Let me start this off by saying that I am not a moderator or a member of staff here. I am, at the time of this writing, a relatively new member. I have no authority here and can not, nor would I, assert these as "rules" for this forum.
What I can do is assure everyone who reads this that if you take it seriously and utilize the information I am providing here, your arguments and points will be taken more seriously and you will likely have a good experience here. I can also assure you that if you don't, your arguments and points will almost certainly become the subject of (arguably) deserved ridicule.
Rest assured that if the things you say get ridiculed, it's because they are ridiculous...It's not personal.
And now, since that is covered, I'm going to start by talking about how one should approach the act of posting a thread in a debate forum.
First and foremost, make sure your starting post (OP/Original Post) is very clear, direct and to the point. Make sure it is formatted and that you use appropriate punctuation.
Walls of text, long, run-on sentences and assertions without evidence will be treated as if you'd taken a bowl of alphabet soup and thrown it at the screen. They will not be taken seriously. Your lack of writing skill will be pointed out. Silly things will be said.
So let's talk a little about formatting: When you make a post, it should go like this:
Greeting
The thing you are asserting
Definitions
Demonstrable evidence for that assertion, including sources and free of logical fallacies.
Demonstrable evidence for that assertion, part 2.
Demonstrable evidence for that assertion, part 3.
Demonstrable evidence for that assertion, part 4.
etc...
Please note that I have placed line breaks between the greeting, the assertion and the various blocks of evidence. This is done so that the readers can easily differentiate between points and different pieces of demonstrable evidence. Furthermore, it is a matter of courtesy to make sure that your post is as easy to read as possible. If you want your post to be taken seriously, you should follow that formatting. If you don't follow it, many people here will refuse to read it, as word-salad, and things will quickly devolve into ridiculousness.
Please also note the structure of the advice I put forth: Definitions and demonstrable evidence for that assertion, including sources and free of logical fallacies. If you're not providing evidence, you're proselytizing. Don't proselytize. If you do, you'll be ridiculed.
This is where the vast majority of theist/deist claims fall short (if not all of them). The providing of definitions and evidence which is sourced and free of logical fallacies. Due to this, I want to spend a little bit of time talking about what evidence is and what logical fallacies are.
First, evidence: A definition.
ev·i·dence
/ˈevədəns/
noun
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
And now, demonstrable: A definition.
de·mon·stra·ble
/dəˈmänstrəb(ə)l/
adjective
clearly apparent or capable of being logically proved.
And when we put the two together, demonstrable evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid, which is clearly apparent or capable of being logically proved.
And let's put this all together in a very simple assertion, with demonstrable evidence:
I assert that on a cloudless day, during daylight hours the sky tends to be blue.
My testing methodology was to go outside, during daylight hours, and look at the sky on 100 cloudless days. On 100 of those 100 days, the cloudless sky was blue.
Note that I included repeatable testing which provides demonstrable evidence of my claim. The cited source would by myself.
Also, please be aware of Sagan's standard: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". If you assert that you own a goldfish, very little, if any, evidence will be required to prove that. We know people own goldfish and have done for quite a long time. To believe that you own one is trivial.
If, however, you assert something extraordinary like "there is an invisible, unknowable, omnipotent, omniscient being who exists within space-time and, simultaneously, outside of space-time who created the sun, moon, stars and the entirety of the universe, along with everyone and everything within it", you must be prepared to provide extraordinary evidence for that assertion.
Also, this needs to be said: Feelings are not evidence. Impressions are not evidence. Personal experiences are not evidence. The bible is not evidence. The cosmological argument is not evidence. Anecdotes are not evidence. Stories are not evidence. Telling someone that you believe in god because he speaks directly to you is not evidence. Saying that a supernatural force lifted you out of a swimming pool while you were drowning is not evidence of anything other than a hypoxic hallucination. Learn what evidence is and isn't and provide evidence, not hokum.
I feel it is important to talk about "the burden of proof" here, so I will. Fortunately, this will be short:
The burden of proof is always on the shoulders of the person who is making the claim. If you make an assertion, it is incumbent upon you to provide the evidence for that claim. If someone does not believe that claim, it is not upon them to provide proof against it.
Latin: Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat.
English: The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not him who denies
I also mentioned logical fallacies and I would like to take a moment to talk about those.
