I Am Not An Atheist
'Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning.'
(Former Atheist CS Lewis)
(Former Atheist CS Lewis)
View 23 more replies »
Speedyman · 70-79, M
It is a coherent argument. Just that you take it amiss. If I call a stupid argument stupid then it's just telling the truth, bluntly I will give you, but then the Bible tells us that the fool says in his heart there is no God and that is blunt. The problem is with you people you do not like robust argument which proves that you are totally up the creek in your illogical arguments for atheism@LeopoldBloom
Speedyman · 70-79, M
I'm not insulting you at all. Just telling you the truth about your beliefs and about the mockery that atheists give theists. It's one thing I've noted that if you tell an atheist how illogical his argument is he gets offended because he can't stand the truth. Telling you your arguments are illogical is not an insult it's just the truth and you should be glad to hear the truth@LeopoldBloom
@Harriet03
Aren’t you one? 🧐
Aren’t you one? 🧐
@Harriet03
Where are you getting this made up stuff.
Did you visit the Vatican and saw Michelangelo? It confused you.
There is no image silly bun!!
Where are you getting this made up stuff.
Did you visit the Vatican and saw Michelangelo? It confused you.
There is no image silly bun!!
LeopoldBloom · M
The question of God's existence and the meaning of life are not necessarily connected. A Deist believes that God created the universe, then took no further interest in it, so the universe in that case could have no meaning at all. An atheist may not believe in God, but could believe that we apply our own meaning to the universe. For example, that the "purpose" of the universe is to develop intelligent life so it can observe itself.
By the way, Lewis was an outstanding writer, but a terrible philosopher. He should have stuck to fiction; his "apologetics" are just an embarrassment and only detract from his legacy.
By the way, Lewis was an outstanding writer, but a terrible philosopher. He should have stuck to fiction; his "apologetics" are just an embarrassment and only detract from his legacy.
LeopoldBloom · M
@Speedyman "Trolling" is defined as throwing out a provocative statement for no reason other than to upset people. Calling people who disagree with you "trolls" shows that you're incapable of forming a coherent argument. If you're going to insult people, at least use the correct term.
Speedyman · 70-79, M
I am calling them trolls for exactly the same reason you state - they keep making statements without makng a coherent argument. If you weren't so prejudiced yourself you'd see that. @LeopoldBloom
This message was deleted by the author of the main post.
This message was deleted by its author.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
I am not an atheist.
That said, the quote itself is an evident example of what having no meaning is: it haves none.
Just speculative armchair philosophy.
The fallacies are easily hidden in pieces of rethoric.
Like:
- Equating "meaning" with the folk take of the word, as concious or at least subjective understanding and a priori purpose, instead of intrinsic autonomous mode of being.
- Equating physical "laws" with human like "laws", as external to the phenomena and the universe as itself.
- Confusing rethorics and discursive inacurate reasoning with well defined strict mathematical logic where fallacies are harder to hide.
- Giving to logic any kind of ontogic commitment, which is a trivial error that only beginers in math and serious logic may fall in.
That said, the quote itself is an evident example of what having no meaning is: it haves none.
Just speculative armchair philosophy.
The fallacies are easily hidden in pieces of rethoric.
Like:
- Equating "meaning" with the folk take of the word, as concious or at least subjective understanding and a priori purpose, instead of intrinsic autonomous mode of being.
- Equating physical "laws" with human like "laws", as external to the phenomena and the universe as itself.
- Confusing rethorics and discursive inacurate reasoning with well defined strict mathematical logic where fallacies are harder to hide.
- Giving to logic any kind of ontogic commitment, which is a trivial error that only beginers in math and serious logic may fall in.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Adaydreambeliever · 56-60, F
Scientists have been shooting craps with the truth for a very long time and for them honestly what skin of theirs is in the game of being correct? They created nothing.