Why don‘t you explain it to us?

What do I need to explain? Their onthology or their failure to be atheist?

I'm glad to educate you if you tell me what do you need to know

cheers.

What do I understand poorly about post-modernism and what atheism actually is?

Scientific atheism and post-modernism can't mix. This is why Dawkins and Krauss are complete jokes.

You need to undertand that making false claims in order to push atheism, totally discredits you as a scientist.

It is a major logical error, to think that a scientific atheist can be a post-modernist.

I mean any serious philosopher will destroy post-modernist who are acting like Scientific Atheist !!!


p.s. They are also complete fails as scientists. "A Universe out of Nothing" and "The Selfish Gene" are totally laughable books.

Can you give reasons?

1. Postmodernism and science.

In postmodernism all answers have infinite number of interpretation.
In model theory, interpretation is the notion that approximates the idea of representing a logical structure inside another structure.
With infinite interpretation there is no science templete. I could also argue that Science is Interpretation.

So as a logical outcome a honest Scientific Atheist can't be a honest postmodernist.

2. False claims to push their agenda.

When Dawkins writes that their are no evidence of Juses existing, he is totally unscientific.
Selfish Gene is also a very very poor theory. But a "good" argument against a creator.

When Krauss said that the Universe comes out of nothing as an argument against a creator, the whole science world made fun of him. He had to publically apologize.

You see people are not as dumb as Krauss and Dawkins think their fans are. In fact many people are far smarter then them...

Marxists believe that scientific atheism and postmodernism can mix. But marxists are kind of a fail, don't you think?

Did any of them ever call themselves post-modernist? Who are „most educated people“ who do? How did Marxism get into this?

1. They are post-modernist by definition.
2. 100% of modern Philosophers.
3. Their analysis of religion and science is clearly Marxist.

I am glad I can help.

cheers.

You didn't help much, given that all of these three points are false.

You‘re not helping at all. With each of your posts the list of unproven assertions grows longer. Let‘s try baby steps. Do you have a citation that 100% of modern philosophers consider Dawkins et al. postmodernist?

I appreciate your efforts here Louis Cyphre, but if you're expecting a rational dialogue with this guy, you're on a fool's errand I'm afraid.

Imo there is a very slim chance that you are not trolling me.

I said he is a postmodernist by definition.
100% of good philosophers agree upon what postmodernism is.

but since you lack ANY EDUCATION on the matter let me spell it out for you.

Dawkins and Krauss bouth dismiss Philosophy. This is the definition of postmodernism....

derail:

How can we have a rational dialog when he is CLEARLY treating me like I am a CHILD, AN IDIOT or WORSE???

Nothing of what I said needs citation or logical prove.

example:
Just because you don't know how computational fluid dynamics work, it does not mean that is a made up term nor does it mean that I have to prove it you...

Dialogue works roughly like this:

A communicates to B.
B communicates to A.
A communicates to B.
B communicates to A.

The rationality of the conversation is the quality of the content leaving any particular person in any particular exchange.

If person A's opening statement is irrational, the content of B's return conversation is irrelevant because the failure or rationality has already happened.

How is my statement irrational???
Prove it OR shut the hell up!
thanks...

I'm just pointing out how it's possible for rational dialogue to fail if one person is being treated like a child, and idiot, or worse.

You asked a question. I answered it. I don't think this is complicated.

I will trully never, ever come back here.

Life time of reading philosophy.
4 years of social anthropology and additional 4 years of Philosophy in Social Anthropology.
I have been a member of many philosophy forums. I have debated my teachers and fellow students countless times.
But here I am literally attacked by all.

If you ever wonder why this sub-forum has 5-6 active posters. Maybe I will help you see the issue.

GG trolls, I admit defeat.

/self banned

Re: "Ban me! Ban me!"
The intelletual polution in your sub-forum on religion is like a car crash.
You know you should not look, but then you look around for blood and body parts.
Is like listening to gangnam style. It is a completelly useless peice of ****, but you can't stop listening to it.

If you can ban me from the religion sub-forum, I will be very glad.
If not sorry for the long post and thank you for your attetion

p.s. even the moderators are trolls in the religion forum.
perma ban for the sub-forum pleaseeee!!!!!!!!!

Well, one can but only hope that you are a man of your word.

Please please please don’t ban this goofball!

He has no idea how to put forth a point. And LOL at his philosophy C.V. That was hilarious.

Jesus said:

As the Redeemer and head of a new religion - my own - I had to give you a sign that it was the only one which was divine.

Dear Fixupost,

You are very abusive and unpleasant to communicate with. I cannot speak for others but I am happy you will never return. Thank you.

+1