(January 12, 2014 at 6:03 am)Get me Rex Kramer! Wrote: OK re-read the comment. He says that skepticism is a 'philosophical stance' and that atheism, which he admits is a result of that stance (an italicised one, no less), isn't a philosophy! It can't be that something that is a result of a philosophical stance is something significantly philosophical? 'Lol' because the mind boggles.
Can you say "fallacy of composition?"
Quote:I suppose I am to imagine that thought crosses a magical boundary from 'philosophical thought' to 'political category' just because he feels like saying so! Or perhaps there is something that determines atheism other than and in a more important way than philosophical skepticism? Maybe membership in an atheist forum???
Fun fact: something can be a stance on a single issue without being either of those two things, even if it's derived from philosophy. Which is beside my original point, which is that "lol" is not an argument.
Quote:Oh, and fuck off yourself. Welcome to my thread.
It can be a closed thread by a banned user, if you like.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
