Total Biscuit's - Atheism does not make you clever

a reply to: chr0naut

I'm sorry sir.
But your logic is not logic.
The concept of "god" exists independently of the existence of what we would call a god actually existing.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: chr0naut

I'm sorry sir.
But your logic is not logic.
The concept of "god" exists independently of the existence of what we would call a god actually existing.

I was talking about the intellectual position of the Atheist.

I was not saying anything about the 'concept of God' existing or not, nor was I actually arguing for the actual existence or nonexistence of deity,

I completely demolish your straw-man argument in another brief puff of logic.

a reply to: captaintyinknots

Uhm.
No.
Forums can offer blogs.
But blogs are not forums.
Sorry.

And yes you have, the keyword here is clever.
Which you seem stuck on and hellbent on applying to the author.
Despite the actual content of the comment you claim you've read.


And I'll point out the fact you're argument is illogical to boot.
Argumentum ad hominem to be exact.

a reply to: chr0naut

Um.

Boy did you ever manage to completely miss the point.
I'm in awe of just how thoroughly you managed to miss it.

And do me a favor.
Please look up the word logic for me sir.
Read it, meditate on it, ponder it, love it.
Then get back to me.
Your misuse of it is not doing you any favors.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: chr0naut

Um.

Boy did you ever manage to completely miss the point.
I'm in awe of just how thoroughly you managed to miss it.

And do me a favor.
Please look up the word logic for me sir.
Read it, meditate on it, ponder it, love it.
Then get back to me.
Your misuse of it is not doing you any favors.

Logic has existed for thousands of years prior to the codification of systematic logic by the likes of Boole.

I was using the term colloquially, as it would be best understood by the majority of readers of ATS. In this definition, something logical conforms to self-evident or obvious aphorisms, appealing to common sense.

This definition of logic is also more in line with the understandings of the ancient Greek philosophers, who created the term and, as such, logic is not seen as a branch of mathematics.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: miss_sky

Wouldn't it be better to judge him by the words he said as opposed to the labels he used to describe himself?

He could have at least picked a better label.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: luciddream


I tend to agree with Dr. Einstein on the subject of intelligence.
"Everybodies a genius. But if you judge a fish by it's ability to climb a tree. He will forever believe he is stupid."
-Paraphrased

I've never heard this quote from Einstein. I agree 100%.

The majority of how science relates to such lofty issues. As to the existence or non-existence of God, is through inductive reasoning. This specifically is because it is impossible to test for the population. A required course in college in relation to becoming a researcher and during a Masters degree (or its equivalent) makes that very clear. So when a person who does not agree with the existence of God uses science is the linchpin to their argument. Either they are ignorant of this simple fact or they are ignoring it. See in order to prove the negative (that God cannot exist) requires an exacting knowledge of reality, which is impossible today.

Religion is not responsible for mankind's problems.

What is responsible for our problems is Prejudice and Greed.

It is to say that in order to survive religions conformed to societies desire for conflict, as a way to gain resources. This desire fueled by hatred in relation to cultures that were different.

If one considers history it is as if the idea of a right to individuality was only allotted to leaders.

One of my history professors in college explained to us once in class. That everyone from the rank of Lieutenant and below, during the 100 Years War. Was told that the reason for the conflict was due to the fact that the other side
used the wrong shoulder to, place ones fingers upon, when forming the crucifix upon the body. One side thought it should be the left shoulder first, the other side the right shoulder.

For a priest to disagree with a leader meant certain death in those days.


Theist take offence with atheist because they do not seemingly acknowledge history. This being documentation in writing related to the past. But there is another issue in that some Theist actually do have valid Spiritual experiences. These are people who work, pay bills (including in this case access to the internet) and otherwise lead fruitful lives.

Proof to them are these experiences but it also means proof of something and not necessarily what they believe to be absolute.

The only way to verify spirituality is to test Earths population in that regard and that has never been done.

Any thoughts?

I'm noticing a distinct lack of FOV sliders in this rant.

It should be noted that TB's original posting of this occurred seven years ago. In that time he's gotten married, become a father, been fired from prestigious job, become one the most famous Internet personalities in the world, and most recently been diagnosed with cancer. Now that doesn't change the legitimacy or illegitimacy of anything he wrote seven years ago. It does however worth bearing in mind that these were the words of a relatively inexperienced young man who had his whole life ahead of him with nothing standing in his way.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

I have an IQ of 155.... is that suppose to mean something to me?

a reply to: smithjustinb

Maybe.
But who is anyone to tell anyone what labels they should assume?

a reply to: chr0naut

Then stop using it like a buzzword.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: smithjustinb

Maybe.
But who is anyone to tell anyone what labels they should assume?

I'm just saying. That label is no good.

a reply to: smithjustinb

I wonder why you say that.....
*looks at your av*
:p

medivh medivh medivh

you're like the pentultimate hypocrite lol helping sargeras, then lamenting the world tree's destruction. calling the wisps to wipe out archimonde, then making excuses for archimonde's fall extinguishing literally, everything else that moves. sad sir, quite sad, and demented, to boot.

medivh doesn't want you to believe in god, while exercising all the powers of one himself. this makes one wonder -- hmm, perhaps there's a god he doesn't want you to know about. now who or what, might that be? devious bastiche.

could it be that the world tree would not have faced destruction at all, and therefore no need to wipe out everything with life in it, just to get rid of archimonde? i mean what are the chances that medivh's partnership with sargeras caused the whole dang thing? you need to screw your head on better as it is apparently off thread or something.

about time you blew the horn. a little too late for everyone else, doncha think? @$(wad


oh wait, that's malfurion. well at least somebody blew the horn.

grr, you are the worst kind of atheist. a lying, deceiving, hoarder of knowledge.

one more comment:

"has always resided in MORTAL hands." what an a$phat that guy is. they don't even need to be mortals. he is argh, infuriating.
why why did you have to pick him of all choices, to represent you in this thread.

/tapping foot, arms folded over chest

yeah, that's what i thought. you didn't expect that someone would call your bluff on your "atheism"
your definition of an atheist, based on your avatar, is a guy who has god like powers, who deliberately hides that anyone can have this ability, then lies to and manipulates everything and everyone he comes into contact so that he can sacrifice millions of people in his own version of a world reboot. then he tries to make it sound like being mortal and therefore, eternally subject to jerks like himself, is the way of things.

"the sacrifices have been made" - medivh. i mean, seriously dude, you are like emulating a guy who has the moral fortitude of a ......well i can't think of anything low enough to compare your avatar too. if you honestly agree with him, i would have to say it's for no other reason than to lie even to yourself, as there is no other way to justify what medivh does through out the books and games and his twisted view certainly doesn't support your view of reality.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: chr0naut

Then stop using it like a buzzword.

No, you stop being pedantic just to troll.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

What amazes me is the way Dawkins thinks he has a monopoly on rationalism. People rationalise the world in different ways and some see belief as a rational response to the world.