What do religions base their behaviors on?

sheesh

Get back to us when you can manage a reply that doesn't entertain adhoms at a greater ration than about 1:2

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Lol, Pot calling the kettle black comes to mind.

Wikipedia.

Your argument has been defeated (see above Bolded), so in this case it is merely an insult, and one that you thoroughly deserved, as you do have compounded ignorance. You've been here for years spouting out the same drivel, even though you have been shown your error by numerous members from the onset.
You seem to delight in your ignorance.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

one noble quality that you previously exhibited that your friends/possible socks sure don't is the ability to post at a lower ad hom ratio than 1:2

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

lightgigantic

I must of hit a nerve.

Almost every one of your quotes has subtle insults, the difference is other people have the balls to actually say it.


Just so you know I am answering because you are not continuing your flawed argument, I am pointing out your failings.

 

Sure
I treat all potential socks in a similar manner of brevity

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Religious people look to there peers, elders, priests, etc, for guidance, some go as far to actually study there holy books in order to become said peers, elders, etc. However they all start from a brainwashed/indoctrinated basis, none come to god from there own fruition, well not without some kind of trauma happening in there lives. Those who claim they chose belief in a deity, are deluding themselves, if they were intellectually honest they would admit this. No rational person turns to irrationality for guidance. So their behaviour is born from their books and their peers, and never from a rational standpoint.

 

meh
for as long as it is rational to glean a complete understanding of philosophy from atheist hate sites

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Firstly what is an atheist hate site?. And secondly nothing can be gleaned completely or even partially from philosophy, it is a subjective discipline all you could possibly glean is an opinion, so it wouldn't be rational. Thus it would only be possible to glean philosophical supposition from any site, atheist or not.

Having said that what does your reply have to do with the reply I gave to superluminal?.

 

With 11,668 posts in 4 years, averaging out at approximately 7 posts a day, it appears you don't have a life to live and need to get out more.

What a cliché!
When someone else chimes in you label them a sockpuppet, I suppose that's a good way of never having to accept criticism for what you say.
How convenient.

 

.... come now, don't play coy

so you're willing to accept that your philosophical take on theism is not even completely or partially rational?

It says that your reply is a mere opinion trying to play the charade of a fact.
IOW your whole notion that a departure into theism is a departure into the irrational is simply an attempt to bypass philosophy.

 

Feel free to make an attempt to discuss the topic.
Otherwise disappear into the mothballs for another 5 years.
okay?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No playing coy here, sunshine. What is an atheist hate site? either explain or retract the statement.

I don't have a subjective take on theism, I leave that to the theist, Supposition, assumption, is all the theist has, it would be cruel to deny them the only thing they have.

How so, explain.

It is simply to include philosophy not bypass it, without any objective evidence, philosophy is all the theist has. I'm really glad you noticed that.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

at one stage you even had one posted under your avatar

phew that's a relief
for a moment I thought you trying to say something substantial about theism

its your attempt to place "evidence" on a higher pedestal than "philosophy" that makes it obvious you can't/won't pay attention to detail

 

Already have, but you seem to have a selective memory.

How mature of you.

 

Double post, I apologise.

 

ok

ok

 

What?, supply a link to a known atheist hate site or retract the statement.

There is nothing substantial one could say about theism it is all supposition, assumption, imagination, opinion, Didn't you understand that from my last post, or was this just your poor attempt at sarcasm.

Well duh! philosophy is purely subjective, is it hard for you to grasp the difference, between objective and subjective.

You know me how.
Anyhow are you saying that I should simply accept the musing of a theist, above the facts. You are kidding Right.

 

Just think of a site you would reference for any of your material on theism

Its hard to work out what you are saying. First you say that you aren't offering a subjective take on theism ... the next moment you offer a subjective take on theism

ha

Not as hard as it would be for you to establish the grounds for something being objective or even subjective without calling upon philosophy

Its not so much knowing you but seeing the glaring errors you make in trying to relegate philosophy to the realm of the subjective (and without calling upon the tools of philosophy too, I might add ....)

actually at this point I am just trying to point out the incoherency that one makes by declaring evidence can be approached before or even without philosophy

 

I can't think of a one, So we can take it you're talking bollocks and leave it at that.

Where? anyhow that's your job, your the theist.

Why would anyone other than the theist, need philosophy. You don't need philosophy, to prove reality. Reality is mind-independent, talk sense, for f**k sake.

If you believe philosophy to be something other than subjective, then the floor is yours.
Show me

As said, show me. Just spouting of at the mouth isn't going to cut it. Either show me or retract the statement, We've seen how well you tackled the atheist hate site, so I'm keen to see the impossible, so go right ahead.

 

Philosophy is purely subjective, every idea is valid within philosophy. If I were to propose that transcendent trans-dimensional universe building pixies were the first cause(quote of matt dilluhunty), it would be just as valid as the Christian, Hindu, or Muslim perspectives.
Thus philosophy is not an accurate way of discerning the truth.