Lion IRC,

Your entire post is off topic and a pathetic attempt to derail. Reread the posts and try to keep up.

Thats just code for...I dont want to have to answer a direct rebuttal.
Did you report me for OT?

(November 18, 2013 at 10:06 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: Thats just code for...I dont want to have to answer a direct rebuttal.
Did you report me for OT?

Dumbass, copy it over on another thread and I'll answer each and every idiotic sentence.

Do you wish to be reported? Is it going to be necessary?

Here ya go Brakeman, since you squibbed it when I challenged you on the 10 points WHICH YOU BROUGHT INTO the thread, let’s see if we can get things back “on topic” …err, I mean,
back onto something you are willing to discuss.

What do you think of the logic here;

(November 17, 2013 at 7:36 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: The line between good people and bad people (if you want to generalise,) is drawn squarely down the middle of both groups.

Squarely down the middle? Equal in numbers? Are there bad ‘good’ people and good ‘bad’ people? What about the sub-groups?
Are they divided into mathematically equal numbers - squarely down the middle?

1a. Good people who are good.
1b. Good people who are not so good.

2a. Bad people who are only slightly worse than 1b type.
2b. Bad people who are really bad.

(November 18, 2013 at 7:21 pm)Brakeman Wrote:

(November 18, 2013 at 2:50 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Hyperbole, {=dialog}
verbal abuse, {=dialog}
peer pressure, {=dialog}
mockery, {=dialog}
argumentum ad hominem, {=dialog}
generalisation, {=dialog}
Reductio ad hitlerium, {=dialog}
straw man, {=dialog}
and the needless use of bold type. {=dialog}

For a start.

Want examples? I'm sure you can find all of those from atheists if you have a look.

Unless, like so many Christians, you are blind to the faults of people and groups who support your position.

All of your examples were forms of dialog that are given in the contrary position of those given by theists. Furthermore these dialogs are typical of how humans talk to each other on today's internet. The same styles would be used if we were talking about peoples' favorite band or their favorite cars. While sure, it would be nice if everyone used proper argumentative styles and politeness, it says nothing about ATHEIST's tools that can be carried too far, these points of "impoliteness" aren't related to the belief or unbelief of gods, but solely on the manners of individual atheists. None of the above are true tools of atheism, all atheist's attacks on the delusions of religion can be conveyed easily without malice. Desiree's comment was not that atheists shouldn't attack religion because atheists might pick up rude bad habits from theists. Her point was that we should live and let live on the stupidity of religious thought, that there is folly in countering the tenants of religion if you don't "have to."

You said there was a slippery slope that atheists could fall in, but none of the examples you gave are indicative of any "slippery slope." Are you taking that comment back yet, or do you really have any examples of tools that constitute a slippery slope danger?

My name is not Desiree, and you are funny. I said nothing of the kind.

The slippery slope is what happens when atheists/agnostics who are fed up with religion, don't properly channel their energies in order to create a more positive world, that invites people to wish to learn more about rational thinking and reason. Religion for many is not folly. It brings them peace. A bitter and resentful atheist/agnostic charging at a religious person, is no damn different than a religious zealot knocking on my door, trying to sell me their brand of God. You have merely swapped positions, ''selling'' something different. Your message therefore will go unheard, because it will be your delivery that they remember, and if it is anything as to how you have addressed me, good luck with that.

That is my point. Your message will not resonate (with anyone), so long as you deliver it with an attacking, condescending, and self righteous tone. And if you personally wish to bring forth a better message than what religion has to offer, you will have to consider how you think about religion, to begin with. You don't like to be stereotyped by religious folk, I'm sure...then, you needn't do that to create awareness about atheism. If you spend a lot of time focusing on how to destroy religion, in that process, you will be building a methodology that closely resembles it.

(November 18, 2013 at 7:21 pm)Brakeman Wrote:

(November 18, 2013 at 2:50 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Hyperbole, {=dialog}
verbal abuse, {=dialog}
peer pressure, {=dialog}
mockery, {=dialog}
argumentum ad hominem, {=dialog}
generalisation, {=dialog}
Reductio ad hitlerium, {=dialog}
straw man, {=dialog}
and the needless use of bold type. {=dialog}

For a start.

Want examples? I'm sure you can find all of those from atheists if you have a look.

