(August 11, 2015 at 4:22 am)robvalue Wrote: Indeed.
You can't "defeat" a weak atheist in any shape or form, because they make no positive claims.
That makes it very hard for people (the people that bother to understand the above point anyway) because they want atheism to be making claims, so they can thwart those claims and make themselves feel better. So they tell atheists what kind of atheists they are (strong atheists as a minimum) and then add on what they believe are the logical consequences of the belief. They then merrily back away at this effigy, and after "defeating" it, they think they've somehow proven atheism wrong. All they've done is made a mess in their bedroom.
Strong atheism is very easy to defend anyway, but the point is that people like Rik require everyone to be strong atheists so they can attack "atheism". They also require them to be philosophical naturalists, which is actually quite rare in my experience. I'll let Rik explain what that means.
Holy, holy Rob.
You are in a total mental mess.
There is no such a thing as a philosophical naturalist.
Philosophy is all about wisdom and wisdom can not come from a limited arena as the universe
in which the positive and negative always balance each other.
On the contrary the definition given for the word philosophical naturalist mean someone who believe that the natural world is all there is.
How the hell can someone who believe that the natural world is all there is and at the same time talk about philosophy which goes outside the physical world.
Total madness Rob.
