I found out what's wrong with me

  • Thread starter Thread starter Admiral Boom
  • Start date Start date
We are nrabroad
making up anything, you have been misled by the retard media.

There are MILLIONS of atheists in this country, and many more than that in European countries, and I guarantee the VAST majority agree with OUR definition of it, as we ARE atheist.
 
Theists, like you and rabroad
hers in this thread... use one definition to belittle us and make it seem like we hold irrational beliefs.

WE know the truth about what we are and what it means to be an atheist and consider it something different than what you theists have made up.

The religious people in this country have changed the definition from what it OBVIOUSLY is as I have demonstrated several times for their own agenda.
 
Nrabroad
really.

On the contrary, there is great comfort. It is pretty liberating to finally admit to yourself what you knew all along deep down, that you don't know, that no one knows.
 
Here you could be talking about atheism or Rand's work. In either case, you're out of place.

Atheism deals with propositions. Belief presupposes a proposition. It's that proposition which atheism ultimately dismisses as unreasonable. The matter of your so-called "unknown unknowns" is irrelevant to atheism qua atheism.

Rand's work, as with huge swaths of written non-fiction broadly cross-category, is written in very much a positive sense... because she bases the entirety of her philosophy on axioms which she finds to lead irrefutably to her conclusions. Why would she write in such a way as to allow people who draw rabroad
her conclusions to be "right" when she finds that alternative conclusions rest on either faulty premises or flawed logic? As far as she's concerned, it is a metaphilosophical given that "if A then B" - and it is a metaphilosophical given that "A" - so why should she write with any but the most fanatical conviction that "therefore B"? I mean ... you can criticize her writing style for a lrabroad
of reasons, and if you want to argue her reasoning or her premises, fine ... but to "just nrabroad
accept" her because she means what she says is outlandishly fucking stupid.
 
That said, as I have shown, Ayn Rands statements of irrefutable truth where there is no evidence makes it clear that the kind of dishonest intellectualism injected into her work is really the classic hubristic flaw fatal to gods and men and men w/ no gods.
 
Back
Top