To hell with that. Atheism is no less metaphysical than theism. All you sophistry will not change that.
How the hell did you get that out of anything that I’ve ever said? Quit attacking straw men.
Are we going to do this again? :sigh:
There is no empirical evidence for love, justice, fear, anger, hate, wisdom, or any other of a myriad intangible things. Just because you can’t meassure it, doesn’t mean it’s not there.
Belief in God is real. That doesn’t mean God is real. You’re trying to twist that argument around, and that’s one meme I’m really tired of. What’s next - half an eye and the blind (or maybe half eyed) watchmaker?
“Fighting ignorance”
No, you’re propagating it.
So, you admit you have nothing to support your theory?
'Scuse me, but where did I say I believe in God? My ideas on the subject would be closer to Buddhism and Hinduism than Judeo-Christian thought. I’m just woefully of this lame, half-witted argument that so many atheists seem to think is profoundly insightful or something.
Free will is a question of metaphysics. It doesn’t matter whether you believe or disbelieve in free will, your answer to that question necessarily will involve metaphysical reasoning at some critical junction of your argument. Theism and atheism are likewise metaphysical doctrines; the difference is that many atheists aren’t honest enough to admit it.
If so, you’re a star student.
Careful with that straw man. It might be a fire hazard.
Asshole, I wised up and dropped out of the ignorance academy decades ago. Apparently you went on to get a doctorate, magna cum laude.
Oh no, Guy On Message Board is mad at me. Rarr.
Never?
NEVER?
On what empirical basis do you say that? Gosh, such a confident declaration of what will never be, that sounds almost… religious.
See now how meaningless it is to assert that any kind of belief whatsoever can be regarded as a religion?
That was sweet.
Mime rhymes with “rhyme”.
Is that what you meant?
No, no! To hell with that.
Do I win?
Still nothing? Come on, at least take five minutes for a Google search.
::chuckle:: Can you imagine some of the thread titles that would produce? "Attention former glasses wearers: “How much did your Light Amplification by the Stimulated emmision of radiation Epithelial Keratomileusis surgery cost?”
I hate the overuse of the term ad hominem.
The term has now seemingly become synonymous with insult (not just here, but all over the Internet), which is ridiculous because a) we already have “insult” in the lexicon, a shorter, less prissy, English word, as opposed to a Latin phrase, and b) an ad hominem is a very specific style of argument which is almost universally never picked up on in online debates despite all the accusations of ad hominem flying around:
“the research stating that passive smoking doesn’t cause cancer is obviously not true as the research was funded by tobacco companies”, “research stating that global warming is non-anthropogenic in origin is obviously bogus as it was funded by big oil” and “Labour’s figures for oil income in Scotland are skewed as they have a vested interest in keeping the union together” - all three of these are ad hominems!
You didn’t and I never claim you did. It’s just that when theists (of whatever faith) claims that not believing in something is a belief system, they’re jumping through so many philosophy 101 hoops it’s kinda amusing
Not believing something doesn’t constitute a blief system. That there are atheists who argue their position with the same fervor a tv evangelist has when arguing for Jesus, still doesn’t mean there is a belief system.
/ :eek:
Oh, dear.
LonesomePolecat, since I’ve never been a student of philosophy (and since I try to recognize my own limitations), I’m not going to engage you in a philosophical argument, but there are some things about what you’ve advanced that I’d like to address.
Assuming that I understand what you mean by “unreasoning” (and I think I do), your argument doesn’t apply to me.
I was raised with a fairly fundamentalist version of religion that, as far as I could tell, wasn’t (and still isn’t) based on any other reasoning (if we’re going to call it “reasoning”) than “God (or, the Bible) said it, I believe it, that settles it.” When I learned to think for myself (and after enduring years of not ever having anyone make a serious, independently thoughtful attempt at answering my childhood questions about religion), I…well, began to think for myself, and I eventually “reasoned” that there was an insurmountable and unsolvable conflict between what I was taught as a child and what I’d experienced and observed in the world. Thus, my atheism.
No, I didn’t. I think I understand how you got that from my other post, but that’s actually not how I feel.
What I mean is this: I am as much of–if not moreso–oh, fuck it, definitely moreso–a cynic about the human condition than most people (which is why, despite some of the things he says, I tend to “get,” for example, Der Trihs). The thing is, though, I’ve been fortunate enough to meet/know of/have in my life people who give me reason to hope that we’ll eventually get our shit together. I’ll admit that this is a daily battle for me (and it will likely not have been decided before I die), but yeah, I hope for “earthly paradise.” Talmudically: one is not required to complete the work, but one is not permitted to desist from it either.
As for your philosophical reasoning? Like I said, I can’t go there (i.e., I’m pre-emptively putitng my tail between my legs). I’ll leave that to folks like Charlie Tan and Czarcasm, who I’m guessing are much more knowledgeable than I am about the subject.
Oh, and I think that **Nancarrow ** made a good point. Made me chuckle, too.