RE: Argument against atheism
December 22, 2011 at 5:26 am
(This post was last modified: December 22, 2011 at 5:39 am by Norfolk And Chance.)
(December 22, 2011 at 12:24 am)Perhaps Wrote: For those who believe that proving yourself is possible, or proving anything is possible, I would recommend reading some ontology. If you don't think that ontology has value then I would recommend reading some axiology. If you think philosophy has no value then I would recommend ignorance, for that seems to suit most who blindly accept science as absolute truth.
So, another fucker that thinks that one cannot prove ones own being? Is this what you are saying? Are you? I hope not, because that would make you stupid - despite all of the intelligent sounding stuff that you spout. I have no time for pseudo intellectual philosobollockers.
IF ontology, axiology and philosophy (I'm fucked if I'm going to read it on your advice) say I cannot prove myself or anything, then they are WRONG. Yes, WRONG. Starts with a "W", ends with a "G". Has a fucking "RON" in the middle.
Do you understand? WRONG.
WRONG.
That is the opposite of RIGHT. Just in case you or any other babblers still don't get it.
Quote:A philosophical discussion is merely that - a discussion. There is no argument, for the discussion is what is creating the premises, and without premises an argument isn't an argument. If there is no argument then there is no 'right' or 'wrong'. I'm sorry if this frustrates some who believe that there are such things objectively.
Subjectivity is, perhaps, the point of this thread - or at least what has become of this thread. In a existence where two or more things are conscious there is subjectivity. This subjectivity does not negate the possibility of objectivity outside of the conscious beings. This subjectivity does however negate the possibility that all things are objective - which is the premise of objectivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)).
The recognition that there is a possibility of objectivity outside of the conscious being negates the premise of metaphysical solipsism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism). Thus we are left in a position somewhere between these two. One that recognizes the conscious' effect on our perception of reality while also recognizes the possibility of objective existence outside of our own conscious self.
'Philosobollocks' is only meaningless if you determine it to be so. Like I said, ignorance is a tolerable position to hold, but not one that gives you the right to determine absolute truths or facts.
Are you just a random word generator?.
Meaningless waffle.
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.
