R.I.P. In Memoriam........

Well i am sure that a 72-virgins teeerrrrrrrrrst hunter will disagree strongly with yours, Steven's or my logic whatsoever.

I think you've mistaken them with the island of Crete

No, it will fire shotguns in the air for no apparent reason

Yes but 1+1=2 is proven, established and applied science. The logic on things that haven't been proven or have no way of 100% sure scientific proof, CAN be argued. Such as what happens once you die.

But of course, no worries kind Sir. We're just debating as two sane, civilized, non-virgin lover*, individuals!









*

'xcept for nasty Spiders.

And, to get back to the actual topic at hand, I have no hesitation at all to wish them a hearty R.I.P. (Rest In Pieces)

It's easy to joke about your beliefs when they aren't beliefs.

Perhaps? I'm only really speaking for myself, but I imagine many would share the same sentiments.

My point is a "atheism" isn't simply a different version of belief systems like Islam is to Christianity. It's an entirely different approach, it's the dismissal of belief. Perhaps a common mistake made by theists is they compare atheism to religion in such a way that presumes atheism and religion are on the same playing field. I read somewhere that calling atheism a 'religion' is like calling bald a type of hair colour.

I don't hold any particular beliefs about the origins of the universe or life after death like all religions do, but I do disregard certain beliefs. Which means I am free to joke about whatever the hell I want.

Agree disagree, Martijn? <curious>

With the added note that in general atheists are regarded as "believers of another kind" by theists or religious people due to an overly vocal and zealotous minority that defends atheism in much the same monomanic and emotional way the Spanish Inquisition defended the faith. No matter who is right, that's not a particularly conductive way to engage in reasoned debate.

That however does not in any way detract from your points, Steven, and in my post above I was just being my own smart-ass self again (you cannot defend something as being something you have just stated it is not: if the item defended is not a belief, then -logically- you have not defended a belief (but something else)).
Formal logic, and a fantastic way to antagonize people and be left standing alone mumbling in your drink at parties

Don't be too sure about anything! Life isn't logical at all you know, it makes absolutely no sense.
People who think they know what life is, and death, are not the smartest people imo.
Science is limited. It's useful and entertaining though.

I would add that scientific knowledge as it is today is limiting, not science itself. So, pretty much what Martijn said now that I read his reply.



Couldn't agree more. Which is why true scientists don't pretend to know what life or death is. They just observe the workings and form deductions thereon.



Again, you're absolutely right (if we're simply talking about the existence of life, not the system of life). But then that's not what I'd ever argue against - although we've learned much about the workings of nature, and much more sense is made today than has ever been achieved, so we are on the right path at least.

Science does at least try to make sense of life to the best of human ability. Science uncovers more questions with almost each new discovery, and that is an exceptional thing. I've said this time and time again (though probably worded differently each time): Science asks the appropriate questions based on the appropriate observations; religions gives inappropriate answers on inappropriate observations.

I love how some counter-arguments just emphasise the other person's point even further.

Fair enough. It starts with one comment which I just can't leave alone and snowballs from thereon... some statements just need to be picked apart. I apologise.

PAUL NEWMAN dies of cancer aged 83.

He starred in two of my all time fave films, Cool Hand Luke and The Sting.

The loss of a true acting legend