Unless, like so many Christians, you are blind to the faults of people and groups who support your position.

All of your examples were forms of dialog that are given in the contrary position of those given by theists. Furthermore these dialogs are typical of how humans talk to each other on today's internet. The same styles would be used if we were talking about peoples' favorite band or their favorite cars. While sure, it would be nice if everyone used proper argumentative styles and politeness, it says nothing about ATHEIST's tools that can be carried too far, these points of "impoliteness" aren't related to the belief or unbelief of gods, but solely on the manners of individual atheists. None of the above are true tools of atheism, all atheist's attacks on the delusions of religion can be conveyed easily without malice. Desiree's comment was not that atheists shouldn't attack religion because atheists might pick up rude bad habits from theists. Her point was that we should live and let live on the stupidity of religious thought, that there is folly in countering the tenants of religion if you don't "have to."

You said there was a slippery slope that atheists could fall in, but none of the examples you gave are indicative of any "slippery slope." Are you taking that comment back yet, or do you really have any examples of tools that constitute a slippery slope danger?

Maybe it would help you if I gave you some slippery slope pitfalls that the theists have and maybe you can find an atheist counterpart.

1. Violence against heretics
2. child abuse by circumcision, male and female
3. Endangering people through the handling of poisonous snakes in rituals.
4. Ritualistic human sacrifice
5. Inhuman cruelty to prisoners
6. Hanging gays
7. burning witches
8. burning jews alive for host nailing desecrations
9. Stymieing science that does not support creationism
10. Prohibiting helpful medical procedures.

Those are just a few to get you started.. I'm sure you'll get the drift with these. I don't see any of those becoming a risk for atheists.

Ah, sorry, I was shooting for your first set of goalposts. Initially you said;-

"
In most cases it would seem so, but not in this case because of the tools we use. There is no way to "overdose" on logic and reason. It's not even like water where you can drown. You only get into trouble when you diverge from logic and reason."

So I gave you examples of when atheists diverge from logic and reason. Hadn't noticed you'd switched it to Dialog.

Just so I know what I'm arguing with are you amending your statement above to say that you only get in trouble when you diverge from DIALOG?

Either way is fine, just need to know which position you wish to defend.

(November 19, 2013 at 3:37 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote:

(November 18, 2013 at 7:21 pm)Brakeman Wrote: While sure, it would be nice if everyone used proper argumentative styles and politeness, it says nothing about ATHEIST's tools that can be carried too far, these points of "impoliteness" aren't related to the belief or unbelief of gods, but solely on the manners of individual atheists. None of the above are true tools of atheism, all atheist's attacks on the delusions of religion can be conveyed easily without malice. Desiree's comment was not that atheists shouldn't attack religion because atheists might pick up rude bad habits from theists. Her point was that we should live and let live on the stupidity of religious thought, that there is folly in countering the tenants of religion if you don't "have to."

You said there was a slippery slope that atheists could fall in, but none of the examples you gave are indicative of any "slippery slope." Are you taking that comment back yet, or do you really have any examples of tools that constitute a slippery slope danger?

Ah, sorry, I was shooting for your first set of goalposts. Initially you said;-

"
In most cases it would seem so, but not in this case because of the tools we use. There is no way to "overdose" on logic and reason. It's not even like water where you can drown. You only get into trouble when you diverge from logic and reason."

So I gave you examples of when atheists diverge from logic and reason. Hadn't noticed you'd switched it to Dialog.

Just so I know what I'm arguing with are you amending your statement above to say that you only get in trouble when you diverge from DIALOG?

Either way is fine, just need to know which position you wish to defend.

No goalposts were changed, the post said non-dialog before you replied as can be seen clearly in your quoting. You just have very poor reading comprehension and are trying desperately not to answer the direct questions. Own up to your own mistakes.

Speaking of goal post changing. Now you are attempting to change the goal posts by claiming your examples were to show atheist tools that are illogical and show poor reasoning. The post you quoted again said clearly that the atheist "movement" uses the tools or reason and logic to combat the superstitions of religion. It does not say that no atheists use poor logic or reasoning at any time during the argument. The atheist movement goal is to bring logic and reason to the ignorant theist masses, to find examples of where they fail to use logic or reason, does not in any way counter that the use of good logic and reason is a "slippery slope" as you and Deidre alluded to.

