Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with ya, I was really talking about the middle of the roaders. You are not a middle of the roader
So you did. And whether I am in the middle depends on the case - not on an an adopted fence -sitting position for every question. And nobody is shouting the middle of the roaders down. The atheist -bashing element of theism applauds your efforts. We atheists argue with the assessment of 'Fundamentalist' and I argue your duck -hunt methods of confirmation of your bias...which I still don't understand. It would be most unfortunate if you were to dismiss an explanation as 'shouting you down' - an emotional response if I ever heard one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
Well, you also can't spell it without "fun", so I think this approach is a wash.
So you did. And whether I am in the middle depends on the case - not on an an adopted fence -sitting position for every question. And nobody is shouting the middle of the roaders down. The atheist -bashing element of theism applauds your efforts. We atheists argue with the assessment of 'Fundamentalist' and I argue your duck -hunt methods of confirmation of your bias...which I still don't understand. It would be most unfortunate if you were to dismiss an explanation as 'shouting you down' - an emotional response if I ever heard one.
lmao, this is azz backwards ... really not worth a reply.
we all have bias. My bias is holding to claims that can handle more conditional changes than those that do not. like my doc says, if you are questioning yourself then you are not as sick as you think you are. So I am just fine.
For example: The black and white thinking of "all atheist or all theist are wrong" does not match observation. You are not in the middle because your anti religion conclusion is far more emotional based than mine and the numbers do not support your anti-religion stance. "anti religion", meaning anything religous, as in a group of people sharing the same intrests in this matter.
Now my middle stance of "Fundemental"/"millitant" is a personality disorder and these people are dangerous fits many more conditions than yours. In fact, if we list just the personality traits of these people we will see there not much of a difference between them. Like looking at football teams wearing different colors.
Some just can't see the game let alone the "volume of space" on whitch it is being played.
Well, you also can't spell it without "fun", so I think this approach is a wash.
And if you use fundamentalist instead....you also have to have a list. As in the list of rules to follow, logical fallacies, and reasons that atheists are going to hell.
Oh good point. So if I take a slight bit of liberty with JerZ's fundamentalism, and convert to fundamentalist....I get something like this....
Fun Dam Mental List = an enjoyable criteria, for the clinically insane, by which comfort is had by formulating lists of actions which will dam violators to hell, aka oblivion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We don't let them shout us down - and that's when we get accused of being rude, damaging the cause of secularism and being Fundies ourselves.
