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.
Don't forget about the fundamentalist aCrabists, who don't believe in the Giant Space Crabs. They're no different....
which brings us full circle to the opening post view of how internet atheists present and appear online
and repel rather than attract, with what they are saying, and how they are saying it
thank you Freak for keeping us on topic and illustrating the opening post so clearly
which brings us full circle to the opening post view of how internet atheists present and appear online
and repel rather than attract, with what they are saying, and how they are saying it
thank you Freak for keeping us on topic and illustrating the opening post so clearly
I'm an Internet aCrabist, not an Internet atheist.
which brings us full circle to the opening post view of how internet atheists present and appear online
and repel rather than attract, with what they are saying, and how they are saying it
thank you Freak for keeping us on topic and illustrating the opening post so clearly
Which brings us back full circle to the question of who says that internet atheists repel rather than attract, other than it being the opinion of theists of various stripe with a vested interest in getting us to shut up?
which brings us full circle to the opening post view of how internet atheists present and appear online and repel rather than attract, with what they are saying, and how they are saying it
And what the thread has shown very clearly indeed, is that it is not an atheism issue at all. As you and others on the thread have shown, there are bad apples in every group and a thread titled "Internet Theism:" rather than "Internet Atheism:" started to discuss the abhorrent, dishonest, lacking in integrity, better than thou behavior of theist would be EVERY bit as valid.
It is irrelevant whether we are talking about atheism, theism, republicans or democrats, blacks or whites, gay or straight, pro choice or anti choice, liberal or conservative, or any other opposed duo you wish to pluck..... there will be bad apples on both sides letting the side down..... especially on line.
And they will "repel rather than attract, with what they are saying, and how they are saying it".
All we can do is call attention to abhorrent behavior in the opposing group(s)..... in the way I have done with you by not just labeling your bad behavior and running away, but by explaining exactly how and why the label applies...... and ALSO by pulling people aside in our OWN groups and working on them to up their game and standards.
And all this is good stuff. The problem begins when one side tries to leap on the bad apples in the other and act like this is representative of the group, or some problem specific to the group, as if their own group is free of it.... or even has less of it. It certainly is not so as your own behavior demonstrates.... and there are people of remarkable dishonestly and worse on both sides.
Yes, but can't you just hear the: 'Why don't you start looking at the theist side positively, instead of finding things to complain about...?" line getting ready to be shot?
Never a word of approval do we receive about the validity of the logic,
Never a word of praise about the validity of the evidence or the support for science
never a kind word about the support for race, gender, sexual and even religious, equality,
never a word of approbation for the desire to make survival easier for our species.
All we hear is accusations of rudeness, arrogance, of being a religion or at least some kind of dogmatists. At least we don't hear so much as we used about being without any morality. Along with the "Hitler was an atheist" line, we seem to have got the win on the Morality debate.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-03-2016 at 09:03 AM..
which brings us full circle to the opening post view of how internet atheists present and appear online and repel rather than attract, with what they are saying, and how they are saying it thank you Freak for keeping us on topic and illustrating the opening post so clearly
Indeed. Fundamentalism of any sort is, indeed, the problem, even when practiced by atheists.
Ok, we are talking to a brick wall. Whatever we say, the sweet reasonables will continue to regard their modified theism as the only rational and reasonable position and the religious and irreligious as Fundamentalists on either side.
A complete self -delusion and based on rummaging around for evidence to support the false view (just as Creationists do ) and inventing it if it isn't there. Accusations of being a fundy and when we argue this is simply proof of it .
So what's the point? Being called atheist fundies isn't going to discomfort those who drift away from believing in something they know nothing of into not believing in it, no more than deconverts are going o be shaken by being told they were never real Christians. It might well irritate them, though.
It certainly isn't going to intimidate us into shutting up. What it might do is flag up a way to deal with the arguments of the sortagodist fundies...first cause, modified treehugger I/D, appeal to unknowns and claiming that gullibility is somehow better than rationality (I ought to post that vid on creationism making exactly the the same accusation...proof of just who is the 'Fundy' here (1) and most especially the last resort of those who have lost their arguments (no names, but an obsessive gay -hater and obsessive anti -evolutionist spring to mind) or, as here, really have no argument at all, but just a dislike of atheists who dare to talk about it.
Start a fight.
