Why is it Atheists hate Vishnu?

I will do better than a link, I will provide you with the quote of your statement.

"we cant tell that unless we know how moral the parents were "

That is where the agreement exists. It exists because you took up the argument that he was making. The question that you responded to was directed at him... therefore, you stood in for him with a supporting statement.

 

nope! you asked a question: "Not necessarily true. Example: it is sometimes presumed that the United States is a Christian country (for the sake of argument, let us make that presumption based on the population that is predominately Christian); a child born in this Christian country, by Atheist Mom and Dad, with Mom and Dad teaching the child that religion is false, that the Bible is a fairy tale, that there is no God or gods; what set of morals will that child find him/her self possessing"

I said we couldn't answer. so I didn't answer. simple enough.

 

But you did answer in stipulating the conditions "we cant tell that unless we know how moral the parents were ". Providing to him an excuse to not answer the question.

 

I explained why I couldn't answer your question. I could have just said I cant answer that. he chose not to answer you at all. he probably knows you better than I

 

Now you are rationalizing (making excuses for your behavior). Which indicates that you see the error, yet you are attempting to justify those actions through the fabrication of excuses.

 

if I didn't answer your question, there was no error. sorry

 

But you did answer the question. You essentially stated that you had insufficient data. Which is an answer. Which was also making a representation for the other poster who you decided to assume the responsibility of answering the question for him.

 

but it doesn't answer the question asked

- - - Updated - - -

but it doesn't answer the question asked

 

Yes it does! It provides to me your status with regard to the availability of data that you have. So, yes you answered the question from your own personal perspective based on the data that you have.

 

you didn't ask me my status . I have no data and I have no answer. sorry

 

You are right. I did not ask you for your status. I asked the other poster. Yet you took it upon yourself to answer for that other poster... thus adopting the argument (claim) as your own. You already stated words to the effect that you had insufficient data, so that is nothing new. However you did provide an answer to the question.

If a question is asked and you have no data to use in answering that question, then why insert a statement that is challenged and then you admit that you did not have any data? Were you on a fishing expedition?

 

for fun

 

How is that comment relevant to the current discussion about you answering the question?

 

you asked why I inserted a statement. I told you

 

"fun" meaning entertainment. Even in the field of entertainment, there is always some price that has to be paid. So now that we know that you were merely seeking some sort of 'fun', we can safely assume that your comments were not to be taken seriously. That is cool... at least now we know why you are on the forum.

 

glad to oblige. run along now. im done with you

 

Not quite that easy. First of all, your demand that I "run along now" is meaningless. You have no way to give effect to such a demand. Secondly, I would refuse even if you thought that you did.

 

You're getting a wee bit pompous, matey. Incidentally most atheists have never heard of Vishnu, and don't know if it is an elephant or a gooseberry.

 

Perhaps the POINT would have been less subtle if I had written-

"Why do Atheists hate Zeus?" or "Why do Atheists hate Cthulhu?"

 

So what? swabby.

Not a problem of mine.

 

Vish who?

 

How can an athesit hate Vishnu?Atheists dont believe in Gods. You cant hate something that is imaginary. The real question would be do Christians hate Vishnu. Wht dont you ask a Christian the same question so we can see which god is correct. Better yet Ill do it over at part 5.

 

Coming from a guy who endlessly rants about his hatred for "tories'

 

I am not that subtle. I think Americans go in for 'hating' a great deal too much, and I doubt if many of them have heard of all these all-powerful beings, whatever their names. It is a great pity to go along with fundamentalist nuttiness as far as to define yourself as not their fantasy. Let's define ourselves.

- - - Updated - - -

Merry Xmas!

 

I actually studied and did a term paper on the Bhagavad Gita for a philosophy course in college. There are certainly some "words of wisdom" in it but there's also a lot of BS as well. For example there is no evidence of reincarnation and reincarnation is actually illogical from a philosophical foundation. Its like the Bible that also has some good teachings as well as a lot of BS contained in it.

Condemnation of BS is valid in philosophy and when we look at books of philosophy, such as the Bible or the Bhagavad Gita, then we should look at what's valid as far as life lessons and then condemn the BS that's also included.

BTW I did get an "A" for my term paper on the Bhagavad Gita and I studied it in depth at the time although that was 40 years ago. I studied numerous religious and philosophical texts at the time which is why I ended up abandoning religion and became an athiest. If there is anything that will make a person an athiest its studying religion.