Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou know, I'm really getting tired of your sexism in this forum, and especially your misogyny.
the fig tree didn't lack faith you numpty! bwahahaha, it was used as an illustration, tell that to Wendy Wells when you see him
You're not doing the Christians here any favors. Should you be pruned?
Originally posted by Suzianneserve no fruit? hmmm, what would you have a slice of lime with your luke warm watered down Christianity? If you ever espouse anything other than your inflated opinions let us know.
Hmmmmm.
Perhaps we should also prune this forum of those Christians who serve no "fruit", as they certainly are a "burden" on those Christians who are trying to represent!?!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou don't understand atheism. You think you do, but you don't. You continue to attribute ideas, positions, issues, "implications", and "reverberations" to atheists which pertain only to theism, and then really only to one particular, historically and culturally specific, Abrahamic, branch of theism.
There is nothing wrong with my faculty of reasoning my former master. Infact i remain logical and capable of rational thought. Have I insinuated that it has bearing on your morality, no, but i really think that it must and demonstrably so. Let us take an example. The atheists here are big defenders of so called 'gay rights', infact i have yet to ...[text shortened]... urpassed my former Master when wretched pupils like Ghost of a Duke and Googlewendy have failed?
Here's how it is: you embrace a Ptolemaic model of the solar system. That system is premised on epicycles to explain the retrograde motions of the planets. Along comes Copernicus; his system has no epicycles. You reject the Copernican system because it has no epicycles. Copernicus explains that, on his system, epicycles are not needed, but you continue to object, "But how do you explain retrograde motions without epicycles?!" Copernicus explains that there are no retrograde motions and therefore nothing to explain; the apparent retrograde motions of the planets were merely an artifact of the Ptolemaic model, which no longer applies. And you still don't get it; you still reject Copernicus because you're still fixated on retrograde motions and epicycles.
Analogously, you interpret atheism only through the distorting lens of Christianity, as if atheism were Christianity with a God-shaped hole in it, and, of course, under those preconceptions, atheism looks incoherent to you.
Atheism has nothing whatever to say about gay rights or abortion.
Originally posted by SuzianneI suggest that if you have any real concerns, that is, those other than the imagined, fabricated, propagandised and fantasised opinions bordering on the criminally insane that you seem to think have any credence beyond the ludicrous values which you have inflated them with then i suggest you tell the site administration or at very least, someone that cares and can help you.
You know, I'm really getting tired of your sexism in this forum, and especially your misogyny.
You're not doing the Christians here any favors. Should you be pruned?
2 edits
Originally posted by moonbusMy former master you keep trying to assert that the chess board is in equilibrium when your hand reaches forward and picks up the king pawn and places it on e4. This is demonstrably not the case, the chess board is not in equilibrium once you take a stance.
You don't understand atheism. You think you do, but you don't. You continue to attribute ideas, positions, issues, "implications", and "reverberations" to atheists which pertain only to theism, and then really only to one particular, historically and culturally specific, Abrahamic, branch of theism.
Here's how it is: you embrace a Ptolemaic model of the s ...[text shortened]... sm looks incoherent to you.
Atheism has nothing whatever to say about gay rights or abortion.
I have already explained that in declaring there is no God you have taken such a stance and that this position reverberates out in all directions and has effect on all kinds of values, from homosexuality, to abortion, to euthanasia. I have already explained why, there is a lack of any moral imperative other than the atheists own faculty of conscience which may or may not be functioning.
When one removes the lintel on a tunnel shaft are we to suppose that the tunnel will not fall own because of its absence, hardly! Shall we then declare that there never was a lintel and that to think otherwise is silly? Hardly, atheism is by its very nature the negation of a theistic perspective and has a symbiotic relationship to it. Try as you will my former master you cannot escape this inevitability and it matters not whether its Abrahamic or any other manifestation of the divine, atheism is its antithesis.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou talk of standards, values, a moral code of conduct. Have a look at Exodus 22:18 and tell me, is that the code you live by?
No moral imperative sir, nothing, nada, centre of the world largest doughnut, wishy washy namby pamby wendyism at its most insipid! Its not a moral bias sir, its standards, values, a code of conduct, all the good things which atheism lacks!
If so, we are well rid of it.
