RE: Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?
August 19, 2013 at 1:31 pm
(This post was last modified: August 19, 2013 at 1:33 pm by discipulus.)
(August 19, 2013 at 11:49 am)genkaus Wrote:(August 19, 2013 at 10:34 am)discipulus Wrote: All of the above is your opinion. And your opinion may be one commonly shared, however, there are many who disagree.
Did you miss the part where if a statement is objectively true, it is no longer a matter of opinion?
(August 19, 2013 at 10:34 am)discipulus Wrote: Many love having people urinate on them and in their mouth. It is sexually arousing and pleasurable to them. There are people who love to be pooped on and eat other peoples poop. Its called scat porn.
Speaking atheistically, its whatever floats your boat. You may think it disgusting, those that love it love it.
You seem to have a problem with comprehension. Atheistically speaking, it isn't a matter of what floats your boat. Especially if what floats it damages it as well.
(August 19, 2013 at 10:34 am)discipulus Wrote: In fact you sound exactly like the Christian who claims homosexuality is bad even if people prefer it.
You are trying to convince me that your opinion is more than just your preference. But why should the woman who loves to eat poop from her lesbian lover place your opinion above her own in a world where she and not you determines what is meaningful to her?
Because "eating poop is bad for you" is an objective fact. "Having lesbian sex is bad for you" is not an objective fact. Which is why I say that the lesbian should not do the former while she may do the latter and which is why she should listen to me.
You have yet to establish your opinions as objective. Simply labeling them so does not mean that I or anyone else must agree.
Stepping over the issue of whether or not your views have the weight of objectivity to support them, I simply pose a question:
How are you ultimately any better off than the poop eater?
(August 19, 2013 at 1:06 pm)Tonus Wrote:(August 19, 2013 at 9:00 am)discipulus Wrote: One person persuades by the edge of the sword. Another by logical argument.
Both are acting in accordance with their desire and how they think persuasion is best accomplished. Both are doing what they find meaningful. Speaking atheistically for a moment, one is ultimately no better or worse off than the other.
What does "speaking atheistically" have to do with it? Is there an alternative way to "speak" that differs in meaning?
Yes. I am a Christian. I can speak theistically or if I desire to demonstrate a point I can speak atheistically or as one that speaks while taking into account certain implications that follow from a Godless reality.
