Obviously, Einstein isn't talking about atheists in general, only about "fanatical atheists" who apparently do exist. — Apollodorus
Which we've been trying to concede to you over several threads. — tim wood
Well, I wonder whether there are, as you claim, atheists who are unable to accept virtuous things that are associated with Christian philosophy. — Ciceronianus the White
Regardless, if you're referring to such as the Golden Rule and virtue as a guide to living, I'm unaware of anyone, let alone any atheist, who reject them because they are associated with Christian philosophy or the belief in any personal God. They may do so because they claim to be nihilists or radical skeptics or something else, but not because they have a "grudge" against Christianity or religion. — Ciceronianus the White
I think it's apparent that one doesn't have to be Christian to accept the Golden Rule or the desirability of living virtuously. — Ciceronianus the White
One doesn't even have to believe in a creator God; the ancient Stoics, for example, did not but managed somehow to be rather fond of virtue as a goal (in fact, the ultimate good, essential to a good life), and didn't believe in a God which created the world and would monitor the lives of humans to see if they were being nice, punishing those who would not and saving and benefiting those who did. — Ciceronianus the White
in your arguments you confuse and conflate some with all. — tim wood
And in your arguments you use arguments like that to deflect attention from the issue at hand and suppress debate through ad hominems and threats. — Apollodorus
I'm glad we agree about pantheism. I have a fondness for the Stoic version, which is said to have some similarities with that of Spinoza.
But it seems to me you're merely saying it's likely (based on human tendencies) that atheists "throw out the baby with the bathwater" as you put it. I thought you had actual instances in mind. — Ciceronianus the White
If you're "conceding" the existence of fanatical atheists then you should also concede people's right to discuss the topic. Either that, or simply announce that it's not allowed on this forum and that's that. No big deal. — Apollodorus
Instead of addressing my statement, you started a tirade of insults, ad hominems, threats and racist remarks. So ... what does that say about atheists? — Apollodorus
Which we've been trying to concede to you over several threads.
— tim wood
If you're "conceding" the existence of fanatical atheists then you should also concede people's right to discuss the topic. Either that, or simply announce that it's not allowed on this forum and that's that. No big deal. But it seems to me that Christians and others are being accused of "fanaticism" and other things all the time. — Apollodorus
Aww, you almost had it. The problem I have railed against you for, that just now I thought you had got but maybe you have not, is that in your arguments you confuse and conflate some with all. Some is granted. All is simply ignorant and fallacious error, which is part of why I have asked you what your native language is, because based on some of your posts it does not seem possible to me your error is due to stupidity. — tim wood
And in your arguments you use arguments like that to deflect attention from the issue at hand and suppress debate through ad hominems and threats. — Apollodorus
Geez! You really are that stupid! I am amazed! Btw, pointing out errors in reasoning in arguments is not ad hominem. For, as I am pretty sure you know, ad hominem is to the man, not the argument.
But let's try a little experiment. In my sock drawer are some white socks. Does having some white socks in the drawer mean that all the socks in the drawer are white? What say you? — tim wood
I'm not particularly interested in trying to explain it.
I'm exploring the symbolic and allegorical dimensions of religious ideas in the light of philosophy. — Wayfarer
So again, please specify. A tirade of insults? Ad hominems? Threats? Racist remarks? — tim wood
Geez! You really are that stupid! — tim wood
I’m not scared of you — praxis
All is simply ignorant and fallacious error, which is part of why I have asked you what your native language is — tim wood
So, what does that say about atheists and their "arguments" in support of atheism? — Apollodorus
Yes I did. Did the Fundy example not register? — 3017amen
Is anyone discussing atheist arguments? I thought the topic was about atheist irrationality (anger, fanaticism, and unfounded pride). — praxis
They make all kinds of excuses when you try to make them use logic to justify their position — 3017amen
Maybe I'm / we're "angry" at your sanctimonous and delusional woo-of the gaps. — 180 Proof
So exorcize my / our "anger" and demonstrate soundly that our / my atheism is false (or incoherent) — 180 Proof
If "atheist irrationality" is the topic, then arguments can be analyzed as expressions of that irrationality. — Apollodorus
What can say? Acosmism. 17th century excommunicated secular Dutch-Portugese Sephardim reconceptualizes an approximately 3rd millennium BCE metaphysical-mystical dharmic idea from the Vedas which was completely unknown to Europeans until, I think, the 19th century. Genius. Not "inspired", logically derived in Euclidean fashion. :fire:At the briefest glance looks very Eastern. — praxis
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.