|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 5, 2017 13:31:51 GMT
tpfkar The distinction between the different types of atheism is a phony belief and DOES NOT EXIST, so of course it lacks any sort of contingency. Whatever pretentious nonsense you mean by that. It is all in your mind sunshine.
What is this natural cause you believe in and where does it stem from?
So you have a lack of a belief, but it is still considered a belief, due to what your belief lacks? I'd say your belief is confused and doesn't really serve you well, because in order to have a lack of belief in the different types of atheism it still has to begin with a belief of the different types of atheism, in order to disown it. It all begins with the different types of atheism in the first place. Now what do you have?
Now That I Own The BBC |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 5, 2017 13:49:44 GMT
The distinction between the different types of atheism is a phony belief and DOES NOT EXIST, so of course it lacks any sort of contingency. Whatever pretentious nonsense you mean by that. It is all in your mind sunshine.
Your comment here doesn't make much sense. The distinction between different types of atheism is a conceptual distinction, and as such is mental in nature, but that doesn't make it not exist.* You could argue that the conceptual distinction being made doesn't hold water or isn't coherent or something like that, but then you should actually explain why it doesn't hold water in your opinion, or why you consider it to be incoherent. Personally, I think that the conceptual distinction makes sense, but I'd agree that there are some serious problems with the way the distinction is presented on Wikipedia. I won't get into the technical aspects of that unless someone is really interested in a conversation about it. But the distinction at least makes sense on the "negative" side at least with regard to people having no religious beliefs about deities where they've not even encountered those beliefs enough to give it much thought, and perhaps where someone has encountered the beliefs but manages to remain indifferent towards them. * The only issue there would be if you're using "exist" in a more restricted way to refer to extramental things only. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 5, 2017 13:51:09 GMT
tpfkar The distinction between the different types of atheism is a phony belief and DOES NOT EXIST, so of course it lacks any sort of contingency. Whatever pretentious nonsense you mean by that. It is all in your mind sunshine.
What is this natural cause you believe in and where does it stem from?
So you have a lack of a belief, but it is still considered a belief, due to what your belief lacks? I'd say your belief is confused and doesn't really serve you well, because in order to have a lack of belief in the different types of atheism it still has to begin with a belief of the different types of atheism, in order to disown it. It all begins with the different types of atheism in the first place. Now what do you have?
Now That I Own The BBCNot what you have thank God!  |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 5, 2017 13:57:43 GMT
tpfkar So you have a lack of a belief, but it is still considered a belief, due to what your belief lacks? I'd say your belief is confused and doesn't really serve you well, because in order to have a lack of belief in the different types of atheism it still has to begin with a belief of the different types of atheism, in order to disown it. It all begins with the different types of atheism in the first place. Now what do you have?
Not what you have thank God! Well, I don't have to hold on to your own words. 
To whom what? |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 5, 2017 14:06:46 GMT
The distinction between the different types of atheism is a phony belief and DOES NOT EXIST, so of course it lacks any sort of contingency. Whatever pretentious nonsense you mean by that. It is all in your mind sunshine.
The distinction between different types of atheism is a conceptual distinction, and as such is mental in nature, but that doesn't make it not exist.* You could argue that the conceptual distinction being made doesn't hold water or isn't coherent or something like that, but then you should actually explain why it doesn't hold water in your opinion, or why you consider it to be incoherent. Personally, I think that the conceptual distinction makes sense, but I'd agree that there are some serious problems with the way the distinction is presented on Wikipedia. I won't get into the technical aspects of that unless someone is really interested in a conversation about it. But the distinction at least makes sense on the "negative" side at least with regard to people having no religious beliefs about deities where they've not even encountered those beliefs enough to give it much thought, and perhaps where someone has encountered the beliefs but manages to remain indifferent towards them. * The only issue there would be if you're using "exist" in a more restricted way to refer to extramental things only.Neither does filmflaneur. So a concept about a belief, or a lack of a belief is tangible and objective then? Most of the comments I am reading here, are only what posters think they think they know, due to knowledge amassed, pretentious and conceited attempts to find meaning— which doesn't even exist—and what is only believed to be logic or truth. None of these beliefs are even real. All beliefs are born out of the subjective mindset and are just thought, just like the belief in God or religious deities, or lack of belief in God or religious deities. The belief and\or concept does not exist, only in the mind of the one who believes something to be true. All there is at the end of the day, is the wholeness, oneness and completeness of being. There is no compromise here, no matter how one may choose to swing it, or what excuses or denials are made up. There is no negative or positive belief, regarding the belief of what an atheist is supposed to represent. It just comes down to a belief pronto, and one that is disconnected from the whole truth. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 5, 2017 14:08:52 GMT
Not what you have thank God! Well, I don't have to hold on to your own words. Don't hold onto anything, just let go. It is futile! 😌 |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 5, 2017 14:17:10 GMT
