(October 21, 2015 at 12:54 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: When my son was just old enough to know what disobeying Dad was, and after I had told him repeatedly not to play in the cat's litter box, I awoke one morning to find kitty litter and cat shit strewn everywhere. My son just stood there, looking at me and laughing. He never did express contrition.

Needless to say, my righteous wrath was kindled, and I've been torturing the little son of a bitch ever since, with no end in sight.

All out of love, of course.

Oh for shame. We must follow god's example of a good parent and not wait for our children to know what disobedience means. Tell the child once not to do something, then when he does it punish him with the greatest misery you can think of. Kick him out of your house forever and sentence him to death.

That's what a good parent would do. WWJD and all that. Right, guys?

(October 21, 2015 at 5:05 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(October 21, 2015 at 2:26 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

---

---

You apparently don't know much about fallacies, nor sarcasm.  Argumentum ex culo is a sardonic way of telling you you're pulling your argument out of your ass. It's not actually a logical fallacy as much as it is simply an unsupported assertion.

I did gather that when I looked it up... However I don't understand the complaint. Is my understanding of algebra faulty, or can I add apples and oranges, to get a total number of apples.

(October 21, 2015 at 2:26 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

---

---

This is the ex culo part, because Christianity posits a personal god. He is not a title, he is a being. You're trying to have it both ways when you argue this.

I believe I said being.

(October 21, 2015 at 2:26 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: So you worship a schizophrenic, then.  Got it.

I don't believe that is accurate.

(October 21, 2015 at 2:26 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: Yes, I'm aware of that unsubstantiated claim, too.  Until I see a basis for accepting it, it too goes into the scrapheap. It's all very convenient to posit a truism that cannot be verified at all -- convenient, but not convincing.

OK...I'm familiar with pseudo-skepticism and it is expected.

Non-answers. Revise and resubmit. D-.

(October 21, 2015 at 5:48 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote:

(October 21, 2015 at 12:49 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Well, to be honest, and I probably shouldn't admit this online, whenever my son misbehaved, a good spell in the oven at 550°F set him straight forthwith.

And we must remember, no good parent would ever tolerate anything but sincere and complete worship from their children. Children must be made to understand that they are completely dependent on their parents and can not possibly think their own sense of morality compares to that of the parent. Children should be taught to feel shamefaced and afraid that any moment of joy not stemming from time spent worshipping the parent will be punished.

I did indeed tell my son that if he ever looked me in the face that I'd strike him dead. I'm a loving father, you know.

Let's hear all about how wonderful fucking religious shitwits are.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/teenager...rk-church/

Quote:Teenager describes fatal beating at upstate New York church

Quote:An upstate New York teenager told a court on Wednesday that members of his family and others struck him in the genitals and on other parts of his body during in a brutal attack at a secretive upstate church that killed his older brother.

(October 18, 2015 at 9:23 pm)Alex K Wrote: Have you considered the possibility that what you perceive as lack of substance in the criticism is actually lack of substance of the ideas which are being criticised?
You would like for there to be a more profound criticism of your religion, but maybe it just makes too little sense to lend itself to more meaningful comments.

This would be the go-to-defense for atheistic mediocrity, wouldn't it?

The fact is, however, that most atheists resort to distorted caricatures of religion rather than dealing with the thing in itself. So the question arises: Are these claims of the vacuity of religion a fact about religion, or a fact about the fictional caricatures of religion that atheists construct to keep their beliefs about religion on life-support?

The first step to an intellectually-honest critique of religion would involve dealing with the religion itself, as opposed to misrepresentations of the religion. Only once you go that route will you see that there's a lot more to the world than the atheist fishbowl.

(October 18, 2015 at 9:41 pm)Chad32 Wrote:

(October 18, 2015 at 9:14 pm)Delicate Wrote: I suppose any theist who has read this part of the forum has to chuckle at how terrible atheist critiques of theism are.

But when the laughter dies down, you're left with a troubling realization: There actually is a huge pool of people on this planet who call themselves atheists and post on the internet, but are less familiar with theism than toddlers with the inside of a quantum mechanics textbook.

Where does one go for actually informed atheistic critiques of religion? I'm feeling my brain atrophy after reading some of the threads here.

Not all atheists are former christians, or have much information about religion. Some just don't take religion seriously, and remain atheists. We're a varied bunch with varying amounts of information on a subject we often don't take seriously.

I realize atheists like to claim they were former theists, but for all the claims, I'm seeing an almost-embarrassing level of ignorance about their theism.

How many atheists here can talk about actually learning about what their religion claims beyond a sixth-grade level? 

I get the feeling being dragged to church by mummy and daddy isn't enough to make you a Christian any more than eating cereal makes you a vegan.

There's more to it than that.

(October 23, 2015 at 11:37 pm)Delicate Wrote:

(October 18, 2015 at 9:23 pm)Alex K Wrote: Have you considered the possibility that what you perceive as lack of substance in the criticism is actually lack of substance of the ideas which are being criticised?
You would like for there to be a more profound criticism of your religion, but maybe it just makes too little sense to lend itself to more meaningful comments.

This would be the go-to-defense for atheistic mediocrity, wouldn't it?

The fact is, however, that most atheists resort to distorted caricatures of religion rather than dealing with the thing in itself. So the question arises: Are these claims of the vacuity of religion a fact about religion, or a fact about the fictional caricatures of religion that atheists construct to keep their beliefs about religion on life-support?

The first step to an intellectually-honest critique of religion would involve dealing with the religion itself, as opposed to misrepresentations of the religion. Only once you go that route will you see that there's a lot more to the world than the atheist fishbowl.

BUT NO ONE CAN AGREE WHAT THE "RELIGION ITSELF" ACTUALLY IS.

This point is important enough that I need to shout it.

Quote: The fact is, however, that most atheists resort to distorted caricatures of religion rather than dealing with the thing in itself. So the question arises: Are these claims of the vacuity of religion a fact about religion, or a fact about the fictional caricatures of religion that atheists construct to keep their beliefs about religion on life-support?

We can discuss that on the day that you can demonstrate that your bullshit is true.

Until then, god is a figment of your imagination.

(October 23, 2015 at 11:37 pm)Delicate Wrote:

(October 18, 2015 at 9:23 pm)Alex K Wrote: Have you considered the possibility that what you perceive as lack of substance in the criticism is actually lack of substance of the ideas which are being criticised?
You would like for there to be a more profound criticism of your religion, but maybe it just makes too little sense to lend itself to more meaningful comments.

This would be the go-to-defense for atheistic mediocrity, wouldn't it?

The fact is, however, that most atheists resort to distorted caricatures of religion rather than dealing with the thing in itself. So the question arises: Are these claims of the vacuity of religion a fact about religion, or a fact about the fictional caricatures of religion that atheists construct to keep their beliefs about religion on life-support?

The first step to an intellectually-honest critique of religion would involve dealing with the religion itself, as opposed to misrepresentations of the religion. Only once you go that route will you see that there's a lot more to the world than the atheist fishbowl.

If you want to talk about "vacuity", let's talk about the non-evidence of religious claims. Let's talk about the religious insistence of a belief in god in order to support morality. Let's talk about how religion makes people good, in the face of the Irish Troubles and the murderous Middle Eastern wars.

How vacuous is the religious fishbowl that even as it preaches sweetness, it spreads sour death?

You believers sort out your own schisms and leave us thinking humans the fuck alone.

Ok, we got fantasy stories and we got real life science.
Somehow, we are to put them side by side and critique them as seriously as possible.

How do we critique religion without using science?
Are you asking for special pleading?
Should we just use our imaginations?