Internet atheism: one of secularism's biggest enemies (genesis, Baptist, faith)

[bUU]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

I see nothing fundamentalist about listening to someones claim and noticing they have no substantiation for it.

"Noticing". Noticing is surely no problem. Thanks for clarifying your position.

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

There is no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer to suggest there is a god or an after life. Least of all from anyone on this thread. Therefore I do not accept the claim that either of those things exist.

The only definitions of God or the after life for which there are no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning are those of religions based on supernatural definitions of such things. Your comment seems to seek to apply that characterization to all definitions of God and the after life, rather than just those for which there is no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning.

The problem with fundamentalist atheism is that it blocks the atheist's ability to understand the paragraph above. They cannot even fathom how those words go together in a rational manner. That's fundamentalism at work. Even when you talk to them about people spiritually living on in the impact they had raising their children, many fundamentalist atheists cannot even then bring themselves to acknowledge the mischaracterization I highlighted in the previous paragraph. Instead, they immediately switch to disrespect mode, in precisely the same way fundamentalist theists do when the intercession of their dogmatic demeanor attacks the dignity of those who believe differently from them.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Your Fundamentalist atheists argument is circular.

It isn't, but I respect your need to say it is, to safeguard your dogmatic view.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

I will give you a friendly tip. Now you know better about us, you will drop this Dogma about atheists claiming to know for certain about unknowns. I haven't talked about "Fundamentalist agnostics" for sometime, but the term can be used, where appropriate.

I've been here for three years. I know the nonsense fundamentalist atheists use to try to rationalize their disrespect for theists. There's nothing surprising in what you're trying to claim.

Originally Posted by mordant

Except that there are a number of reasons to make such an observation, such as observing that the thing being remarked upon is so. Perhaps your need to ascribe motivations to people you don't know fits the very definition of fundamentalism that you are promoting here. Sometimes those who complain the most ...

Or maybe you're just trying to rationalize away the culpability that Tzaphkiel implied by accusing me of something for which you have no basis.

Originally Posted by mordant

I went on to express my opinion which you then attempt to silence.

That's foolishness. There is no means available to "attempt to silence" you. Again it sounds like you're trying to rationalize something by accusing me of something for which you have no basis.

Originally Posted by mordant

You are also ignoring that I went out of my way to allow others to have differing opinions so long as it meets the criteria that you yourself laid out: it is personal and non-binding on others.

I haven't ignored that at all. You are one to talk about evidence. What evidence do you have - other than the fact that I didn't kowtow to you and agree to change my views to match yours - that I ignored? None. So your comment is not even in keeping with your own professed principles. Yet again, it sounds like you're trying to rationalize something by accusing me of something for which you have no basis.

Originally Posted by mordant

You really know how to seize defeat from the jaws of victory, I must say.

Now you're resorting to logical fallacies, effectively committing the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy, placing yourself as the authority to determine success or defeat.

How about instead of doing such things you just state your case on the merits, on topic, rather than trying to deflect attention away from comments you don't like by accusing anyone of rhetorical violations, and without attacking those who disagree with you personally?

For starters, you can acknowledge that people who view living on after death in the impact that they have had on the children they raised is valid. But let's be clear: You don't have to. You can dogmatically stick to the uber-atheist argument.

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

..... they simply pretend the atheists are being hostile and aggressive even when they are not

here is a recent post, your own words

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

...You are simply making this crap up as you go along
...the tripe you posted earlier on the thread
...you simply made it up
...Imagination is a wonderful thing
...the imaginary world in your head
...you simply have SQUAT to discuss

i never said "aggressive" those are your words, not mine. here is what i actually said:

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

fundamental atheists are the ones on these boards who ...regularly engage in offensive toxic behavior that includes name calling, condescension, insults, belittling, mocking, sarcasm, berating, deriding, hostility.

your beliefs are not the problem, i have no interest in your beliefs whatsoever. the toxic offensive behavior is the problem. the posts on CD illustrate this in ample abundance. it is duly noted that fundamental atheists typically deny and justify the toxic offensive behavior, rather than address and correct it.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by bUU

"Noticing". Noticing is surely no problem. Thanks for clarifying your position.

