Atheists who believe in moral truth must be nihilists.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

Instead you came here, began your thread with a self-perpetuating/fulfilling rhetoric of insult and persecution, and when a few posters gamely addressed questions of nihilism and atheism, you got mad that they weren't defining "meaning" in the correct way.

I didn't "get mad" My reply displayed no anger. I merely focused the discussion by clearing up potential confusion that may have been in the post addressed to me. If someone bases their reply on contextually inappropriate use of the word meaning, I have to note that. Meaning here means that our actions carry moral impact. That cleared up an initial criticism lobbed against me.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

So, no, I'm not sticking up for you. But as far as I can tell, no one has questioned your integrity. That's the big difference between what's been said to you and what you just did.

No, my integrity has been questioned. For instance, it has been implied that I intentionally said GIMR had a mental health issue. Besides, I'm not saying Blixa is dishonest. Just incompetent, in this domain anyway, or dishonest. And while you find that to be an awful, awful thing to say, I'd note on an aside that this is the attitude taken by many posters here towards FARMS contributers and the like.

[_Sam Harris]

More ad hominem. It's getting redundant.

You don't know what this term means. Stop using it.

re·dun·dant /rɪˈdʌndəNew Testament/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-duhn-duhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. characterized by verbosity or unnecessary repetition in expressing ideas; prolix: a redundant style.
2. being in excess; exceeding what is usual or natural: a redundant part.
3. having some unusual or extra part or feature.
4. characterized by superabundance or superfluity: lush, redundant vegetation.
5. Engineering. a. (of a structural member) not necessary for resisting statically determined stresses.
b. (of a structure) having members designed to resist other than statically determined stresses; hyperstatic.
c. noting a complete truss having additional members for resisting eccentric loads. Compare complete (def. 8), incomplete (def. 3).
d. (of a device, circuit, computer system, etc.) having excess or duplicate parts that can continue to perform in the event of malfunction of some of the parts.

6. Linguistics. characterized by redundancy; predictable.
7. Computers. containing more bits or characters than are required, as a parity bit inserted for checking purposes.
8. Chiefly British. removed or laid off from a job.


I think I was correct. You're still repeating how you're being attacked. Only no one's attacking you, they're asking you questions. This isn't the Inquisition, there are no racks here, no wedges to sit on, no hot pokers. The only torture you see is within your own perceptions.

[_Sam Harris]

I lost interest with "he's the head of Philo, for goodness sake."

The philosophy of religion, like all religious studies holds zero interest for me.

Others may find it interesting, but I doubt anyone would want to pursue a discussion which begins with such calculated provocation.

Thanks for the laughs GIMR...

I try.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

re·dun·dant

You're kidding, right? I honestly can't tell. In any case, I was saying you don't understand what is and is not the fallacy of ad hominem and you keep wrongly calling things ad hominem that are not.

[_Yoda]

Anyway, what do you think of my sig line? Isn't that the funniest thing you've seen this week?

ROTFL!!!!

I LOVE the sig line, Will!

:)

[_Sam Harris]

That was totally uncalled for.

Oddly, when people hurl an endless string of insults at me, you stand silent. Curious that.

I stand by what I said. The problem is either he is engaging in dishonest arguments or he is not a very good reader/reasoner. At some point, that's what it comes down to. Like with, I don't know, creationists it is difficult to tell sometimes who is which, but that's that. I have no problem saying it outloud because he has consistently been a jerk to me.

You came in here spoiling for a fight, and I have no idea why, and then you got upset that you got what you wanted. So, no, I'm not sticking up for you. But as far as I can tell, no one has questioned your integrity. That's the big difference between what's been said to you and what you just did.

Oh I questioned his integrity from post two.

[_Sam Harris]

Like I predicted before, this is some disgruntled TBM who MAD has pumped up to come over here. He's full of the persecution complex, full of the "God's chosen" syndrome, and determined to "tease the animals" as much as possible.

Little did he know, this little monkey likes to throw s***.

[_guy sajer]

Seems to me that this is an empirical question. Is there any good (e.g., non-anecdotal) empirical evidence to suggest that atheists are systematically less moral than believers (or vice versa)?

Also, because some prominent atheist says something is by no means representative of atheists in general. I am, for example, an atheist, and I disagree strongly with this guy's arguments.

Why is this guy's opinion more valid than mine?

[_Runtu]

No, my integrity has been questioned. For instance, it has been implied that I intentionally said GIMR had a mental health issue. Besides, I'm not saying Blixa is dishonest. Just incompetent, in this domain anyway, or dishonest. And while you find that to be an awful, awful thing to say, I'd note on an aside that this is the attitude taken by many posters here towards FARMS contributers and the like.

Sigh. So, as long as some unnamed person questions the FARMS' folks integrity, it's OK for you to do so with people you've had little interaction with?