why does sklansky spend so much time on the philos section?and other?s

[siegfriedandroy]

All good questions, RJT. I remember 10th grade biology teacher mocking such types of inquiry. Many naturalists falsely presuppose that such questions ABSOLUTELY must have only naturalistic causes. That's good, unbiased, objective science, huh?

[siegfriedandroy]

Good ad hominem. Here's mine: you are a fool. You clearly dont even understand any of the arguments I am making, yet you proceed to criticize my lack of understanding of atheistic thought/morality, etc. Yet you provide no reasonable explanations or even basic definitions explaining what you believe about these things. If you really understood what i am saying, you have nothing to argue. if i were an atheist, my thinking would be FAR more consistent than yours.

[siegfriedandroy]

I sure hope not! Else I need to find a new guru.

[siegfriedandroy]

Yes, you did completely miss the point. You should reread until you understand. Or else we are not even arguing over similar issues.

And it says nothing about my character for me to state how I would think 'if i were an atheist'.

it is incredible how inconsistent many of these self-proclaimed atheistic experts are in their thinking. supposedly, atheists take pride in their reasoning skills, etc. But most of them (barring perhaps Sklansky so far) cannot even effectively respond to basic and simple arguments about the philosophical implications of what they believe. At least Sklansky admits that there is no real morality in atheism, that Hitler in 'reality' was no worse than Mother Theresa.

[siegfriedandroy]

I dont think atheists are pathetic because im not one. I do think most atheists are incredibly unaware of the philosophical implications of what they believe. I believe that it's untrue that everything is subjective, as you falsely characterize my view. Objective truth exists, and atheists deny the clear truth that God exists. this frustrates me.

[David Sklansky]

Forget the high falootin philosophers. Not Ready is right about them. But you are confused also. For the fifth time at least:

The meaning of life is:


Topless dancers.


The reason athiests don't want to commit suicide is:


The same reason cats don't.


The reason I argue against God on this forum is that:


I don't want Two Plus Twoers to be morons.


This is not rocket science.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
Forget the high falootin philosophers. Not Ready is right about them. But you are confused also. For the fifth time at least:

The meaning of life is:


Topless dancers.


The reason athiests don't want to commit suicide is:


The same reason cats don't.


The reason I argue against God on this forum is that:


I don't want Two Plus Twoers to be morons.


This is not rocket science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen, brother!

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
Good ad hominem. Here's mine: you are a fool. You clearly dont even understand any of the arguments I am making, yet you proceed to criticize my lack of understanding of atheistic thought/morality, etc. Yet you provide no reasonable explanations or even basic definitions explaining what you believe about these things. If you really understood what i am saying, you have nothing to argue. if i were an atheist, my thinking would be FAR more consistent than yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

You equate atheism with nihilism, which leads you to believe atheists are unable to make valid value judgements.

Explain to me the decisions that went into what shoes you would wear today. I doubt god came into the equation. Now hopefully you can extrapolate and see how it is atheists come to conclusions about other, more important subjects.

[siegfriedandroy]

How would you define 'nihilism'?

[siegfriedandroy]

Man, Mr Sklansky. I enjoyed your topless dancing answer. I dont understand the line about cats...why dont they? apparently you are speaking of some type of self preservation instinct (seems to me evidence that life is indeed valuable and worth preserving)? (i believe they simply cannot even comprehend what suicide is)