So a concept about a belief, or a lack of a belief is tangible and objective then? Are you saying that you're using the word "exist" to only refer to objective things? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 5, 2017 14:17:12 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2017 18:09:42 GMT
I just want to know where people stand with this guy and his beliefs... Okay. He's a moron that few people take seriously outside a relatively small section of believers. You didn't answer my question, though. Why is homosexuality wrong? Did I say homosexuality is wrong? I do believe it goes against biology and nature. The point of existence whether you are atheist or believe in a creator is to 'pro-create'. That is evident with a male and female species. If you are having sex with a partner who cannot pro-create, it isn't natural. Then again, we as humans do a lot of things that aren't natural, like genocide, suicide, slavery, etc... |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Oct 5, 2017 18:13:37 GMT
Okay. He's a moron that few people take seriously outside a relatively small section of believers. You didn't answer my question, though. Why is homosexuality wrong? Did I say homosexuality is wrong? I do believe it goes against biology and nature. The point of existence whether you are atheist or believe in a creator is to 'pro-create'. That is evident with a male and female species. If you are having sex with a partner who cannot pro-create, it isn't natural. Then again, we as humans do a lot of things that aren't natural, like genocide, suicide, slavery, etc... Oh, please, homosexual behavior has been observed in many species, not just humans. It isn't un-natural. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2017 18:14:35 GMT
Did I say homosexuality is wrong? I do believe it goes against biology and nature. The point of existence whether you are atheist or believe in a creator is to 'pro-create'. That is evident with a male and female species. If you are having sex with a partner who cannot pro-create, it isn't natural. Then again, we as humans do a lot of things that aren't natural, like genocide, suicide, slavery, etc... Oh, please, homosexual behavior has been observed in many species, not just humans. It isn't un-natural. I'm talking biologically, it doesn't make sense. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Oct 5, 2017 18:24:35 GMT
Oh, please, homosexual behavior has been observed in many species, not just humans. It isn't un-natural. I'm talking biologically, it doesn't make sense. Why does it have to make sense biologically? Why does everything have to procreate? Some things mutate, and if, under stress, they survive, then they become the norm. Every time scientists come up with a vaccine or treatment for the flu or strep throat, the virus or bacteria mutates enough to render that treatment ineffective. Right now we are seeing surge in antibiotic resistant bacteria; when Vancomycin becomes ineffective, we are all screwed. Just nature, doing it's thing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2017 18:46:14 GMT
Okay. He's a moron that few people take seriously outside a relatively small section of believers. You didn't answer my question, though. Why is homosexuality wrong? Did I say homosexuality is wrong? Fair enough, if you don't think so. So does wearing clothing, driving cars, and watching television. Well, I would say the objective purpose of life is to replicate DNA molecules - bi-gender sexuality is just one way to do that. But as conscious thinking beings, we are not constrained by the objective purpose of our existence. We can choose our own subjective purpose, can we not? Indeed. For that matter, a good many heterosexual couples either do not or cannot procreate for various reasons. Very few people assess that as being unnatural or wrong, correct? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 5, 2017 19:14:27 GMT
tpfkar Did I say homosexuality is wrong? I do believe it goes against biology and nature. The point of existence whether you are atheist or believe in a creator is to 'pro-create'. That is evident with a male and female species. If you are having sex with a partner who cannot pro-create, it isn't natural. Then again, we as humans do a lot of things that aren't natural, like genocide, suicide, slavery, etc... How could something of biology & nature "go against" biology & nature?
I do not believe we can blame genetics for adultery, homosexuality, dishonesty and other character flaws. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 5, 2017 22:28:20 GMT
So a concept about a belief, or a lack of a belief is tangible and objective then? Are you saying that you're using the word "exist" to only refer to objective things? Not at all. Existence as we know it, is all illusion, like already mentioned. And as already mentioned, your "conscience awareness", beyond what is perceived as objective reality, is what is a constant. You are putting meaning and belief on the word "existence" now, to make some point that fails you. You can attempt to justify your stance as much as you like, but having NO belief about this delusion\illusion of what you think you are as an atheist, is ultimately the clinker. The paradox here, is that there is no God; but only in the "separate" sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 5, 2017 22:30:19 GMT
Are you referring to your own gibberish? I won't be catching yours at any time soon.  |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 5, 2017 22:31:34 GMT
Oh, please, homosexual behavior has been observed in many species, not just humans. It isn't un-natural. I'm talking biologically, it doesn't make sense. Yes, we know you don't make sense. People don't just have sex for pro-creation and why is this what we are here for Einstein? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 5, 2017 22:33:28 GMT
tpfkar Well, gibberish can be fun to catch and play with for a while Are you referring to your own gibberish? I won't be catching yours at any time soon. Hare Krishna Moon Unit. 
Tuesday's coming |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 5, 2017 22:39:56 GMT
Are you referring to your own gibberish? I won't be catching yours at any time soon. Hare Krishna Moon Unit.
Tuesday's coming |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 5, 2017 22:42:25 GMT
Oh, please, homosexual behavior has been observed in many species, not just humans. It isn't un-natural. I'm talking biologically, it doesn't make sense. How does it not make sense biologically? |
|