We could learn to expect this method by watching it develop. Accusation, refutation, accusation that this proves the accusation, more refutation being taken personally as "Rudeness" (and more proof of the accusation) and so on. Just as I have had to devise ways of coping with ...those who find denialist backchat a very effective of winning (or at least not admitting losing) the argument after you have lost it (it is really a variety of red herring), we can (and should) devise ways of dealing with this ploy.
It is a difficult one to handle, but it can be done. And being able to show up the immoderate pugnaciousness of the fundamentalist Sortatheist will be effective in debunking the annoying buggers just as it could discredit the broken -record anti -evolutionist and the Gay obsessive who plays the martyr every time he is asked to leave gays be.
Such adaptation of our behaviour and tone would be an effective tactic we could take away from this otherwise toxic thread, and would, after all, give them what the Accommodationalists have been asking us to do: play nicer, though not at all what they actually want, which is for us to stop putting the arguments that show up the irrationality of their sortafaith.
(1) here. The same back to front argument creationists use.
Hard -hitting and does rather skip the point of the value of speculative hypotheses - which science likes well enough when there is something to look into.
But it does show the basic false thinking behind the appeal to unknowns - it is NOT clever, sensible or preferrable to abandon "naturalism' for baseless speculation. It is even worse because science doesn't even reject speculation - it just wants to be able to validate it before believing it. And even worse than that, these Unknowns are not just presented for consideration but it is insisted that we should believe them with no decent evidence (or we get denounced and castigated) and worse still, they are selected unknowns out of a universe full of possible unknowns.
How it is possible to hold up this gullible and fantastic belief -system as something that makes science look like kiddies in a sandbox, where it really deserves only laughter?
But we don't laugh. We argue the logic and evidence in a serious way sortagod claims don't actually deserve. And we get accused of being Fundies, for thanks, and then expected to be polite and conciliary. Agnostic fundamentalists can have NO idea of how forbearing our pal Nozz, is being, under the circumstances.
P.S I'm considering a pt 2...what, (just for sake of argument) if these atheist -bashing sortagnostics thought "Gosh, we really had the logic back to front, didn't we? We were really being unreasonable about those who didn't believe what there was no decent evidence for...what can we do to put ourselves straight?"
They may be surprised a just how little that would be to replace irrationality and bigotry, really, with a logically tenable and less personally venomous behaviour.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-04-2016 at 06:22 AM..
Reason: gimme a "t"
If something in you, or around you, changed - the only way you couldn't learn something is if you're not paying attention.
And to learn is to grow. And growing is better than not, in my books.
This is the lesson of the cross. Not paying attention is one thing. Ignoring observations, diminishing, or mocking them to maintain a false world view is death to experience, teaching, learning, understading, and growth. And I don't believe in their bible omni-dude god. The fundamental world/mind must be "hell".
This is the lesson of the cross. Not paying attention is one thing. Ignoring observations, diminishing, or mocking them to maintain a false world view is death to experience, teaching, learning, understading, and growth. And I don't believe in their bible omni-dude god. The fundamental world/mind must be "hell".
100 reps to you.
And one for you. While what you don't believe is less of interest than why you don't believe it (after all, the suckers want reasons rather than opinions), appeal to input rather than faith or superstition is what I'd applaud. The only caveat I have is that, if you are going to use evidence and reason rather than Faith and superstition, I do see real value in making that validated evidence and logical reasoning.
P.s In fact I think the Fundamentalist world/mind must be not much different form the atheist/rationalist. After all, from a believing -point of view, the Bible is as believable as from a view of NOT taking it as true to start off with, it looks unbelievable. And the recent debate with Eusebius has made me aware of just how easy it is to make the 'Holes' in evolution theory, look like it is really all that evolution has. I can well imagine that the uncomfortable challenges that we sometimes get are no more or less bothersome than the ones Creationism or Bible apologists get when feathered dinosaurs or a missing Nazareth turn up. And we may have a reliable basis in science, but they have a solid basis in Faith,
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-04-2016 at 07:32 AM..
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.
Yes, but can't you just hear the: 'Why don't you start looking at the theist side positively, instead of finding things to complain about...?" line getting ready to be shot?
but an obsessive gay -hater and obsessive anti -evolutionist spring to mind) or, as here, really have no argument at all, but just a dislike of atheists who dare to talk about it.
