My vorpal blade goes snicker snack!

[Rhizomorph13]

Thanks all,

@fr0d0 - religious idiots = religiots? freudian typing slip (sorry had to)? My parents didn't raise me as any sort of theist but then my mom found religion when I was 12 so... we all found it! As for prayer in school; I remember the pledge being said that included the "one nation, under God" bit, but no prayer or national anthem. So I guess there was no unified theory on how to begin class.

Most people that I have met will place themselves in some theist group or other. It is a wide umbrella.

Rhizo

[Ryft]

It seems all atheists are ex religiots these days ...

Indeed. Which further cuts the rug out from under Genetic Fallacy arguments (e.g., "You're Christian because you grew up that way" in home or society), since so many atheists were raised after strikingly similar fashions. No wind in that sail.

Welcome, Rhizomorph13.

[Dotard]

It seems all atheists are ex religiots these days ...

To which Arcanus replied:
Indeed. Which further cuts the rug out from under Genetic Fallacy arguments (e.g., "You're Christian because you grew up that way" in home or society), since so many atheists were raised after strikingly similar fashions. No wind in that sail.

I'd maintain most religious folks (i.e. xtains) 'grew up that way' and since so many atheists were 'raised in a strikingly simmilar fashion' it puts plenty of wind in that sail.

------------------
I still want to know what convinced you, Arcanus, christianity=reality. Since you are unwilling to disclose that info I'm left to conclude your claim of "I was once an Atheist" is of the Kirk Cameron genre. Bunk.

[Ryft]

I still want to know what convinced you, Arcanus (Christianity = reality). Since you are unwilling to disclose that info, I'm left to conclude your claim of "I was once an Atheist" is of the Kirk Cameron genre. Bunk.

What is this? Some absolutely hilarious attempt at blackmail? "If you don't tell me what I want to know, I'll concoct an ugly opinion about you!" Awesome. Don't forget to stomp your feet, Dotard. If you want to draw an illegitimate conclusion about my atheism based on information you don't have, it will not bother me at all. It would be nothing short of incredible if it doesn't embarrass you to make such a statement. Score another one for irrationality.

It is also completely inappropriate to raise this issue in Rhizomorph13's introduction post, something else that ought to embarrass you. This belongs in my introduction post.

[Tiberius]

Arcanus, if you are going to be a member here, you are not going to fling unfounded accusations of blackmail at people for no reason.

It wasn't anything like blackmail; he didn't threaten you with anything, he just made a conclusion that since you are seemingly unwilling to answer any of our questions about your beliefs, you are not to be trusted with any answers you have given before.

As for your comment about this being "completely inappropriate" for Rhizomorph's intro thread, please explain how this was any less inappropriate:

Indeed. Which further cuts the rug out from under Genetic Fallacy arguments (e.g., "You're Christian because you grew up that way" in home or society), since so many atheists were raised after strikingly similar fashions. No wind in that sail.

To comment on the "Genetic Fallacy" (because threads always go off-topic, so going with the flow is usually the best thing to do) as you put it, I fail to see how deconverted atheists has anything to do with the fact that societies with heavy religious backgrounds tend to breed more of that religion. The point of that statement is to demonstrate to people that their parent's religion (and therefore their parent's upbringing, location, etc) is a heavy deciding factor on their faith as a child. That some of them grow out of it is completely irrelevant; most people change their views a load when they reach a certain age (I know my views on most things are very very different from when I was 16, or even a couple of years ago).

The Genetic Fallacy refers to a conclusion that is based solely on something or someone's origin. This has never been the argument that people have used for explaining why certain people are brought up in different religions. The argument has always been that location, for various reasons, has a large effect on the religion that people are brought up in. It is by no means the only factor, or even the main factor, but it is a factor. If I had been born to Iranian parents, I would have had a greater chance of being brought up as a Muslim than if I had been born to English parents (where I was brought up Christian). It's not a definitive conclusion, since I could have been born to Iranian Christians or atheists respectively, but what we are talking about is simple statistics here.

[Overmars]

Hi Rhizo, welcome to the forum!

[Purple Rabbit]

Welcome Rhizomorph13.

Hope this forum is a satisfying substitute for porn on the internet.

[Ryft]

If you are going to be a member here, you are not going to fling unfounded accusations of blackmail at people for no reason.

I think you were taking me a little too seriously, Adrian. I found Dotard's remark amusing; the "blackmail" remark was tongue-in-cheek, underscored by the tantrum reference. Not exactly serious, there. But if atheists are allowed to mock theists yet not vice-versa (whether an actual rule or an unspoken policy), I will keep that in mind. I've seen stranger rules on other forums but I abide by them.

... since you are seemingly unwilling to answer any of our questions about your beliefs ...

Well this is bullshit. I haven't answered every single question, but to suggest I haven't answered any at all ("unwilling to answer any") is simply false. Some I have answered already, others I refused to answer with stated reasons, and still others I said I'll probably answer later if I find a thread the question is related to and falls within my interests.

At any rate, to conclude that I was not a real atheist based on the fact that I haven't described my conversion experience is illegitimate at best.

As for your comment about this being "completely inappropriate" for Rhizomorph's intro thread, please explain how this was any less inappropriate:

Because my comment addressed a topic, not a person. If there is something wrong with me addressing the Genetic Fallacy in Rhizomorph's thread, is there something wrong with padraic addressing the 'tu quoque' fallacy in my thread? However, for Dotard to address me and my beliefs in Rhizomorph's thread seems rather inappropriate because (i) it's a thread about Rhizomorph, not me; moreover, (ii) a thread about me exists.

Any thoughts?

[Tiberius]

I think you were taking me a little too seriously, Adrian. I found Dotard's remark amusing; the "blackmail" remark was tongue-in-cheek, underscored by the tantrum reference. Not exactly serious, there. But if atheists are allowed to mock theists yet not vice-versa (whether an actual rule or an unspoken policy), I will keep that in mind. I've seen stranger rules on other forums but I abide by them.

It is absurd to think that you can extract a person's attitude successfully without using emoticons ( ) unless you actually know the person well enough. Staff take both threats and accusations seriously, so next time make sure your humourous intentions are known. There is no rule that says theists cannot mock atheists; such a rule would be ridiculous.

Because my comment addressed a topic, not a person. If there is something wrong with me addressing the Genetic Fallacy in Rhizomorph's thread, is there something wrong with padraic addressing the 'tu quoque' fallacy in my thread? However, for Dotard to address me and my beliefs in Rhizomorph's thread seems rather inappropriate because (i) it's a thread about Rhizomorph, not me; moreover, (ii) a thread about me exists.

Any thoughts?

It's irrelevant if your comment is addressing a topic or a person, it is still off topic. We don't mind threads getting off topic, it happens anyway. Sometimes we split the topic if a conversation simply shifts to something new, but small things like this do not matter. Dotard was actually responding to your point, and at the end he asked you about your beliefs. Given that you were the one who started the offshoot (by mentioning the genetic fallacy in response to fr0d0's comment on atheists being ex-christians), you are to blame, but we don't blame you since in these forums we don't mind if things go a little off topic.