go back and look them up yourself. I’m really starting to wish this thread was in the pit.
The OP’s premise is flawed in a number of ways.
First, the basis for religious belief is on its face irrational, arguably then, attempting to derive “Please Don’t Kill Me” rules then devolve to rules lawyering on the basis of the arguably flawed internal logic of whichever religion is in play.
Second, in particular Islam, intersect killing is routinely practice, in particular see the never ending violence between Sunni and Shia. If selected Muslims cannot be bothered to not kill each other on internal religious issues, what gives non-Muslims a basis for arguing against being murdered?
Third, if there are firm rules in Islam against the sort of violence comprising terroristic acts, then perhaps arguing with self identified Muslims who do this is futile.