By contrast, you’re more than welcome to address me from the pulpit, so long as you actually respond to my questions. Any minute now. Aaaaany minute now…
This is a distortion of my question. I only asked for a rational argument from the best to provide it.
Jeez you’re obnoxious. You come in to this forum, say some really and truly vile things about atheists and atheism, and then act aggrieved when you’re called on it.
I’ll say it simply. You have said some incorrect and bigoted things about atheists and atheism. This has been pointed out to you, in a calm and reasonable manner (and in a mocking manner by some, I’ll grant). You have pretty much ignored the reasonable and calm challenges to your statements, while acting aggrieved for the mocking and snark.
That’s unkind, obnoxious, and intellectually dishonest.
It makes me think you’re not truly interested in discourse; you really some only interested in repeating vile things about atheists and atheism and acting like these are reasonable things to say. It’s not OK to say ‘atheists have no intrinsic morality’, or things that imply that statement, and when you do imply that, you should expect to be challenged on it.
Several pages back I tried to explain that there is no rational argument to be made to an irrational person.
I added that to the list of sound arguments; the problem is I can’t use it. But it is a valuable one.
What exactly pointed you to this ancient piece of crap from someone no one has ever heard from as a valid point to start the discussion at?
Who or what lead you to that website?
This is wrong. Even if I may sound vehement, my interest is an honest one. The very paper I have mentioned is written by an atheist. If you don’t feel like talking about it seriously I bear no grudge against you and I don’t think you’re obnoxious or dishonest. This is just a screen in front of us and I imagine you are a nice person in real life, someone who helps people in need and whom I may help in turn if necessarily. It’s one thing to talk about a theoretical problem and a completely different one to call people names and stuff.
What names have I called anyone? You put up a link to someone (and who cares if they say that they’re an atheist!) who says atheists have no intrinsic (or solid, or whatever) morality and ethical system. That’s not only wrong, but it’s highly offensive.
How do you know? Tell us about this Randal Bradley, and how you came to know about him? What drew you to his lone treatise on the subject of atheism?
What’s that thing called where you form your conclusion first and then interpret any information in such a way as to support that conclusion?
I gave a list brief list of what atheists seem to be like (besides refusing to believe in “the divine”) and instead of discussing the elements in the list I received answers like “Atheists are not like that,” or “Atheists are too diverse,” or “Who told you atheists are like this?” and so on. Seeing that people are reluctant to discuss the ideas in the brief list I have presented, I have now come up with a philosophical paper that is even more comprehensive, which people dismiss without even reading it. It’s okay. I don’t want to impose anything to anyone, especially since the thread has reached its goal already and it’s drifting away out of inertia.
It’s one of several logical fallacies on display from the OP.
Your list was crap, and we are wondering how you found it and why you believe it.
Your premise is flawed. Why would people be interested in continuing to discuss a flawed premise?
You: Unicorns have 3 horns.
Me: Unicorns don’t exist.
You: Why can’t you discuss the idea that unicorns have 3 horns.
…
You’ve been told your premise is flawed, but you insist people argue on the basis of them. At best, that’s asinine.
Somewhere back I gave a couple of links to Wikipedia articles too. If you’re willing to discuss ideas, I’m willing to reply. Anything else is a futile, in my opinion.
Consider this- someone puts forward a list of things like “Jews are greedy”, “Jews believe it’s morally OK to lie and cheat non-Jews”, “Black people are intellectually and morally inferior to white people”… and we dismiss this list as not worth discussion.
Do you believe such a list would be worth discussion? If not, why is your list worthy of discussion?
Prove it; I’m willing to discuss ideas, and still await your reply.
This is “p because I say so.”
I discuss such things on a daily basis because I regard myself a rational being.
There exists such a thing as bigoted, ignorant crap in this world. Claims that Jews are conspiring to control the world’s monetary supply are bigoted, ignorant crap, and can be dismissed. Claims that atheists have no solid moral and ethical system are also bigoted, ignorant crap, and can be dismissed.