It doesn't matter what you say, I think all Muslims are insane bigoted fanatics.
Doesn't leave much room for discussion, does it? Your strawman of atheism doesn't either.
OK, so who else is *** with Sam, ...
- Thread starter phlogistician
- Start date
- Status
It doesn't matter what you say, I think all Muslims are insane bigoted fanatics.
Doesn't leave much room for discussion, does it? Your strawman of atheism doesn't either.
So you're not a better person than he? Congratulations.
Your analogy is very flawed.
What she said may not apply to all atheists, but doesn't it apply to plenty of them?
I did not realise it was a competition, however, I argued based on what I heard him say and supported my reasons for rebuttal with arguments.
Atheists have told you there's is simply a lack of belief in god, some drink, some don't, some kill, some don't. There's no book, no system, no shared concepts of anything they are all independent. As hard as you might find it to believe not all of them want to wipe religion from the face of the earth.
Just show me where something not falsifiable is not belief. :shrug:
An "Abrahamic creationist liberal" is a contradiction in terms.
Frankly, I don't think you realize the implications of believing in a creator god who will judge all people,
and then send some to eternal heaven and others to eternal hellfire.
If we believe you, where does this leave us? It leaves us believing that we are condemned to eternal hellfire.
This, if taken seriously, is an unspeakably terrifying prospect. Which all people wish to avoid.
If we are to take you seriously at all, you surely have to do better than present "opinions".
You can't just come forward with a belief that condemns a large number of mankind to eternal hellfire and think that people will treat your words as mere "opinion". You have as much as declared a war.
Only if you believe in hell.
Do you?
Or is this another instance of a club where people are fighting against stuff they don't believe in?
Ok I read though as much as I could and discovered:
- Same may or may not be female: see rule of the internet #15
- SAM maybe a Muslim women which means she probably beaten, raped and oppressed on a daily bases, right?
-SAM believes atheism is a religion
-SAM disagree with secular humanism too
-SAM loves the people in "Gitmo"
-SAM uses Relativist Fallacy
-SAM uses Generalization Fallacy
Ok I seen enough I'll state my judgment...
- Same may or may not be female: see rule of the internet #15
- SAM maybe a Muslim women which means she probably beaten, raped and oppressed on a daily bases, right?
-SAM believes atheism is a religion
-SAM disagree with secular humanism too
-SAM loves the people in "Gitmo"
-SAM uses Relativist Fallacy
-SAM uses Generalization Fallacy
Ok I seen enough I'll state my judgment...
That is what I thought the definition was, but it turns out, S.A.M was using the correct definition. "Atheism is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism." (From wiki) And she is certainly correct that, by that definition, atheism is a belief.
This kind of bugs me
There is something not cool about being agnostic. I don't want to have to say I am one... so I won't Perhaps you'd like to explain exactly how it can be falsifiable to prove you disbelieve in something's truth? Remember atheism is lacking belief in god, not claiming it's non-existence.
A religion is an organised system. A belief is not. I believe atheism is unfalsifiable and hence falls under the category of a belief system due to lack of rigor in experimental testing.
Correct. Most athiests are unwilling to admit they are believers
. But epistemologically, that is the correct definition.This kind of bugs me
Scientifically, this is the most rigorous position. :m:
Its also the most difficult. I was agnostic for several years and now and again I slip back into it.
You should read the book if you plan on arguing against it, arguing from hearsay is pure folly. You've stooped to his level but expect yourself to be taken seriously. This is hypocritical.
Her strawman of atheism is at least as flawed.
Which assertion? That atheists are just theists with their polarity reversed? I've been hearing that since I first ventured on to the internet; it has never ceased to be false. There is a difference between believing that unicorns exist, and being extremely skeptical about their existence (to the point where you might even treat someone who insists that they exist derisively). Comparing unicorns to gods often infuriates theists, but that doesn't change the fact that there is an equal amount of evidence for the existence of either.
The difference being I am at least listening to other opinions and have not decried all atheists as militant terrorists who need re-education to get the IPU out of their ass, while using my scientific credentials to demonise 80% of the world.
My Judgement!
Despite SAM's possible personal failings and bias no evidence has been present of s/he abusing s/he power as moderator or of s/he violating forum rules and policy.
It is my judgment (no matter how much I would love to be moderator of the Biology forum) that SAM shalt remain moderate from now until oblivion or until actually viable evidence arises. SO SAYS THE GREAT FETUS, ALL MUST LISTEN, ALL MUST OBAY!!!
(you don't have to give a dam, just in case you did not know that)
Despite SAM's possible personal failings and bias no evidence has been present of s/he abusing s/he power as moderator or of s/he violating forum rules and policy.
It is my judgment (no matter how much I would love to be moderator of the Biology forum) that SAM shalt remain moderate from now until oblivion or until actually viable evidence arises. SO SAYS THE GREAT FETUS, ALL MUST LISTEN, ALL MUST OBAY!!!
(you don't have to give a dam, just in case you did not know that)
- Status