The Problem with Christians

[Esquilax]

Oh, could you not act like a fucking moron for once? Kitan's statements were about christians, they said nothing at all about atheists. You don't just get to leap to some imaginary contra-positive that was never even alluded to just because it's the only snag you can find that'll make you correct; you don't get to make shit up and then pin it on someone else.

THAT'S MY FREAKING POINT.

One group criticizing another group for a certain behavior, when it can be proven that their group exhibits the same behavior is called hypocrisy.

They aren't remotely the same thing. Atheists aren't a group, numbnuts. They are individual people who happen to share a single conclusion. They're no more a group than "people who like the color blue," are a group. What you're doing here is base equivocation.

Moreover, and this would be some of that nuance stuff that you have real trouble with where it contradicts what you want to believe, making illogical arguments in general is not a bad thing. It's part of the human condition, and there's no shame in it at all, so long as you can identify and correct the error. The problem with christians- which is fully present in Kitan's OP- is that they never identify that error, which in this case is the root beliefs of their religion. Instead, they ignore the basics of logic in favor of making arguments to get to a preconceived conclusion, rather than using logic to reach whatever conclusion is best. The problem is the exclusive lack of logic that theism demands, were one to attempt to argue for theism.

That is in there, you know. You'd just have to be reading the post without the presupposition that it needs to be wrong, and this weird, neurotic drive you have to twist everything to fit that presupposition.

[IATIA]

How the universe began cant be logically proven or disproven either, yet it's here.

---

---

at around 40:40 of this video you'll how Lawrence Krauss, explains how the universe began from nothing.

Why is there something rather than nothing? The answer is there had to be, if you have nothing in quantum mechanics you'll always get something.

We have evidence of the big bang.  What we do not have is a 'before' the big bang, (which IMHO is a non-sensical question).

You are correct in that 'before' the big bang cannot (at least at this time) be proven or disproven logically,  There cannot, however, have been "nothing" 'before' the big bang.  Nothing comes from nothing.  What that something is may be unknowable (system within a system problem).  Something has always been around.  The question is what that something is and that is where "god of the gaps" is thrown in by theists and "i do not know", thrown in by the atheist.

(And for your information, by "nothing" the video is relating to 'before' this universe, i.e., no matter as we know it.  It may be that 'before' this universe, there was only 'dark matter/energy' and the 'matter/energy' that we perceive today was precipitated from this 'dark matter/energy'.)

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Huggy, I have to tell you, you are obsessed with hypocrisy. It appears your immediate reaction to any argument is to try and find some way of making out the author is a hypocrite, rather than addressing the actual argument.

It's a trend I've noticed over my time here. Just for your information. It's formally called the tu quoque fallacy.

Yes it is, and nobody does it with a sense of butthurt, malice, and ignorance quite like Huggy! The guy really does come off as having the delusion that his own shit doesn't stink.

[Huggy Bear]

They aren't remotely the same thing. Atheists aren't a group, numbnuts. They are individual people who happen to share a single conclusion. They're no more a group than "people who like the color blue," are a group. What you're doing here is base equivocation.

Actually what you describe ARE in fact considered groups.

Group: a number of people who are connected by some shared activity, interest, or quality

Moreover, and this would be some of that nuance stuff that you have real trouble with where it contradicts what you want to believe, making illogical arguments in general is not a bad thing. It's part of the human condition, and there's no shame in it at all, so long as you can identify and correct the error. The problem with christians- which is fully present in Kitan's OP- is that they never identify that error, which in this case is the root beliefs of their religion. Instead, they ignore the basics of logic in favor of making arguments to get to a preconceived conclusion, rather than using logic to reach whatever conclusion is best. The problem is the exclusive lack of logic that theism demands, were one to attempt to argue for theism.

That is in there, you know. You'd just have to be reading the post without the presupposition that it needs to be wrong, and this weird, neurotic drive you have to twist everything to fit that presupposition.

*emphasis mine*
And I can prove Atheists do the same thing.

Must I remind you of a certain incident where all the atheists were on the wrong side of the argument despite the PROOF being presented? Talk about ignoring the basics of logic in favor of making arguments to get to a preconceived conclusion...

[Esquilax]

Actually what you describe ARE in fact considered groups.

Group: a number of people who are connected by some shared activity, interest, or quality

Today's equivocation: pretending that "people with a single shared quality which demands no other shared qualities from them," is the same as "people with a constellation of shared qualities that make consistent demands on the beliefs of those people."

You always just use whatever definition best fits what you want to be true, rather than the definition most appropriate for the situation. It's pathetic.

