RE: Argument against atheism
December 21, 2011 at 8:35 am
(This post was last modified: December 21, 2011 at 8:38 am by Norfolk And Chance.)
(December 21, 2011 at 3:18 am)houseofcantor Wrote: What they call philosobabble I see as naive philosophy. Shall we compare notes? Observe:
What "they" call philosobabble? Um, it is a word that I just recently made up myself, I didn't realise it had caught on...
Anyway, I should get to define it, seeing as though I own the word...
"Philosobabble - A type of constrained pseudo philosophical type thinking, that is more interested in trying to be what the thinker percieves to be philosophically correct, rather than finding truths. This often leads the philosobabbler down an irreversible path towards making absurd statements that they cannot actually recognise as absurd - such as "we don't know the tooth fairy does not exist", or "you can't prove anything exists". It is said (by me
) that the point when a philosophical argument turns to philosobabble, is the point where the conversation becomes effectively meaningless."Bloody hell, I just googled "philosobabble" and it seems that others thought the word up before me! I'm gutted.
I therefore change my word to "philosobollocks".
You are currently experiencing a lucky and very brief window of awareness, sandwiched in between two periods of timeless and utter nothingness. So why not make the most of it, and stop wasting your life away trying to convince other people that there is something else? The reality is obvious.
