Emotional resilience and Philistinery

[Get me Rex Kramer!]

I have a BA and MA in Philosophy. I also did a years' research with published work in a journal. I am acknowledged in a recent book on Kant. I am a teacher and lecturer. Let's not compare dicks mate.

I don't find atheists' ethics 'quite well developed', I find them cherry picked from various sources that don't necessarily fit together well. In fact, I don't find there to be a credible atheist 'way of thinking' and that's the reason for the discussion: because I feel there should be if what atheists say always already has socialised consequences (and nobody has contradicted me on this so far). This is the main reason I find atheists to be philosophically lacking. As I have mentioned, the symptom of this is the belief that we can build our lives around simple descriptive truths about the physical universe and forget the complexity of human need. I'm glad you would stop at telling someone about to die that there is nothing waiting for them, but I wonder where you do draw the line.

For someone who claims an advanced degree in philosophy, your argument is quite unsophisticated.

You lump atheists together and refer to "atheists' ethics" as though atheism was a philosophy. It is not - it is simply a skeptical stance on the existence of gods.

I suggest you do more reading than writing here until you understand that.

Skepticism is philosophy

---

Just ad hominem rubbish. If you feel that is defending a position, well, I suppose you have?

As I thought. You can't back up your assertions. I have not defended any position I am merely attacking your incapability of backing your assertions in favour of critical theory.

Critical Theory is something quite unlike anything you're talking about.

---

La ban this guy is a troll that, don't feed him.
NOW REX, DO NOT TELL ME WHAT BELIEVE AS A ATHEIST!

As an atheist, you should believe in the human reality of any and all Gods. This should (should!) be a massive problem, but one folks here are very happy to shrug off in self-congratulation. That's the real issue, not what you think you're entitled to think or not think. I think(!)

[Chas]

For someone who claims an advanced degree in philosophy, your argument is quite unsophisticated.

You lump atheists together and refer to "atheists' ethics" as though atheism was a philosophy. It is not - it is simply a skeptical stance on the existence of gods.

I suggest you do more reading than writing here until you understand that.

Skepticism is philosophy

While skepticism is a philosophical stance, atheism is a result of that stance.
Atheism is not a philosophy.

[Get me Rex Kramer!]

Skepticism is philosophy

While skepticism is a philosophical stance, atheism is a result of that stance.
Atheism is not a philosophy.

Lol.

[là bạn điên]

Rex is not a philosopher. He probably prats around in critical race studies or 'American studies' or some other form of cultural marxism. What is clear is that he knows nothing of Anglo-American philosophy.

[azheathen]

A: "why do you think God doesn't exist?"
B: "I need convincing on the basis of evidence; scientific or philosophical proof of God

I fail to see why desiring evidence is a bad thing.

I also fail to see how not believing in a God makes me an unemotional robot.

Also, read this. http://bornagainpagan.com/cartoons/057-d...-door.html

[Esquilax]

While skepticism is a philosophical stance, atheism is a result of that stance.
Atheism is not a philosophy.

Lol.

Such a cogent and well thought out reply! Definitely not a troll, you!

Seriously, if that's the most you're willing to engage in your increasingly hazy fantasy of what atheists are or "should" be, then just fuck off back to Legoland, okay?

[Minimalist]

Seems like there's been an increasing number of completely incoherent posters. Are we sure they're not all the same person?

Marijuana is now legal in Colorado. That could be having an impact.

[Get me Rex Kramer!]

A: "why do you think God doesn't exist?"
B: "I need convincing on the basis of evidence; scientific or philosophical proof of God

I fail to see why desiring evidence is a bad thing.

I also fail to see how not believing in a God makes me an unemotional robot.

Also, read this. http://bornagainpagan.com/cartoons/057-d...-door.html

Not believing in God doesn't make you unemotional. I don't think I said that. I said there is a philosophically backward idea of atheism and etc. that is current and that many people proscribe to. Desiring evidence in that context is a bad thing. Just so we're clear.

---

Seems like there's been an increasing number of completely incoherent posters. Are we sure they're not all the same person?

Marijuana is now legal in Colorado. That could be having an impact.

Drugs reference! Grey alert!

---

Rex is not a philosopher. He probably prats around in critical race studies or 'American studies' or some other form of cultural marxism. What is clear is that he knows nothing of Anglo-American philosophy.

Sorry if you feel so very small

---

Lol.

Such a cogent and well thought out reply! Definitely not a troll, you!

Seriously, if that's the most you're willing to engage in your increasingly hazy fantasy of what atheists are or "should" be, then just fuck off back to Legoland, okay?

OK re-read the comment. He says that skepticism is a 'philosophical stance' and that atheism, which he admits is a result of that stance (an italicised one, no less), isn't a philosophy! It can't be that something that is a result of a philosophical stance is something significantly philosophical? 'Lol' because the mind boggles.

I suppose I am to imagine that thought crosses a magical boundary from 'philosophical thought' to 'political category' just because he feels like saying so! Or perhaps there is something that determines atheism other than and in a more important way than philosophical skepticism? Maybe membership in an atheist forum???

(and if you read me from earlier I said something about the method of doubt and not really 'skepticism', but that's my own view).

Oh, and fuck off yourself. Welcome to my thread.

[Esquilax]

OK re-read the comment. He says that skepticism is a 'philosophical stance' and that atheism, which he admits is a result of that stance (an italicised one, no less), isn't a philosophy! It can't be that something that is a result of a philosophical stance is something significantly philosophical? 'Lol' because the mind boggles.

Can you say "fallacy of composition?"

I suppose I am to imagine that thought crosses a magical boundary from 'philosophical thought' to 'political category' just because he feels like saying so! Or perhaps there is something that determines atheism other than and in a more important way than philosophical skepticism? Maybe membership in an atheist forum???

Fun fact: something can be a stance on a single issue without being either of those two things, even if it's derived from philosophy. Which is beside my original point, which is that "lol" is not an argument.

Oh, and fuck off yourself. Welcome to my thread.

It can be a closed thread by a banned user, if you like.

[KichigaiNeko]