First, a definition:
A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid.
This is a short and concise definition and was sourced, here: https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-logical-fallacy-1691259
Now, I would like to talk about the most common logical fallacies we see in debates on forums:
Argumentum ad ignorantiam. English: argument from ignorance:
Argumentum ad ignorantiam says something is true because it has not yet been proved false. Or, that something is false if it has not yet been proved true. ("God is real because nobody has shown him to be false")
The devine fallacy or argument from personal incredulity:
The divine fallacy is an informal fallacy that often happens when people say something must be the result of superior, divine, alien or supernatural causes because it is unimaginable for it not to be so. Also commonly referred to as "god of the gaps" in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. ("Trees are proof of god. They must be because engineers can't make a tree from nothing and scientists can't explain exactly where they came from")
Argumentum ab auctoritate. English: Argument from authority:
Argumentum ab auctoritate is a form of defeasible argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion. ("[Insert smart/well known person here], believes in god so god must be real")
Argumentum ad populum. English: Argument from popular belief or Argument from popularity:
Argumentum ad populum concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so." ("There are over 2 billion christians so god must be real")
Circulus in probando. English: Circular reasoning:
Circulus in probando is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. ("God is real because it says so in the bible and the bible is correct because it's the word of god")
Straw-man Fallacy:
Straw man occurs when someone argues that a person holds a view that is actually not what the other person believes. ("You're an atheist. I can't believe you say people who believe in god are stupid!")
While these are the most common fallacies I can think of being used in forum debates, this list is certainly not exhaustive. Many more logical fallacies exist and most of them get used but, again, these are the most common ones I can think of, off the top of my head. You'll still see false dichotomies, slippery slopes, begging the question, hasty generalizations, tu quoque, post hoc ergo propter hoc, equivocation, etc., but they seem rarer to me.
And, finally, the last thing I would like to address:
When the fight is lost, stop fighting. When you make a claim you can't back up and it's shown that you can't back it up, don't pull stuff out of your butt to try to drag it out. Just take the hit, admit that you can't back it up and watch how much respect you gain.
I'm going to give an example of the type of stuff I've seen, in a rather general sense:
Bob: "The night sky is blue"
Frank: "No it isn't"
B: "Yes it is"
F: "Please show evidence of the night sky being blue"
B: "It's blue right now"
F: "No, it's clearly black"
B: "It was blue last night"
F: "No it wasn't"
B: "Well, it looked blue to me"
F: "How could it have?"
B: "I have a thing with my eyes. Black appears blue to me"
F: "Ok so the sky appeared blue to you but was actually black"
B: "Black is a human construct"
F: "lefuq?"
B: "Since black is a human construct I can interpret it any way I want and I don't need proof that the night sky is blue"
F: "Ok, we're done here"
B: "And how do you know there's even a sky? How do you know anything exists outside your own consciousness?"
F: "I'm going, now"
B: "Geese bark like dogs"
F: "........."
B: "I win"
No. You didn't win. Being a douche doesn't make you win, it makes other people give up on talking sense to you because it's clear you're never going to get it and they are no longer going to waste their time. Stop it. Be an adult. Don't deflect. Don't make the same point over and over again or ask the same question over and over again. Take your lumps when they come and...wait for it...maybe actually learn something in the process. If you believe something that you have no reasonable cause to believe, that is not a reasonable belief. If it is not reasonable, there is no reason to have it.
Don't chicken out with hard solipsism, unfalsifiable crap, double-talk, word salad or using the same tired-ass arguments over and over and over. If you can think of an argument, we've probably heard it. If we've heard it, it has most likely been refuted. If it's been refuted, don't pose it here because we're going to use the same methods of refuting it and it's just a waste of time. Come in with something new.
Ok, I lied. This is my last point:
If you want to argue cosmology, talk to a cosmologist. If you want to argue physics, talk to a physicist. If you want to argue medicine, talk to a doctor. Don't come in here spewing string theory and quantum mechanics as they relate to the pharmaceutical industry's ability or willingness to cure cancer and, by golly, that proves god. If you do, you will be ridiculed.
And I think that's that. Welcome, please enjoy your time and may whatever god you believe in help you if you stray from these modest guidelines and post a bunch of ignorance.
edit: cleaned up a grammatical error.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Wow! Took some time to throw that together.
