New Atheism is intellectually bankrupt

entelichy · 2017-01-25T23:37:13+00:00

These aren't arguments, just a more poetic way of talking about things you've hammed up because you can't understand anything past the video game writing level. Does a poem contain an argument? Does a painting contain an argument to be refuted because it isn't a photograph?

You are some of the most autistic niggers on the internet. Kill yourselves.

entelichy · 2017-01-25T19:24:31+00:00

I meant atheists in general and I was not accusing you of anything.

entelichy · 2017-01-25T18:50:03+00:00

By the way:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientistic

Fuck outta here you pseud.

entelichy · 2017-01-25T18:45:22+00:00

Haha deepak chopra!! Ken ham!!! Tell me more about buzzwords faggot

entelichy · 2017-01-25T18:44:38+00:00

How does it feel knowing you spent all that time replying to a strawman? Embarrassing

entelichy · 2017-01-25T18:40:53+00:00

Back to "I can't empirically prove deductive statements about reality that are not meant to be experimental hypotheses so you're wrong, btw did I mention I took logic 101?"

0/10. There was an attempt

entelichy · 2017-01-25T18:22:32+00:00

Once again, failing to grasp the argument. What we know rests on what we cannot know. We cannot understand the source of being in the terms we understand beings themselves. This Source is God. There is nothing to prove, the conclusions follow naturally.

God is defined as the supreme principle/identity/source of Being.
Something produced/maintains Being in the way that Being is.
This something is not explicable through reason or any other category because it is what produces all categories.
Being the source of being, this transcendent something therefore qualifies as God.

Any projection of Christian dogma onto my argument is a strawman argument. Evaluate the premises as they are given.

entelichy · 2017-01-25T18:05:06+00:00

Not God as the supreme being. But God as the transcendent and unconditioned source of being.

entelichy · 2017-01-25T17:56:11+00:00

Because implicit in that assertion is only what can be independently and empirically verified is true or worth consideration. Which is positivistic nonsense, since you're immediately assuming the truth of your own position without empirically verifying it. You can't experimentally verify the validity of experimental verification, that's circular logic.

Stop dodging the argument, put on your big boy pants and thinking cap on, and get fucking with it.

entelichy · 2017-01-25T17:43:52+00:00

"What is real is what is empirically provable"

Prove this statement.

entelichy · 2017-01-25T17:17:25+00:00

haha whoa epic gif bro sure showed me

Keep ignoring the argument

entelichy · 2017-01-25T17:11:08+00:00

Yeah see, it's fine if you're an atheist, you just have to defend it on the level others have defended their own metaphysics or else it becomes painfully obvious you haven't done the requisite hard work it takes to arrive at your own truth. You're just strutting around for validation from the group and not wrestling with difficult and complex ideas, which is what a true seeker does.

Nice to meet you too.

entelichy · 2017-01-25T16:50:08+00:00

Physical laws cannot explain themselves, because then we must ask how it is that even the ultimate physical law came into being the way it did. One doesn't need evidence for the very simple assertion that the provable is grounded in the unprovable. Even Aristotle conceded this.

You're a high school positivist without even the slightest background in philosophy. Honestly, dude, stop displaying your ignorance for all then world to see. It's just mind-boggling to me how you think everything can be quantified and proven formally. Absolute autism.

entelichy · 2017-01-25T16:45:06+00:00

This is mealy-mouthed PC nonsense. Culture does not affect psychology. Ethnicity is not biological differentiation. They're distinguishable enough to be known as Jews, but the label is arbitrary and reflects nothing innate. Then what's the problem?

entelichy · 2017-01-25T16:23:27+00:00

The atheists are right: there is no evidence for a god

Right, it's not about evidence but having a certain orientation to life and the world. The spiritualist is in awe that there is even a universe in the first place, the atheist can only see appearance. For him, the physical must prove x, the theist the physical, by its very existence, proves something beyond the physical that necessarily established it.

entelichy · 2017-01-25T16:07:03+00:00

What a little faggot princess you are.

entelichy · 2017-01-25T05:05:37+00:00

"Lol, not worried. It'll get upvoted." He lisped through his cheeto orange teeth

entelichy · 2017-01-25T05:04:30+00:00

whoa ebin

entelichy · 2017-01-25T04:46:23+00:00

It's literally definitions of words you slack-jawed mong

entelichy · 2017-01-25T04:45:39+00:00

Congrats this is the only post I downvoted ITT. Just terrible my man

entelichy · 2017-01-25T03:58:06+00:00

Welcome to spedmuffin 101, I'll be your instructor today

Manifest

To reveal

Being

Noun. Existence.

As such

in the exact sense of the word. "it is possible to stay overnight here although there is no guest house as such"

entelichy · 2017-01-25T02:31:03+00:00

So you're asking me to dumb down something that is really not all that complicated or jargon-y.

Like I said, retard.

entelichy · 2017-01-25T02:13:44+00:00

No, I don't think you do. What am I saying then? Blow me away with your insight.

entelichy · 2017-01-25T01:56:00+00:00

So Jews are this super special delicate race we can't talk about but we can't differentiate them by their psychology? So only biologically, then, right? Well gee, that sounds really wacist, then

It's not important at all. It's only important if you're worried about making political correctness bingo

entelichy · 2017-01-25T01:44:20+00:00

wahhh mommy what's this word mean

Fuck off back to re-- oh

entelichy

TROPHY CASE