RE: Meaningfulness v meaninglessness; theism vs atheism;
January 17, 2011 at 3:18 pm
(This post was last modified: January 17, 2011 at 3:19 pm by Welsh cake.)
(January 15, 2011 at 7:32 pm)dqualk Wrote: Listen welsh cake, as much as you would like to avoid responsibility by saying that you are not related to each other, you are wrong!Boy, you're really not making any sense. Even if you are giving a legitimate response to my post, as opposed to talking out of your arse that is, it is highly arrogant and presumptuous of you to assume that simply because you disagree with me, for no apparent reason, I must somehow automatically be "wrong" because you are inherently "right", its just a darn shame that you've demonstrated from the start you have little to no grasp of what atheism actually means and consequently offended several people in the process which doesn't bowed well for your first impressions on these forums.
Quote:You see, this is the way we categorize anything, especially within a Darwinian world! Things that are similar in a way we can group together. For example, there is no actual yform of tree out there, yet we recognize that it is useful to group trees together so we do it. In the same way it is useful for me to group atheists together, and to make general assumptions and analogies about them as a whole, now naturally this process wont be perfect, as there are always those who do not quite fit within the category, but are unfortunately lumped in. But this is the way the world works. We have to generalize sometimes to make a point.That's nothing more than an inductive logical fallacy, specifically a hasty generalization fallacy you've presented there, so that you may cling to any prejudices you may have about atheism and other people who simply don't think or believe the way you do.
Are you ready to learn what atheism is yet? Or would you rather prefer to continue trolling like the self-righteous hypocritical bigot that you are making yourself out to be? Kindly let us know.
