Say what you gotta to escape, and then rationally answer the terrorist with a bullet.
That was a general you, not a *you *you.
If I really do this, I’m unaware of it. I’ll try to prevent it.
I have a magical kitten in my pocket that has already warned me about what your mouse is doing and what you’re planning to do.
Uh huh.
I’ve already hinted that you may have a limited view on terrorism, but I don’t want to delve in this subject. Guerrilla warfare and terrorism may or may not be similar, and terrorism may or may not be successful in the long run. Terrorism is bad and virtually everyone agrees on this.
Your kitten told you you were going to die??? :eek:
There are, for instance, cases of non-missionary believers whose faith does not harm anybody and who still are ridiculed in class or at work by militant atheists.
This remark doesn’t honor you, especially when the arguments you have presented so far show a great logical apparatus. Yet I humbly thank you for helping me to combat the attitude mentioned in the OP.
There’s more to the lack of belief in gods than meets the eye. Atheists’ beliefs do coagulate to form (more or less) coherent philosophical systems.
Exactly.
Let’s consider a paper that at least some of you may have heard about. It is entitled The Atheist’s Guide to the Philosophical Wasteland. It its first part, the author presents a list of atheist conclusions:
And yet we have to argue on terrorists’ terms and make an impression on people who don’t think terrorism is so bad. Or else… something something.
And yet in the very next sentence you do it again
Can you provide a rational argument as to why a person that listens to a magical mouse that has told this person that killing you will bring a spectacular reward should NOT kill you? This question directly relates to the question you posed in the OP, so how about answering it?
No, I don’t “do it again.” It only seems so to a biased eye, in my opinion. The question relates *indirectly *to the question I posed in the OP, not directly. It paraphrases it metaphorically, which adds personal twists and leaves room for ambiguity. I am looking for a rational, logical approach, not a poetical one.
It relates directly and very simply. Your failure to answer suggests that you want other people to jump through hoops but don’t want to address a problem with the premise of the thread.
Take my question as a thought experiment, it it’s not too much to ask.
I’ve never heard of this silly list or the author, Randal Bradley.
I answered it in the same manner you asked me. You can’t claim a question including a magical mouse has been answered inappropriately because I use a magical kitten.
Not even close. I’m struggling to believe that wasn’t deliberate.
Sounds like you’re changing what you said. This sounds like “some atheists are assholes”, which I agree with. Before, you said “some atheists are rotten apples that bring suffering and destruction to the whole group”. That implies more than a few assholes, unless you’re saying something as trivial as “some atheists are bad people who do bad things” which, while true, is so extremely obvious that there’s no reason to mention it.
Once again, I’d like to ask the question I don’t see you answering: you’ve now posted a copy-and-paste insisting that, for atheists, there are no universal and objective values; there’s no universal and objective morality, but personal morality is possible; that justification is not necessary; and et cetera.
So: what changes if there’s a god? What universal and objective values suddenly apply that weren’t in effect before? Why, if I was correctly ignoring some guy when applying my personal morality, shouldn’t I ignore some god when applying my personal morality? Why figure a god’s statements about morality are universal and objective if nobody else’s are?
Most of those conclusions are incorrect for most atheists.