Emotional resilience and Philistinery

[Get me Rex Kramer!]

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?"

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.

Oh, and fuck off yourself. Welcome to my thread.

It can be a closed thread by a banned user, if you like.

Your points:
1) This is not fallacy of composition (positing a quality of a part on a whole) or of division (positing a quality of the whole on a part), or anything of the such. The idea of atheism isn't assembled by its reasons, but thought and explained by them.

2) Your fun fact is true! AND atheism is meaningfully philosophical! In your book of fallacies look up 'denying the correlative'! It's a hoot!

3) Lol is not an argument. What you replied to was an argument, which was a reply to your reply after your reading 'Lol' and thinking 'that's not an argument'. KEEP UP MAN.

---

Chase me