17 Apr 2012, 3:22 pm
ValentineWiggin wrote:
snapcap wrote:
It's even more absurd than that
Still haven't mastered the concept of skepticism, I see.
Not really, you just hold it to be more than it is.
ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw
17 Apr 2012, 3:24 pm
GoonSquad
Veteran
Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...
17 Apr 2012, 3:24 pm
ValentineWiggin wrote:
snapcap wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
It's too bad Americans can't be more like this....
Evangelicals (religious and atheist) suck.
Evangelicals (religious and atheist) suck.
I think the term atheist fundamentalist is better.
Yeah, yeah... the fact remains, they are possessed of the same mentality as the average redneck that calls black men [mod edit: racial slur removed]
I'm intolerant of intolerance. Sue me.
17 Apr 2012, 3:24 pm
ValentineWiggin wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Exactly what "scripture" would an atheist adhere too to become a "fundamentalist"?
Ayn Rand? Karl Marx? Christopher Hitchens?
Unless your trying to construct a joke you cant apply "fundamentlism" to atheism.
Snapcap can't understand that atheism is a lack of belief- we've spent dozens of pages trying to explain it to him.
He'll be here shortly proclaiming we're all strong atheists in denial, because of this inability.
FIX ME!! ! PLEASE!! !
ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw
17 Apr 2012, 3:27 pm
GoonSquad wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
snapcap wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
It's too bad Americans can't be more like this....
Evangelicals (religious and atheist) suck.
Evangelicals (religious and atheist) suck.
I think the term atheist fundamentalist is better.
Yeah, yeah... the fact remains, they are possessed of the same mentality as the average redneck that calls black men [mod edit: racial slur removed].
I'm intolerant of intolerance. Sue me.
Ah, but the difference is that racial slurs are offensive because they're intended to be.
It's no insult to say certain ideas concerning the nature of reality are objectively bullsh!t from a standpoint of empiricism.
Sorry if that's not feel-good enough.
ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw
17 Apr 2012, 3:29 pm
snapcap wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Exactly what "scripture" would an atheist adhere too to become a "fundamentalist"?
Ayn Rand? Karl Marx? Christopher Hitchens?
Unless your trying to construct a joke you cant apply "fundamentlism" to atheism.
Snapcap can't understand that atheism is a lack of belief- we've spent dozens of pages trying to explain it to him.
He'll be here shortly proclaiming we're all strong atheists in denial, because of this inability.
FIX ME!! ! PLEASE!! !
Only you can make the decision to stop proclaiming people believe something when they don't.
17 Apr 2012, 3:30 pm
ValentineWiggin wrote:
Ah, but the difference is that racial slurs are offensive because they're intended to be.
It's no insult to say certain ideas concerning the nature of reality are objectively bullsh!t from a standpoint of empiricism.
Sorry if that's not feel-good enough.
It's no insult to say certain ideas concerning the nature of reality are objectively bullsh!t from a standpoint of empiricism.
Sorry if that's not feel-good enough.
VW doesn't realize that she believes that God doesn't exist because she hasn't found any empirical evidence to convince her that God does exist.
She is skeptical that God exists, but she still has a belief about the concept.
17 Apr 2012, 3:32 pm
GoonSquad
Veteran
Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...
17 Apr 2012, 3:34 pm
ValentineWiggin wrote:
Ah, but the difference is that racial slurs are offensive because they're intended to be.
It's no insult to say certain ideas concerning the nature of reality are objectively bullsh!t from a standpoint of empiricism.
Sorry if that's not feel-good enough.
It's no insult to say certain ideas concerning the nature of reality are objectively bullsh!t from a standpoint of empiricism.
Sorry if that's not feel-good enough.
...explain to me again, how to empirically prove a negative. Ahhh, nevermind. We can agree to disagree.
I'm willing to tolerate your (pathetic) clinging to a false belief system.
17 Apr 2012, 3:44 pm
ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw
17 Apr 2012, 4:41 pm
GoonSquad wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
Ah, but the difference is that racial slurs are offensive because they're intended to be.
It's no insult to say certain ideas concerning the nature of reality are objectively bullsh!t from a standpoint of empiricism.
Sorry if that's not feel-good enough.
It's no insult to say certain ideas concerning the nature of reality are objectively bullsh!t from a standpoint of empiricism.
Sorry if that's not feel-good enough.
...explain to me again, how to empirically prove a negative. Ahhh, nevermind. We can agree to disagree.
I'm willing to tolerate your (pathetic) clinging to a false belief system.
People who confuse a non-belief with a belief are pretty hilarious.
It's a pathetic attempt to reframe the argument because the burden of proof (and, considering the claim, that's a freaking heavy burden)
is a tad too heavy for them to handle on their own.
ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw
17 Apr 2012, 4:43 pm
ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw
17 Apr 2012, 4:47 pm
GoonSquad
Veteran
Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...
17 Apr 2012, 4:57 pm
ValentineWiggin wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
Ah, but the difference is that racial slurs are offensive because they're intended to be.
It's no insult to say certain ideas concerning the nature of reality are objectively bullsh!t from a standpoint of empiricism.
Sorry if that's not feel-good enough.
It's no insult to say certain ideas concerning the nature of reality are objectively bullsh!t from a standpoint of empiricism.
Sorry if that's not feel-good enough.
...explain to me again, how to empirically prove a negative. Ahhh, nevermind. We can agree to disagree.
I'm willing to tolerate your (pathetic) clinging to a false belief system.
People who confuse a non-belief with a belief are pretty hilarious.
It's a pathetic attempt to reframe the argument because the burden of proof (and, considering the claim, that's a freaking heavy burden)
is a tad too heavy for them to handle on their own.
People who insist on empirical proof of a faith-based belief system are equally hilarious.
If you care to understand theists go watch the Futurama episode "Godfellas." Proof would actually spoil the whole thing.
17 Apr 2012, 5:32 pm
GoonSquad wrote:
People who insist on empirical proof of a faith-based belief system are equally hilarious.
Here we have Ragtime claiming his "faith based belief system" is factual. Facts require proof. So basically... "Show me the money"
Ragtime wrote:
It was weird to see snapcap in my role in that other thread. Usually it's me who proclaims a truth for tens of pages that most everyone disagrees with. (He was right, by the way.)
Well, snapcap is a truther. You should be flattered such titans of credibility flock to your allegiance
ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw
17 Apr 2012, 5:32 pm
GoonSquad wrote:
Proof would actually spoil the whole thing.
It's also antithetical to the entire nature of science, funnily enough.