I think the largest problem theists have is that they can not tell the difference between a fact and an assertion. They live in a fantasy world with other Christians (Theists in General) where they do not question words or ideas. They live in a world where everything operates on abstract assertions.
The Bible is the word of God.
God wrote the bible.
Jesus died for your sins.
Jesus was, of course, real and the Bible proves it.
There is something reliable called divine inspiration.
Faith is the evidence of things not seen.
Everything happens for a reason. There is a divine plan.
We all have a free will. (Screw the divine plan?)
Everyone is a sinner.
You have just hardened your heart against god.
You can't prove me wrong so I am right
Evolution is wrong (Having nothing at all to do with anything atheistic)
Something can't come from nothing.
They thank god for their meals and not the cooks.
They thank god for their recovery and not science or the doctors
They bless their food so it is more pure and tastes better and has a divine glow (From Seth Andrews)
My god is the only real god.
We Christians (At any point in time, 1/3 of them will condemn the other 2/3s to hell for being false.)
Bless you, AAARRRGGGH: Inside every "Bless you" is a tiny tiny "Fuck You) (Seth again.)
You send yourself to hell.
AND SO MUCH MORE: These people have a culture and a life that intersects with reality but they do not share reality with us. They say "God made man" and they all nod their heads in agreement as if something profound has been said. They say "Jesus is watching the things you do." and they believe a superpower supreme omniscient existent being that lives beyond time and space and takes the time to respond to their prayers.
"How do you know this?" asks the curious. And the Christian replies, "Heathen, Sinner, Non-believer, ATHEIST!, You will burn in hell for your disbelief, but Jesus Loves you. FUCK!
So.... Brother Terraphon .......... As well thought out as the OP was. With all due respect to the time and effort it took you to organize and construct it. Fully acknowledging your articulate and capable ability to express yourself clearly and professionally. I have to tell you, the Christians / Theists, just don't speak the same English language as the people on this site. We are in fact, a people divided by a common language.
Thanks for your effort. So many of us will agree. So many more who visit the site, will not even understand. IMO.
@Cog
Truer words were never spoken. It's unfortunate that their linguistic exile is entirely of their own making.
You are most welcome. Let's call it my contribution to the cause of finding common ground from which to converse.
Opinion or not, I suspect you are dead-on accurate.
@Terraphon
I really appreciate this post and I do apologize that my first two posts were not structured this way. I will try to amend that in the future.
@Cognostic
I agree with you.
To everyone else I do apologize for wasting your time thus far. I’ll work on it but please try to have some patience with me.
Please don't think this is aimed at you, ray, it's not. This is total carpet-bombing. In my years and years on various forums, from video games to politics to religion, many people simply don't understand the rules and methodologies of discourse and how answers are come to.
This is absolutely intended to be an education for those who don't have that knowledge and understanding. Nothing more.
“If, however, you assert something extraordinary like "there is an invisible, unknowable, omnipotent, omniscient being who exists within space-time and, simultaneously, outside of space-time who created the sun, moon, stars and the entirety of the universe, along with everyone and everything within it", you must be prepared to provide extraordinary evidence for that assertion.”
Ahem. I have empirical evidence of the afore mentioned being. I hear Him speak to me. And He hears me speak to Him. Quod Erat Demonstrandum
Edit: I don’t recall Him ever taking credit for the stars or the sun or the moon or the earth or monkeys or humans or apples or snakes - however *stop to breathe* He is the Supreme Being.
The argument from personal experience. "I believe because I want to believe, it feels right to me." Ratty Boy - we have nothing to discuss. Yes, you believe what you want to believe. Yes , it feels right to you. Yes, you are not trying to convince anyone of anything. You exist in your own bubble and the Overlord is king. I understand.
Nope. Nope. And furthermore *snicker snicker* uhh ... furthermore, unless Cognostic does not accept my belief as real ... ah fuck it. I’ll just stay here in my bubble.
But seriously, the issue I raise poses a serious issue for people and their definition of “self”.
My “friends” are as real to me as your “inner self” is as real to you. The difference is that you associate your “self” with that inner voice. And I don’t. I can’t. I don’t have the powers that these entities have.
