This is why I hate people who hate "fucking christians"

[Brakeman]

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:

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 :

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:

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:

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.