|
|
Posted by Theophilus on 12/17/06 21:01
"anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
news:4uln9pF18i9qkU1@mid.individual.net...
> Theophilus wrote:
>> "anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:4uljodF18njsiU2@mid.individual.net...
>>> Theophilus wrote:
>>>> "Joe" <joe@fakee.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:15t7o2t35vgfep23eqi4kojijr1cgvc4tu@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 04:50:36 -0600, "Theophilus"
>>>>> <intrexATsasktelDOTnet> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is impossible to "convert" to atheism since atheism is not only
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> a religion, it is a rejection of religion. That's like saying you
>>>>>>> joined nothing.
>>>>>> Atheism IS a religion, the most hypocritical known.
>>>>> Sure. In the same way that 'not collecting stamps' is a hobby.
>>>> What if you NEED stamps? Read the whole post, not just the part your
>>>> object to.
>>> No I think you have lost it... what has needing or not needing stamps
>>> got to do with it?
>>>
>>> You asserted that Atheism is a religion. It isn't. Sort it out!
>>
>> Yes, I made the assertion that atheism is a religion and then went on to
>> say why.
>
> No you didn't. You just think you did.
Demonstrate otherwise. This is just another assertion.
>> On the other hand, you just make the assertion that it isn't, without
>> saying why at all. Sorry, not good enough, I don't believe you.
>>
> I assert that the colour blue is not a type of music.
> I offer no evidence that it isn't.
>
> I suppose to you this proves that blue is music?
Not at all. You can assert anything you like, it is merely mindless
babbling, unless you have some rationale to back it up. It also helps to
define terms in advance. What do you mean when you say "blue"? How about
"music"?
>> Atheists say that the universe is a meaningless place,
>
> Not necessarily.
Really? Demonstrate.
> However often religious people can't understand how there could be meaning
> without a god. Besides, you seem to contradict
Oh, there's relative meaning to be sure, but that is really no meaning at
all. It's whistling past the graveyard, wishful thinking. Atheists want
all the moral benefits of a meaningful universe, if only to avoid being
lumped in with Hitler and pedophiles, but they can not have it if we are
merely the product of chemistry.
Would you care to describe some kind of meaning that ISN'T self-referential
and therefore relative?
> yourself on this point, stating that atheists deny all meaning to the
> universe but also ascribe it to themselves.
How is it MY contradiction? It is the atheists that contradict themselves.
>> but they still assign themselves value.
>
> Ah yes, there you go! ;-)
Where did I go? They assign themselves value the moment they say , "I think
that...."
>> That's hypocrisy.
>
> It isn't hypocrisy. Look the word up.
Ok, done. How do YOU use the word?
>> In fact, the evidence is all around that they have NO value, but they
>> still carry on as if they do. That isn't even faith, because the
>> evidence is right there; it's willful ignorance, a decision NOT to see
>> the truth around them.
>>
>> As for stamps, Joe brought it up, I merely followed his analogy.
> None of it matters anyway - what are you actually trying to say?
Now you're getting close to it, can you follow it through to the only
conclusion a mind can have when confronted with our predicament?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|