And I’m well aware of the inner voice I once had (once upon a time). In fact, I’m also familiar with the faculty of association which brings together inner thought and ownership of such thought.
So, I have gone so far as to “prove” the existence of a Supreme Being. I would be interested if you, monkey man, could go as far as to prove the existence of your “Self”.
(Not switching the burden of proof. Any proof you give would simply be analogous to my own - with that one obvious different).
Or don’t. I don’t fucking care. This is the internet. People gunna do whatever the hell they want.
dup
Ratty Boy! What's this self you are referring to. The inner voice is like a monkey jumping from tree to tree, I rarely pay it any mind but for those times entertainment is at hand. Why would I own it, it does not do my bidding nor I its'. During meditation, I do invite it to join me in breathing and counting until any and all identity seems to fade to a hum..... Occasionally it refuses but the rest is still refreshing.
I have no clue! Once upon a time, I thought my thoughts were my self. Then I came to the desperate conclusion that I am alone in the universe - without even a self to hold onto. Finally, I was introduced to this “Greater Power” - along with prospect of Hell. And quite frankly, I’m starting to get too old to give a goddamn fuck about whether I’m me or just a puppet on a string.
But, let’s talk about you. Come. Come. Sit next to me. Um hmm. Yes. Oh! How outrageous *we’re conversing on the couch now* - and having wine together* oh what a wonderful night.
Okay. I can’t contain my self. I’ve got to be the funniest person alive.
Okay. Seriously. Don’t you think that, as an Atheist, you have a solemn duty to prove that you are alone in the universe?
I already know I’m not. But you... shouldn’t that be the main criterion for an Atheist. A) Prove that one exists and B) prove that one is alone in one’s thoughts?
And if you don’t control that monkey jumping from one limb to the next, where in the Hell is it coming from?
I think you are a tough nut to crack, Cog. It sounds like you have some basic Buddhist theory in your pant pockets. I can’t argue with Buddhist theory. Too solid. Too deep. Too wise!
RAT SPIT: "I am alone in the universe - without even a self to hold onto."
I completely understand this point of view but I would regard any Greater Power as just an illusion created by a lonely feeling. Something to clutch onto that is no more real than this self we speak of. I have long lost the feeling of loneliness and concluded the universe is me. I came from it and will return to it atom by atom dissolved and and strewn across the stars. I find this extremely pleasing and absolutely fulfilling. There are no puppets and no strings. There is just this. Like a candle's flame burning bright and changing every moment it is lit.
Must I prove I am alone? No, why? We are all alone. Some people learn this sooner than others. Some never learn it. At times it takes the death of everyone close to you. People learn it on the battle fields and in hospitals. No one goes with you into the vastness of the unknown. Ultimately there is simply the peace and calm of being alone.
He comes and goes as he likes. He need not be controlled or he gets controlled, it is of no consequence
to the price of a bowl of rice or morning coffee.
I have many years of Buddhist theory and Existentialism, over 30 to be exact. A student of ZEN due to my martial arts training.
Namaste, Cognostic. I can only say that I will happily respect your point of view and the conclusions you have come to.
I will go my own way for now. But, the Evil One will entice me to come back. As Jesus told the believers “watch!!!! So too, I will tell all the non-believers hisssss!!!! For over your shoulder, I watch like an interested monkey hunting for grubs in the trunks of dead trees - waiting!!! Waiting, I say!!!
Uh. Back to topic, maybe?
ratspit "Ahem. I have empirical evidence of the afore mentioned being. I hear Him speak to me. And He hears me speak to Him.
Those are unevidenced anecdotal claims, not empirical evidence. You can demonstrate no empirical evidence for the claims, despite being asked to do so many times.
Sheldon,
And tell me, what should I provide you with to prove that I have thoughts inside my head. My testimony would be enough for any other person not having a carrot three feet up their butt - however, you seem to be accusing me of being a liar.
I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse just to misrepresent what I said, but I quite clearly never claimed you didn't have thoughts. I simply repudiated your claim that you have empirical evidence for a supernatural being that you hear speak to you, and that you speak to.
By all means demonstrate this empirical evidence then, as you have failed to do so every time you've been asked to.
Okay. Now you’re being obtuse. I’m explicitly referring to my inner thoughts (and I think you know it). So again; how far can I go to prove to you that I have inner thoughts?