*emphasis mine*
And I can prove Atheists do the same thing.

No you fucking can't, but we all know that's not an impediment to you just crowing that you have, over and over, until it gets truly, existentially sad to watch.

Must I remind you of a certain incident where all the atheists were on the wrong side of the argument despite the PROOF being presented? Talk about ignoring the basics of logic in favor of making arguments to get to a preconceived conclusion...

Case in point: you're still going on about this, years later. Interestingly, you now also seem to be asserting that one incident, even assuming the truth of your deeply depressing obsession with that incident, constitutes proof positive of a consistent and totally comprehensive pattern which... I mean, it's just not. You can't use one single example as a demonstration that this is all that happens.

[IATIA]

Must I remind you of a certain incident where all the atheists were on the wrong side of the argument despite the PROOF being presented?

(my bold)

Yes!  I am an atheist and I do not recall ever being on the "wrong side of the argument despite the PROOF being presented".

[God of Mr. Hanky]

They aren't remotely the same thing. Atheists aren't a group, numbnuts. They are individual people who happen to share a single conclusion. They're no more a group than "people who like the color blue," are a group. What you're doing here is base equivocation.

Actually what you describe ARE in fact considered groups.

Group: a number of people who are connected by some shared activity, interest, or quality

Moreover, and this would be some of that nuance stuff that you have real trouble with where it contradicts what you want to believe, making illogical arguments in general is not a bad thing. It's part of the human condition, and there's no shame in it at all, so long as you can identify and correct the error. The problem with christians- which is fully present in Kitan's OP- is that they never identify that error, which in this case is the root beliefs of their religion. Instead, they ignore the basics of logic in favor of making arguments to get to a preconceived conclusion, rather than using logic to reach whatever conclusion is best. The problem is the exclusive lack of logic that theism demands, were one to attempt to argue for theism.

That is in there, you know. You'd just have to be reading the post without the presupposition that it needs to be wrong, and this weird, neurotic drive you have to twist everything to fit that presupposition.

*emphasis mine*
And I can prove Atheists do the same thing.

Must I remind you of a certain incident where all the atheists were on the wrong side of the argument despite the PROOF being presented? Talk about ignoring the basics of logic in favor of making arguments to get to a preconceived conclusion...

You stupid, ignorant shit! Your malicious equivocation does absolutely nothing to change the facts as they are - atheism has nothing to do with ignoring logic, is not based on any preconceived conclusions, nor "failure to identify an error". Everyone makes errors, and wise atheists don't take exemption to that, but when and where we are right, this is backed with solid evidence. You have nothing behind your arguments other than more arguments, equivocations, and other malicious fallacies. You need to stop being such an ignorant douche and learn the difference between science and the art of argument, or you'll never get anywhere here.

[Huggy Bear]

You stupid, ignorant shit! Your malicious equivocation does absolutely nothing to change the facts as they are - atheism has nothing to do with ignoring logic, is not based on any preconceived conclusions, nor "failure to identify an error". Everyone makes errors, and wise atheists don't take exemption to that, but when and where we are right, this is backed with solid evidence. You have nothing behind your arguments other than more arguments, equivocations, and other malicious fallacies. You need to stop being such an ignorant douche and learn the difference between science and the art of argument, or you'll never get anywhere here.

Let me educate you real quick since you've been on this site all of 3 months.

There was a discussion on whether or not Denmark has a secular government, I pointed out the fact that since Denmark had a state sanctioned church that it was in fact NOT secular. Every single atheist involved in the discussion claimed it was indeed secular, despite the proof it was not.

Not one of the Atheists involved in the discussion has admitted they were wrong to this day.

If the atheists here are just "individuals" and not a "group", why weren't any on the right side of the argument? It was an atheist vs theist argument over something that didn't have anything to do with religion... That my friend is illogical.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

The argument on our side was that Denmark is a secular society, despite the existence of an official state church as a relic of its theocratic past.

He's (as usual) bending facts to the shape of his prejudices.

Hanky, meet Huggy. Enjoy!

[popsthebuilder]

They ignore logic. Not only that, they ignore it to the detriment of reason so that they can create these silly counter arguments that are not even logical.

Oh, forgive me, their arguments are logical to them and their perpetually damaging delusion.

Christians only create, as they did their imaginary friend since the beginning of time, apologetics because they know they are on the loosing end, and they think they can somehow cling to something meaningful if more idiots follow their brand of idiocy.

Seems like you miss the point of Christianity in general. It they follow the tenets of their writings, ie; the bible and the teachings of the Christ, then they would actually be beneficial to peaceful equality and advancement of humanity as a whole.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.