Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

^I’m reminded of the Christian missionary sent to convert the heathen tribes. The headsman asks the missionary, ‘Let me see if I’ve got this…if I believe in this “god” of yours, I’ll go to this wonderful place when I die and I’ll get to live there forever, but if I don’t believe in this “god” (such a funny word), I’ll be sent to a different place of never-ending torment?’

‘Yes, that’s it exactly,’ says the missionary.

‘Well, if I never met you, then I couldn’t believe in this “god” - strange concept, we don’t have those here -  fella, so I’d go to the bad place, right?’

‘Oh, no,’ says the missionary. ‘If you never, ever heard of him, God will forgive your ignorance and take you up to the good place.’

The headsman grips his spear a little tighter and says through clenched teeth, ‘Then why did you tell me about him?’

Boru

[Sheldon]

I don't believe any deity / deities exist, and thus I am an atheist, but I have never ever claimed this, and so who the fk is "we atheists"? 

I can't stress this strongly enough, but please don't speak for me, ever...by all means express your own beliefs, but don't tell others what they believe / don't believe  

I also don't care what you think is "gained" by my disbelieving a claim, any claim, not aligning with a straw man you've created.

You've made very explicit the reasons why you reject the claims made by Christians. 

So you have reasons for not believing. Your lack of belief is not simply lack (in the way rocks and lizards lack belief) but a conclusion based on your reasons. Your reasons -- your standards of judgment -- are the things you believe.

At some point you could have a temperate and non-accusatory conversation about your standards of judgment, and why not everyone holds these same standards.

I never mentioned Christians....and this is yet another of your tedious straw men. Again, don't fucking tell me what I have said, think or believe, you tedious blowhard. 

The second paragraph has zero relevance to my post, it simply shows that as others have asserted, you are incapable of understanding nuance, and don't understand the difference between disbelief and belief. 

Not with a self aggrandising pretentious faux intellectual prig like you, who is unable to understand the simplest of concepts, like the difference between doubt, and belief.

[Belacqua]

You've made very explicit the reasons why you reject the claims made by Christians. 

So you have reasons for not believing. Your lack of belief is not simply lack (in the way rocks and lizards lack belief) but a conclusion based on your reasons. Your reasons -- your standards of judgment -- are the things you believe.

At some point you could have a temperate and non-accusatory conversation about your standards of judgment, and why not everyone holds these same standards.

I never mentioned Christians....and this is yet another of your tedious straw men. Again, don't fucking tell me what I have said, think or believe, you tedious blowhard. 

The second paragraph has zero relevance to my post, it simply shows that as others have asserted, you are incapable of understanding nuance, and don't understand the difference between disbelief and belief. 

Not with a self aggrandising pretentious faux intellectual prig like you, who is unable to understand the simplest of concepts, like the difference between doubt, and belief.

Have you ever read Language Truth and Logic by A.J. Ayer? This was a very influential text in its time. I think it might help you flesh out your views on epistemology, why metaphysics is irrelevant, and things like that. Logical Positivism seems very compatible with the things you say. And of course it has its share of critics, who help us understand the issues surrounding it. 

There's also a hilarious story about the time A.J. Ayer met Mike Tyson, but that's not in the book. It's not that kind of book.

[Sheldon]

I never mentioned Christians....and this is yet another of your tedious straw men. Again, don't fucking tell me what I have said, think or believe, you tedious blowhard. 

The second paragraph has zero relevance to my post, it simply shows that as others have asserted, you are incapable of understanding nuance, and don't understand the difference between disbelief and belief. 

Not with a self aggrandising pretentious faux intellectual prig like you, who is unable to understand the simplest of concepts, like the difference between doubt, and belief.

Have you ever read Language Truth and Logic by A.J. Ayer? This was a very influential text in its time. I think it might help you flesh out your views on epistemology, why metaphysics is irrelevant, and things like that. Logical Positivism seems very compatible with the things you say. And of course it has its share of critics, who help us understand the issues surrounding it. 

There's also a hilarious story about the time A.J. Ayer met Mike Tyson, but that's not in the book. It's not that kind of book.

I should have capitalised tedious faux blowhard. 

Seek an Elisa Doolittle elsewhere, my next rebuff will be a lot less polite.

[Ravenshire]

It didn't take long did it, for your crazy superstitious guff to have you espousing pernicious wankery, that implies it is ever moral to justify the rape of a child. 

Luckily there is no evidence that any such deity exists, as if it did I'd be morally obliged to tell it to fuck right off.

You have also used yet another false dichotomy fallacy to evade a direct question, using superstition as well, as Hitler taking a pill t make him a child is nonsensical magic, if the result were an innocent child then no he would not deserve to be harmed, let alone tortured as you gleefully claimed.

His return to the forum has been made conditional on his making a good act of contrition.

Boru

I see an exceedingly short return in its future.