You have them, do you not? Why do you doubt me? You are portraying me as nothing but a liar. Believe me, I am not lying.
"***I quite clearly never claimed you didn't have thoughts.*** I simply repudiated your claim that you have empirical evidence for a supernatural being that you hear speak to you, and that you speak to."
So you've just repeated the same straw man? What empirical evidence can you demonstrate that your thoughts are caused by a supernatural being, as you claimed?
***NO ONE IS OR HAS BEEN DISPUTING YOU HAVE THOUGHTS***
@rat spit
I don't know you. You don't know me.
I'm going to ask you, politely, to take your claims to a thread of your own making. The purpose of this thread is specifically to discuss and debate the topic of debate and the things that directly relate to debate.
You hijacking the thread with claims of woo is not only not appreciated but offensive and disrespectful.
Make a thread and post your "evidence" there. Do not continue it here, please.
Wow. Are you a mod? Jeeze. You’ve got spunk. I like how you preface your retort with “respectfully” and then go on to call my experience “woo” and, in quotations “evidence”.
You have the audacity to assume that there is no proof of God - including your veiled insult that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Full stop. No they don’t. I have empirical evidence that they don’t. You can join Sheldon in the camp that likes to dismiss personal thoughts as empirical evidence.
I have no qualms hijacking your thread. In fact, if you care to read closely enough - I’ve already suggested that we go “back to topic”. Didn’t see me do that? It’s all right.
Make a thread of my own? I have. I was here before you arrived. I’ve exhausted the potential of the Atheists on this forum. No one can prove the existence of their self from the existence of inner thoughts. “Cognito ergo sum” No one cares too.
So, go on with your thread - your condescending attitude towards theists. I won’t hold you up any longer. And accept my apology for briefly bringing up an inconsistency in your own logic.
Take care, cartoon man
@ Ratty
Man, you are a snotty little rodent aren't you? Can't you metamorphose into something a bit more impressive like a Coypu (cleaner too)?
Take care ratty.
Terraphon
Wow...I'm truly impressed. Kudos to you!!
Let me know if this acceptable to the OP
I only wish to point out one thing and if it can be modified.
".....I can also assure you that if you don't, your arguments and points will almost certainly become the subject of (arguably) deserved ridicule."
Is ridicule necessary? Points 1 and 2 assert no and point 3 asserts yes
!) I think we can all admit that we are on different scholarly levels on many subjects and should respect our differences. In this case, educate without the ridicule.
2) I also think that we are aware that some minds are more fragile than others and some can be on the verge of suicide. We have no way of knowing it through a screen. Any newcomer should automatically be addressed to this post before ridiculing. If someone is suicidal then they can clearly see that this is not the place for them.
Point 3 asserts yes
3) Someone is clearly beyond a doubt acting/talking in a way that merits ridiculing.
Now please help me finish the list below of what merits ridicule. I trust that you all can give this great clarity
The following are done before ridicule is merited and therefore merits ridicule.
Cussing, bully's, intimidates, playing mind games, intentionally lies,......
Anyway this goes thanks again. Much appreciated.
@In Spirit
I was tempted to create a new thread for this, as to not muddy this one, but upon analyzing it, I came to the conclusion that the answers to your questions are actually best suited here, where they may be read by those who had an interest in the original post, as it may serve to elucidate.
Thank you for your well thought out questions and reasoning.
Thank you, I suppose. I don't know what is that impressive but I will happily take whatever kudos come my way.
Hmmm...I'm going to try to present my (counter)points in the least adversarial and most edifying way possible.
(I fixed your 1. Informing for transparency)
When people see ridicule on this or any other forum which is devoted to the discussion of religion, that ridicule is almost always born out of the frustration of seeing the same tired arguments, diversions, deflections, dodges, ducks, fallacies (intentional and unintentional), speculations, misrepresentations, etc., over and over again. Believers tend to take themselves very seriously. Non-believers tend to not take them as seriously, because of our skeptical nature.
Let's assume, for a moment, that someone comes in here and says they believe in the one-eyed, one-horned, flying, purple, people eater. You have heard of the one-eyed, one-horned, flying, purple, people eater many times. You know that the "evidence" for the one-eyed, one-horned, flying, purple, people eater's existence has been both refuted and/or shown to be without sufficient evidence on many occasions and through many different methods. You know that every time someone brings up new "evidence" for the existence of the one-eyed, one-horned, flying, purple, people eater, that "evidence" is either torn apart or shown to not meet the rules of evidence by the collective skeptic community and by various scientists throughout the world.