The only definitions of God or the after life for which there are no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning are those of religions based on supernatural definitions of such things. Your comment seems to seek to apply that characterization to all definitions of God and the after life, rather than just those for which there is no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning.

The problem with fundamentalist atheism is that it blocks the atheist's ability to understand the paragraph above. They cannot even fathom how those words go together in a rational manner. That's fundamentalism at work. Even when you talk to them about people spiritually living on in the impact they had raising their children, many fundamentalist atheists cannot even then bring themselves to acknowledge the mischaracterization I highlighted in the previous paragraph. Instead, they immediately switch to disrespect mode, in precisely the same way fundamentalist theists do when the intercession of their dogmatic demeanor attacks the dignity of those who believe differently from them.

It isn't, but I respect your need to say it is, to safeguard your dogmatic view.


I've been here for three years. I know the nonsense fundamentalist atheists use to try to rationalize their disrespect for theists. There's nothing surprising in what you're trying to claim.

Or maybe you're just trying to rationalize away the culpability that Tzaphkiel implied by accusing me of something for which you have no basis.

That's foolishness. There is no means available to "attempt to silence" you. Again it sounds like you're trying to rationalize something by accusing me of something for which you have no basis.

I haven't ignored that at all. You are one to talk about evidence. What evidence do you have - other than the fact that I didn't kowtow to you and agree to change my views to match yours - that I ignored? None. So your comment is not even in keeping with your own professed principles. Yet again, it sounds like you're trying to rationalize something by accusing me of something for which you have no basis.

Now you're resorting to logical fallacies, effectively committing the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy, placing yourself as the authority to determine success or defeat.

How about instead of doing such things you just state your case on the merits, on topic, rather than trying to deflect attention away from comments you don't like by accusing anyone of rhetorical violations, and without attacking those who disagree with you personally?

For starters, you can acknowledge that people who view living on after death in the impact that they have had on the children they raised is valid. But let's be clear: You don't have to. You can dogmatically stick to the uber-atheist argument.

Despite your brave attempt at denial, the thread has produced no decent evidence for an afterlife or indeed a god. It seems the argument has become accusing us of failing to understand your wordsalad (please do explain it for we lesser minds, if you can ), accusations of being atheist fundies and trying to fiddle definitions to try to excuse afterlife -claimants from not having to produce any. In case I missed it, where is it?

[mordant]

Originally Posted by bUU

Or maybe you're just trying to rationalize away the culpability that Tzaphkiel implied by accusing me of something for which you have no basis.

Or maybe you're engaging in speculation about what I'm thinking or feeling or what my motives are rather than asking me to elucidate them or believing me when I do.

Originally Posted by bUU

That's foolishness. There is no means available to "attempt to silence" you. Again it sounds like you're trying to rationalize something by accusing me of something for which you have no basis.

Not literally of course. You know exactly what I mean in context. so don't try to twist it.

Originally Posted by bUU

I haven't ignored that at all. You are one to talk about evidence. What evidence do you have - other than the fact that I didn't kowtow to you and agree to change my views to match yours - that I ignored? None. So your comment is not even in keeping with your own professed principles. Yet again, it sounds like you're trying to rationalize something by accusing me of something for which you have no basis.

I wrote a post that completely embraced and 100% agreed with you and you have still managed to turn it into something to criticize, argue about, and make baseless accusations concerning. That is a real talent that you have there, and you exhibit it consistently. People can't even agree with you in a manner that suits you. At least not unless they are exactly the right sort of liberal theist who resonates comfortably with your views.

Originally Posted by bUU

Now you're resorting to logical fallacies, effectively committing the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy, placing yourself as the authority to determine success or defeat.

I expressed a view. By your logic, you're doing the exact same thing in expressing your views.

Originally Posted by bUU

How about instead of doing such things you just state your case on the merits, on topic, rather than trying to deflect attention away from comments you don't like by accusing anyone of rhetorical violations, and without attacking those who disagree with you personally?

I always have and will continue to do so.

Originally Posted by bUU

For starters, you can acknowledge that people who view living on after death in the impact that they have had on the children they raised is valid. But let's be clear: You don't have to. You can dogmatically stick to the uber-atheist argument.

