Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
CASE Branch Office
Washington DC Branch Office
CASE Profile
- CASE - now with holiness
- CASE is diametrically opposed to all faith based organisations. CASE can scientifically show all faith based organisations are wrong. With Science. Our aim is to replace religion in public life, whether that be in politics, education or social policy with our own superior brand of reasoning. CASE does not need to refer to an almighty God to make decisions. CASE considers it would be irresponsible to abdicate personal responsibility to a third party, particularly as that third party is imaginary. Furthermore, CASE would be negligent if it did not engage in showing the works and policies of the faithful to be the fanciful wishthinking that it is.
New Poll - Politics
Preacher Watch
Intelligent Blogs
Websites that may interest you
-
-
Against the ‘New Theism’10 hours ago
-
Covidfreude2 years ago
-
-
-
-
-
I Think I Believe In God12 years ago
-
THIS BLOG HAS MOVED!12 years ago
-
A Few Truths12 years ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Intelligent Design Advocates at work
Sad but true
What will you choose?
7 comments:
Your blog is nothing more than one big ad hominem. If you want us (atheists in general) to be taken seriously I would recommend that you find something that has at least a little bit of credibility. Blogs like this one only serve to discredit atheism. This blog is pretty much a waste of time and space.
I'm not sure who you are, but, the Parminidean argument made in the video is a real argument against God (in favour of strong atheism) and not an ad hominem argument.
Furthermore, seeing as each atheist is individual your statement does not make sense. It doesn't sound at all like the sort of statement that an actual atheist would make.
Remove this post or we will sue you for libel - WLC
Remove this post or we will sue you for libel - WLC
My address for service is 52 Morris Street, Wooloowin in the State of Queensland, Australia.
In the State of Queensland libel (being statements made in writing for the purpose of causing others to shun or avoid) can only be pursued under the Defamation Act which was recently amended to include a defence of truth, together with the traditional defences of fair comment and justified comment. All three defences could probably be raised, most likely fair comment pursuant to Koowarta v Bjielke-Petersen.
Of course, if you removed the anonymous tag (or forwarded the accusation via your solicitor, should you be able to afford one) then I am sure we can discuss this in the way that I usually do, by destroying your (or your lawyers) arguments and then taking costs.
(In other words - come get some)
P.S. Comments without attribution of authorship are close to worthless, unless they contain a great truth - yet neither of these comments do so.
A few relavant great thoughts on the depth of insight on your blog Alex.
William Drummond:
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
Plato:
Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.
David,
Are you prepared to admit that you may be wrong about God? If so then you are willing to reason.
If not, then you are the bigot, fool and slave that Drummond was describing.
Do you think that just because I am not responding to all your statements immediately that I am unwilling, unable or not daring to reason? No, it is that I am doing more important things at present.
Alex so that it is clear. When I said that I was not infallible that means that there could be the possiblitiy that I am wrong about God. The statistical chances of all the evidences of God being false and Christians being decieved is minute but in theory it is present.
Oh and by the way just because someone says that they are convinced of a fact based on evidence and experience does not
make them a bigot. I have worked hard and long to make clear why we believe what we believe in the face of your counter claims. You are yet to give me more than ad hock responses. Also redecorating your house is the most recent in a long string of excuses. How do you think the list of problems (see the God challenge comments)got so long?
For the sake of clarity could who-ever put up the last two anonymous comments, could you please identify yourselves a little more. Some people are accusing me of posting them!
Post a Comment