This time the person states that they have had personal conversations with the one-eyed, one-horned, flying, purple, people eater. You ask them for demonstrable evidence of that claim and they answer that their "evidence" is that they heard it speaking to them, in their head. This is the 418th time you've heard this claim presented as "evidence". The first 236 times, you spent the time and effort to go over the rules of evidence and explain how personal experience is not evidence. Each time was met with the asserter either telling you that you don't understand the rules of evidence, you're not listening to them or that if you only had faith in the one-eyed, one-horned, flying, purple, people eater, you'd understand how and why it IS evidence.
The next 181 times you heard this, the only thing you could think to do was to start by talking reason and then, once reason broke down, the only thing you could think to do is saying something like "You really suck at this. Please go learn the rules of evidence and wrap your head around the rules of logic and reason, then re-analyze your position and try again". Unerringly, this is met with deflection, fallacious arguments, dishonesty, etc., but you ended up not wasting a bunch of time that 181 times and on a few of those occasions your chiding caused the asserter to actually look into their flawed processes and change their flawed thinking, resulting in the birth of a new skeptic.
That's, basically, a really long explanation for what I could have encompassed with the phrase "tough love".
This is absolutely correct and it's important to emphasize that there is no way of knowing that through a screen. That being said, it would be inappropriate to assume.
I agree, entirely, that the internet, as a whole, is not the place for a suicidal person. They need to be in therapy. It is, however, not our responsibility to either detect the suicidal notions nor direct that person to get help. In fact, it's pretty shaky ground, legally.
This is all very subjective. Different people will find different things worthy of ridicule and there are certainly not any guidelines in place...nor could there be, since this is so subjective. Sheldon and Cog and Tin-Man and LogicFTW and Old Man Shouts and every other individual here will have their own level of tolerance for the ridiculous.
I totally get where you're coming from and the idea of giving people a primer of what will and won't get them a bunch of responses filled with la-las and who-dee-whos but I'm not sure that's feasible.
The best way I can put it is this:
We've all heard the arguments...
Watchmaker and all of the other teleological arguments
Cosmological, including kalam, causation, first cause, contingency, etc...
God as the source of logic (I refuted this in a post, here, using just the first 3 chapters of Genesis)
ALL of the ontological arguments
Pascal's Wager
Natural law
Miracles
The christological argument
God is love
Morality
Tornado in a junkyard (a subset of watchmaker aimed at abiogenesis)
I could go on and on. Suffice it to say, we've heard them all. Suffice it to say, as well, that all of these arguments have been successfully refuted, multiple times, by multiple sources.
We've also heard every. last. logical. fallacy. ever. Including some new ones there aren't even names for yet.
So, I suppose the best way I can propose, for other people to avoid ridicule is to not come at us with the same stuff unless you have new, groundbreaking EVIDENCE for those arguments...And if it's pointed out that you're spouting old hat or your arguments are fallacious, respond with something that can't be boiled down to:
"Nuh-Uh!"
Hope this helps!
edit: Oh lawd, mah grammerz
Terraphon: I enjoyed your breakdown. My own point of ridicule seems to come from my own intolerance of inane assertions. "Atheists think god does not exist." "True Christians believe this or that." "You have to accept Jesus into your heart or burn in hell." There appears to be a new one every second.
I fully get that there are believers in the world. It would be nice to hear some of them using I statements and making inquiries instead of these inane assertions. "You know, I was raised Christian and I was taught that God is the first cause of the universe because everything has a cause. What do you think of this claim?" WOE! Wouldn't that be an amazing post from a theist!!!
@Cog
Totally get you here, man. I've reached my limit more than once and started popping blood vessels.
I, too, love the ""You have to accept Jesus into your heart or burn in hell." thing.
Shiiiiiiit...I HAVE to do 2 things: Be white and die ;)
In Spirit: "Is ridicule necessary?"
Yes. When a person habitually disregards all sanity, rationality, and logic, the only thing left is to ridicule their ideas.