Let's test my theory:

I completely agree that it's fine to view oneself as living on after death in the impact people have had on the children they raise. People have the right to take that view for themselves, and deem it valid for themselves, and indeed, I at least in a sense believe that to be true of myself with respect to my own children. Various loved ones I have lost to death live on in my memories of them; why wouldn't I live on in the same way in the memories of those who valued me in life?

Now let us see if, once again, you manage to find fault with someone entirely agreeing with you, or if you manage to parse some offense or deficiency out of this statement that you feel the need to deconstruct and use as evidence of dogmatism or some other disingenuousness on my part.

Perhaps when pinned down you'll decide that discretion is the better part of valor. Or maybe not, who knows.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

So where is this atheist Fundyism? I'll tell you. It is in the fact that we are no longer silent.

That would be the long and short of it.

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

in a nutshell: fundamental atheists are the ones on these boards who constantly tell believers in God that they are wrong and have stupid beliefs. they are the ones who regularly engage in offensive toxic behavior that includes name calling, condescension, insults, belittling, mocking, sarcasm, berating, deriding, hostility.

How should we treat people who believe in invisible supernatural non-existent beings?

Should we elevate such people above all others?

Originally Posted by aries63

I'm hard-pressed to find a black, brown, or even Asian person in the crowd. For me that is one of the most unattractive aspects of the movement, and one that makes be thankful to be part of a racially-diverse religion.

The movement is all-inclusive. It's not the fault of Atheists that Negroes are castigated and ostracized by their own Race for even questioning the existence of a god. It's akin to Conservative Blacks who are labeled as "Race-traitors" by their own and by Liberals.

Originally Posted by bUU

Your comment seems to seek to apply that characterization to all definitions of God and the after life, rather than just those for which there is no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning.

All definitions of god are pure fantasy and wishful thinking, as are all definitions of an after-life.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Mircea

All definitions of god are pure fantasy and wishful thinking, as are all definitions of an after-life.

Interesting. How on earth did you come to this definitive position??? It would seem to require more knowledge than we currently have of our reality.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Interesting. How on earth did you come to this definitive position??? It would seem to require more knowledge than we currently have of our reality.

I suppose it was a vision during deep meditation. You know how convincing those can be.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

I suppose it was a vision during deep meditation. You know how convincing those can be.

Very cute!

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Very cute!

I thought you might like that one. Now, maybe you understand how we perceive your claims.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by bUU

"Noticing". Noticing is surely no problem. Thanks for clarifying your position.
The only definitions of God or the after life for which there are no arguments

The claims made by the majority of Christians and Muslims for example is that a non-human intelligent and intentional agency is responsible for the creation and/or ongoing maintenance of our universe.

The common claims of an after life are that human consciousness and subjectivity and awareness can survive independent of the brain, or following the death of the brain.

There are no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer that supports EITHER of these propositions. Least of all from anyone on this forum. If anyone is not understanding paragraphs therefore, it is not the atheists here.

Originally Posted by bUU

The problem with fundamentalist atheism is that it blocks the atheist's ability to understand the paragraph above.

Not agreeing with you is not the same as not understanding you. A fact many theists on this forum would do well to learn.

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

i never said "aggressive" those are your words, not mine.

And just like calling a spade a spade, when it is in fact a spade, there is nothing wrong with those words of mine you have quoted. It is abundantly clear you are making things up as you go along. And you make it clearer with every refusal to engage on those topics, substantiate them, or discuss them with anyone who does not wholesale accept them as truth.

If you think my pointing out FACTS is hostile or aggressive or rude..... then get used to it, because I am not about to stop, nor apologize for it.

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

it is duly noted that fundamental atheists typically deny and justify the toxic offensive behavior, rather than address and correct it.

And I repeat, pointing out facts is neither fundamentalist, nor toxic. It is the RIGHT thing to do. If you want to dodge and ignore those facts and comments by pretending they are toxic when they are not.... that is on you, not me. And it makes YOU the fundamentalist, not me. Because ignoring facts and rebuttals and counter arguments, and gripping on to your unsubstantiated world view while pounding your head into the sand.... is the very core of fundamentalism.

It is becoming clearer with each post that you do not even appear to know what the word itself means. From your false definitions of it, to your misapplication of it, to your inability to acknowledge it in your own self and behavior.