RE: I am atheist,but I do not like science.
July 8, 2012 at 7:49 pm
(This post was last modified: July 8, 2012 at 8:14 pm by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
(July 8, 2012 at 1:57 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: You're still making assumptions, and still refusing to question them.
...says the guy who believes in the Great Fucking Pumpkin....
(July 8, 2012 at 1:57 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: I didn't say that we couldn't know anything for certain. You just made that part up.
How many times have we heard this now? One-note Johnny Troll.
Quote:I'm asking you how you know things. I'm asking how you justify your beliefs. Now you're just refusing to answer the question.
You are equivocating the shit out of the word "belief", and for the thousandth time atheists are not atheists because we believe in anything. We don't *have* to believe anything at all.
Quote:(July 8, 2012 at 12:58 pm)whateverist Wrote: As a strict matter of logic, lots of patently absurd possibilities exist. You would have us realize this in order to suggest we question the possibility of all evidence based reasoning? Or am I missing your point?
No, I'm asking you to be consistent. If you believe that every belief must be justified with evidence, then what is your evidence for the belief "every belief must be justified with evidence"?.
If you don't have evidence, then you're inconsistent. If you have evidence, I'd love to hear it.
What you are doing is quibbling everyone to death in an effort to see yourself as some kind of armchair philosopher.
Quote:Quote:The little closed loops of logic only caricaturize reality by exposing the implication of language. Formal logic is such a fragile and limited tool. Is there any reason to think that examining the implication of speech will lead to a better understanding of what that speech is about, the world for example?
"Formal logic is a fragile and limited tool."
Wow. I actually got an atheist to criticize the use of logic!
Quote:I'm not talking about linguistics. I'm talking about the structure of your beliefs. It's epistemology, not linguistics.
It's quibbling and equivocating the shit out of everything anyone says in an effort to distract from the obvious fact that you can't provide a shred of evidence to substantiate your fairy tale monster.
Quote:(July 8, 2012 at 9:46 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Tick tock, tick tock....
I take it you've realised your belief in God is even less rational than believing that 5 minutes can actually pass. Congratulations.
I'm sorry, is this the part where you provide evidence for your beliefs?
...oh, guess we're still waiting on that.
In other words, he does, but he is going to dump a semi trailer load of red herrings in the forum in an effort to avoid it.
