free12thinker

Here's your reply to Koy.

Atheism is a concept.
Concepts are based on a human belief system.

Religion is a belief system in the concept known as God.
(This is where you lose yourself. Yes religion is a belief system. But so is love. So are politics. So are ethics and morals. Are these all religions too. They are all based on concepts. There are different typologies of love, different strands of ethics (Kantien, Utilitarianism) and of course, different political parties. Are they religions too?

Answer: No!

Therefore, Atheism is just another concept of thoughts.

I await your response

WJ

Mmmm, looks as though Atheism can't be logically justified!

Once again, I've proved my point. All I'm hearing are arguments for agnosticism.

Put another quarter in the machine and try again!

Walrus

free12thinker

What is your definition of agnosticism? I will refrain from throwing punches in the air until you respond to that question.


<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

jj

Don't bother to use his definitions, please. Make him/her use the ones that normal human beings use. S/He's playing the same games in another thread as well, sliding from one definition to another as convenient for trolling.

Given the suborned logic, his/her insistance that atheism has to be logically proven (despite his/her admission that religion can be held from faith, instead of from any sort of logic), and her/his insistance that anybody who simply says "Naaah" to the absurd idea of a non-testable, non-falsifiable, non-evidential deity is an agnostic, I think it's a deliberate troll we have here.

S/He has yet to learn that agnostic's don't ***care*** and that the atheist rejects the idea.

His/her insistance that the rejection must be presented logically appears (although I certainly don't read minds) to be part of his/her intent to confuse science and atheism, as you can see on another thread, where s/he alternates between pure subjectivism and insistance that science has to be on at least one "side" of "the debate". His/her demand for logic appears to come about because s/he understands the idea that proof of a negative is impossible, and from that point s/he proceeds to defame atheists as "illogical", despite her/his own repeated exercises of the excluded middle and hideously suborned logic.

It would appear that s/he's behaving as though s/he's incapable of understanding the idea of neutrality at all, and likewise unable to understand that he repeats the excluded middle over and over.

free12thinker

Right you are. It's useless. It can be very ego-inflating though. For every theist with no answers that circle any train of logic, the non-theist looks that much better.

Hooray for reason and logic.

BibleBelted

I find it interesting that luvluv has deserted this thread. I would wager that he is embarrassed to have WJ siding with him.

WJ is a philosophical Boppin' Bag. No matter how hard and how many times you smack him down, he pops back up grinning. And declaring victory. Simultaneously annoying and amusing.

WJ

Could it be that luvluv finds your arguments as weak as I do?

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Or, can you in fact justify your belief system too? BTW, answering that with a 'no' is, logically, the right answer.

Get it yet?

Wally

Koyaanisqatsi

I think I described him best in another thread where he also delights in making non-sequiturs as if they were relevant, salient points.

He's like a drunken Alzheimer's patient with cognitive Tourette's.

WJ, as always, you have said nothing of consequence and your childish declarations have no support behind them to address.

So long as you insist upon regurgitating non-sequiturs while pretending that you've demonstrated something relevant, I will be forced to respond to you in kind.

Here goes:

Koyaanisqatsi
______________
Walrus is just another semantics troll.

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

WJ

Koy!

"non-sequiturs"

Are you sure that is relevent here?

Walrus
----------
Atheism is just another semantics game

free12thinker

Can you justify your lack of belief in atheism?