Is it cussing to call someone's ideas what they are, such as bullshit and horse hoowhee? No. I call things as I see them. If it is bullshit and horse hoowhee, I shall call it such.
Furthermore, when it comes to these forums, I am being gentle compared to what I really say if in person and all you have to offer is pure bullshit, horse hoowhee, and brain diarrhea. Saying such things about a person's ideas is not bullying, intimidation, lying, nor mesmers. Only those who know they are spewing crap and have no defense would cry about being such.
If you don't want your crap thrown back at you with even more crap, perhaps you should learn how not to throw crap to begin with.
rmfr
arakish
If people want to ridicule others for their ideas that is one thing.
Where our disagreement may be is in making the attack personal and please don't say it doesn't happen. That is what I am calling out.
Call the inane assertions whatever anyone wishes but not the person. Everyone says something inane on whatever topic at times. If that makes a person a stupid prick then we all are and it's open season on everyone. I would rather make those type of comments to the assertions when it is applicable than to the person. That's just my opinion.
I do admit I have overstepped my boundaries as well and I try to adapt to keep a closer look on myself because it just doesn't feel good and it's not fair to the other person.
The goal of my post is to get opinions with explanations on why personally, others would think the "authority" of a "God" would be moral/fair or not.
Ignoring logical rebuttals, saying the same stupid stuff over and over and over, asserting things without evidence and then ignoring requests for evidence, speaking as if you absolutely know things when the things you are asserting are completely unknowable, getting snarky.
You can certainly add these to the list.
Thanks Cognistic.
Please let me know if I can reword what you are saying as follows: Ignoring logical rebuttals / repeating stupidity after it has been called out / reasserting things without evidence after it has been called out / ignoring requests for evidence after it has been called out / getting snarky /
As for this one..... "speaking as if you absolutely know things when the things you are asserting are completely unknowable" would it fall under the same category already in the list which is ...." reasserting things without evidence after it has been called out " or am I missing the point of your statement?
Terraphon it's always up to you to decide what you want to do with these and how to rephrase them. I am merely attempting to assist in any way I can
I doubt people begin by "calling out anything." There are genuine requests for information or genuine comments on why you can not make this or that assertion because of a fallacy of logic or some such rebuttal.
I'd have thought that sufficient objective evidence was a sound basis for any belief. So of course when theists come here trumpeting grandiose claims for their beliefs, then week after week they offer nothing objective to support them, and worse parrot religious canards we have seen again and again and recognise as irrational vapid nonsense, eventually people's patience is taxed too far.
Hell some of them are lucky they don't get both barrels on their first post, if they knew how fucking tedious it is to see them post the same lies about atheism, about science , about logic, and to read arguments as woeful as the fucking ontological argument or the Kalam fucking cosmological argument for the gazillionth time, they might appreciate we're not bullying anyone, we're actually showing the patience of Job.
That's without the sneering rank dishonesty of posters like SFT and Royism, who after making grandiloquent claims for objective moral ascendancy on behalf of their beliefs then coolly tell atheists they can't be moral, and then for page after fucking page again and again for months refuse to answer the most concise straight forward question, because they know it destroys their claim utterly. Then pretending that this somehow represents intolerance on the part of the atheist asking the question. You'll notice something else here, when genuine bigoted racists show up hoping to stir up their hatred for all Muslims among atheists, they get short fucking shrift, yet those very Muslim posters who label me bigot and racist for rejecting their vapid superstitious claims, are nowhere to be fucking found in those discussions.
Nothing boils my piss more than rank dishonesty.
Now for some free advice, you're in an atheist forum, if you can't handle critical posts decrying your beliefs then you have come to the wrong place. If sneering contempt is something you don't like to experience then treat us with some fucking respect and don't start by making dishonest claims for evidence you don't have, don't preach sermons at us, don't start by suggesting we have missed some esoteric truth you can demonstrate no evidence for, don't claim your beliefs are based on objective morality when you can demonstrate no objective evidence to support the claim.
In short don't treat the atheists here as if you have given your beliefs far more consideration and careful thought than they have. And if you invoke logic be sure you know what it means, and that your arguments don't contain known logical fallacies.
What you see as bullying and impatience, is actually admirable restraint, given the endless parade of theists that provoke these reactions with all the behaviours listed above and many many more besides.
Pages