Originally posted by moonbusYou pick a single verse from the book of Exodus and attempt to extract some kind of leverage from it? My goodness, what are we to think? You understand that I am a Christian, do you understand how the Mosaic law with its ordinances and mandates relates to Christianity?
You talk of standards, values, a moral code of conduct. Have a look at Exodus 22:18 and tell me, is that the code you live by?
If so, we are well rid of it.
Originally posted by moonbusAtheists on the other hand may have a lot to say about gay rights and abortion, but not because they are atheists and so one atheist may have a completely different opinion from another on those matters, just as one afairyist may have a different opinion from another afairyist. The mistake is to attribute those opinions to afairyism.
Atheism has nothing whatever to say about gay rights or abortion.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe claim is not that there will not be a divergence of opinion among wendyists but that their wendyism will have an impact on these values. It is absurd to think otherwise.
Atheists on the other hand may have a lot to say about gay rights and abortion, but not because they are atheists and so one atheist may have a completely different opinion from another on those matters, just as one afairyist may have a different opinion from another afairyist. The mistake is to attribute those opinions to afairyism.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHow would you say your lack of belief in rabid dogs ruling the Universe from Pluto affects your morality/values/etc.?
The claim is not that there will not be a divergence of opinion among wendyists but that their wendyism will have an impact on these values. It is absurd to think otherwise.
1 edit
All afairyists have a fairy shaped hole in their hearts.
And rocks are afairyists ... in case you were wondering.
And Catholics that are missing a wing are only half fairies.
And if you believed in the tooth fairy, you would know that babies don't really matter until they grow teeth, so your afairyism affects your stance on abortion.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorrayes if it had any bearing on my perception of reality and once again its absurd to think otherwise. your attempt to reduce the idea to absurdity has failed.
How would you say your lack of belief in rabid dogs ruling the Universe from Pluto affects your morality/values/etc.?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou have stated, and you are wrong, as we have explained several times [this thread].
I have already explained that in declaring there is no God you have taken such a stance
Atheism is most broadly a lack of belief in gods and most atheists simply lack belief in gods
rather than believe in a lack of gods.
Someone [like me say] who believes in a lack of gods might declare that there are no gods.
However most atheists who simply lack belief in gods are and have not declared that there
are no gods only that they do not currently have a belief that any exist.
So by claiming that by being an atheist one has declared that no gods exist [or taken any position
on the subject whatsoever] you are making a factually incorrect claim to start off with.
All atheists have made no such claim. Not even a majority make such a claim.
But worse, as we have explained many times over, even if that claim were true it STILL would not
prove what you want it to prove. Because you fail to comprehend the direction of cause and effect.
For a persons ethics to be necessarily caused by and attributable to their theist/atheist status
it cannot be true that there are any ethical systems which come to the same result regardless
of that status. In other-words it must be the case for ALL possible moral systems that changing
a person from theist to atheist [or vice-versa] will change their moral system.
As we have multiply demonstrated that this is not true and that there are many moral systems that are
wholly independent of a persons atheist/theist status then you CANNOT claim that it is necessarily true
that whether a person is an atheist or not WILL change their morality.
Atheism is [almost always] an effect of a belief system, not the cause of one.
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeNo one is disputing that there is diverse values among Wendyists, this has already been covered.
You have stated, and you are wrong, as we have explained several times [this thread].
Atheism is most broadly a lack of belief in gods and most atheists simply lack belief in gods
rather than believe in a lack of gods.
Someone [like me say] who believes in a lack of gods might declare that there are no gods.
However most atheists who simply lack ...[text shortened]... heir morality.
Atheism is [almost always] an effect of a belief system, not the cause of one.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo it's not absurd.
yes if it had any bearing on my perception of reality and once again its absurd to think otherwise. your attempt to reduce the idea to absurdity has failed.
Your ethics and morality are effected by your world view and beliefs.
They are not effected by the infinite number of possible things you do not believe or think.
Also, even for things you do believe, all those that can change without changing your ethics
also do not effect your ethics.
If a person could switch between being a theist and being an atheist [or vice-versa] without
changing their ethics, then whether they are an atheist or not has no bearing on their moral
system.
For you to prove that whether you are an atheist or not necessarily changes your morality
you must prove that there are no possible [let alone extant] moral/ethical systems where
changing a person from theist to atheist or from atheist to theist doesn't change their morality.
As I/we can cite examples of systems where it is possible to make that change without effecting
ones ethics this is evidently impossible.