RE: Books regarding atheism
November 19, 2019 at 12:07 pm
(This post was last modified: November 19, 2019 at 12:16 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
I am, lol. It was what your mind immediately flung to. You were reflexively arguing against being unintelligent, not what I was asking. That's why fallacious appeals work, they play on our cognitive apparatus. Hey, leave that aside, though. What do you think..assuming some other person who wasnt you making some other fallacious appeal that you did not make. Would that be a justification for atheism? Is it likely, or likely true, that hearing a pentacostal nutter say something stupid is the reason that a person stops believing in gods...and is such a poor justification justification at all?
For the other - I'm asking the same question..but..yes, posing it in a slightly different way, in order to show the fundamental problem with the setup. On the one hand we have batshit apologists, who need some concrete positive position to argue against in order to wantonly bullshit their audience about atheism. On the other, we have atheists who have a similar need, albeit leveraged to a different end. They want to have a justification, and a good one, and they would very much like their justification to address said batshits bullshit.
I'm asking whether it's possible for that justification, whatever it is, to be in error. Not in factual error, in error as justification for the fact of their non belief. Is it what made them non believers, or just a coat they've draped their non belief in, for intellectual comfort, and likely as a direct response to provocation?
For the other - I'm asking the same question..but..yes, posing it in a slightly different way, in order to show the fundamental problem with the setup. On the one hand we have batshit apologists, who need some concrete positive position to argue against in order to wantonly bullshit their audience about atheism. On the other, we have atheists who have a similar need, albeit leveraged to a different end. They want to have a justification, and a good one, and they would very much like their justification to address said batshits bullshit.
I'm asking whether it's possible for that justification, whatever it is, to be in error. Not in factual error, in error as justification for the fact of their non belief. Is it what made them non believers, or just a coat they've draped their non belief in, for intellectual comfort, and likely as a direct response to provocation?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