Let me spoon feed it to you again:

If you had been paying attention you would have seen where Deidre said this:

(November 17, 2013 at 7:19 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: It is easy to nearly create a "religion" out of becoming anti-religion. Atheists by and large, should seek to avoid that, but 'tis a slippery slope, indeed.

and this :

(November 17, 2013 at 10:09 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: One could make it a mission almost, to spend one's time fighting against religion, and that in and of itself, becomes a belief system for that individual.
.. but it's another to focus one's attention on dismantling religion. It's here to stay. It's better to find ways to educate people as to what atheism is than to spend one's time discrediting religion.

to which I replied:

(November 18, 2013 at 12:04 am)Brakeman Wrote: So you think striving to bring reason and intellect to the forefront of society is folly? You think that those who push for the world to recognize reality are going too far and may create a "belief system" that is not reality based? That does not follow at all. A belief in religious context is a faith that something is true, despite contradictory evidence. Our skepticism will never lead us to a foolish belief system, only the cessation of our skepticism and a turn toward delusion and superstition will do that.

Do any of your tool example answers fit the topic in response to those statements?

You said:

(November 18, 2013 at 7:03 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: However the group which identifies as atheists does stand in danger of developing some of the more loathsome characteristics of a religion.
... An atheist group or community is just as vulnerable to that as a theist one. To think otherwise is, I suspect, the slippery slope to which diedre alluded. You won't ever make a religion. But you are vulnerable to the same pitfalls.

To which I respond that atheists are a completely diverse, incoherent group whose only title is one of not believing in silly gods. Our only goal as a group is to bring good reason and logic to those that have none, the theists. If anyone uses poor logic or reason, then they simply fail to further the goals.

Again, I ask what are the slippery slopes that you and Deidre claim that atheists might fall into while attempting to bring logic and reason to theists?


(hint: If it's not logical or reasonable then it isn't a tool atheist must use in order to further their goal. In fact other atheists deride the use of poor logic by anyone)

It would make no sense to say christianity is wrong or suffers from
"pitfalls" to some unnamed condition because a few of it's defenders use poor debate skills. It is likewise true for the atheists.

I stand grateful for your spoonfeeding. Diedre badger and I are clearly mistaken and there is no danger that atheists could exhibit any of the nastier aspects of religion when gathered in groups. Atheists in a group never exhibit the same circlejerking tendencies as Christians. Thanks for reassuring me. You're all cool.

Also, Diedre, shame on you for thinking that Brakeman has a condescending or self righteous tone . Absolutely no traces of that which I can detect!

(November 18, 2013 at 9:55 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: The way humans resort to violence to resolve conflict is instinctive and anthropological.

Syllables are $1 each - $4 each for theists.
Please remember this when posting

---

(November 19, 2013 at 4:46 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: I stand grateful for your spoonfeeding. Diedre badger and I are clearly mistaken and there is no danger that atheists could exhibit any of the nastier aspects of religion when gathered in groups. Atheists in a group never exhibit the same circlejerking tendencies as Christians. Thanks for reassuring me. You're all cool.

Also, Diedre, shame on you for thinking that Brakeman has a condescending or self righteous tone . Absolutely no traces of that which I can detect!

Sarcasm is frowned upon in Christianity FYI. It's considered a 'poor witness'.

(November 19, 2013 at 4:55 pm)freedomfromfallacy Wrote:

(November 18, 2013 at 9:55 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: The way humans resort to violence to resolve conflict is instinctive and anthropological.

Syllables are $1 each - $4 each for theists.
Please remember this when posting

---

(November 19, 2013 at 4:46 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: I stand grateful for your spoonfeeding. Diedre badger and I are clearly mistaken and there is no danger that atheists could exhibit any of the nastier aspects of religion when gathered in groups. Atheists in a group never exhibit the same circlejerking tendencies as Christians. Thanks for reassuring me. You're all cool.

Also, Diedre, shame on you for thinking that Brakeman has a condescending or self righteous tone . Absolutely no traces of that which I can detect!

Sarcasm is frowned upon in Christianity FYI. It's considered a 'poor witness'.

I know.
I said I'm Christian. I never said I was any good at it.

And seriously, you see me witnessing here?!