hipster Atheist

[jstrodel]

Esquilax do you think you could pick one point that you want to debate, and try and support that one point with evidence preferably in an outline point like proposition A is supported by evidence B,C,D, such as "marijuana use by atheists in a hedonistic context is different from marijuana use by Rastafarian priests in a carefully defined religious context that has very specific rules governing it".

You are free to dislike me, but I don't feel like writing a response to ad hominem attacks. If there is an argument buried underneath all the stuff you have written, I will take a look at it but put it in some other form besides a "one liner".

Some type of standard argument form of formal logic or syllogistic logic would be good, or maybe just an outline.

[Lion IRC]

I wonder if the link between self-harm (drug use) and atheism is indirect rather than direct.
atheism ---> nihilism ---> hedonism ---> drug use.

When I used to visit IRC atheist forums I would often casually collect data about how many atheists were smokers.
Anecdotally, I found that most - or at least an abnormally high percentage of - self-professing undernet atheists were smokers.

(Smoking deprives the brain of oxygen.)

[jstrodel]

I wonder if the link between self-harm (drug use) and atheism is indirect rather than direct.
atheism ---> nihilism ---> hedonism ---> drug use.

When I used to visit IRC atheist forums I would often casually collect data about how many atheists were smokers.
Anecdotally, I found that most - or at least an abnormally high percentage of - self-professing undernet atheists were smokers.

(Smoking deprives the brain of oxygen.)

Good point

[Cato]

(Smoking deprives the brain of oxygen.)

Funny, smoking induced oxygen deprivation hasn't yet made me an idiot.

What's your excuse?

[Tartarus Sauce]

I wonder if the link between self-harm (drug use) and atheism is indirect rather than direct.
atheism ---> nihilism ---> hedonism ---> drug use.

When I used to visit IRC atheist forums I would often casually collect data about how many atheists were smokers.
Anecdotally, I found that most - or at least an abnormally high percentage of - self-professing undernet atheists were smokers.

(Smoking deprives the brain of oxygen.)

Oh...I guess they can just take the nicotine out now that we know hedonism is what reels them in.

Did you collect similar data among forums for people of different religions? For other drugs? Why not alcohol, that's a drug too?

Would any of it mean jackshit?

It's amusing how both of you think that there is some significant link between religious affiliation and drug use. Personally, I think age, class, and income would be better categories to base your "research" on.

Oh yeah, and the faulty assumption that atheism inevitably leads to hedonism. That shit never gets old.

[Esquilax]

Esquilax do you think you could pick one point that you want to debate, and try and support that one point with evidence preferably in an outline point like proposition A is supported by evidence B,C,D, such as "marijuana use by atheists in a hedonistic context is different from marijuana use by Rastafarian priests in a carefully defined religious context that has very specific rules governing it".

You are free to dislike me, but I don't feel like writing a response to ad hominem attacks. If there is an argument buried underneath all the stuff you have written, I will take a look at it but put it in some other form besides a "one liner".

Some type of standard argument form of formal logic or syllogistic logic would be good, or maybe just an outline.

Given the sheer volume of contemptuous, baseless bullshit you inject into every post, why shouldn't I dose up my own with a few insults? Maybe when you stop the hostility in your own posts and debate like a goddamn adult, the tone of the responses you get might change.

As it happens, the post of mine you're responding to only exists to call you a liar, because I saw that, once again, you were lying. You responded to me, when I asked for literally any proof that atheism profits from drugs/sex/ rock and roll, that merely tolerating those things means one profits from them. When I then pointed out that some christians are okay with those things, you accused me of lying.

Happily, Darkstar then pointed out that religious folks occasionally use drugs for the purposes of religion, and you were all to quick to jump to their defense, making an exception for religion. By your own definition, this means that you were either lying when you said that tolerating something means advocating for it, or you were lying when you said that no religious person or group advocates for drug use.

Either way, you were, are, and will most likely continue to be, a dishonest debater who either adopts whichever position is most advantageous at the time, or is so stupid or addled that you can't keep a continuous position in your head.

Is this post insulting? Yes, but I'd say it's warranted, given the completely shitty tactics you've deployed thus far.

[jstrodel]

Whatever

[Esquilax]

Nice of you to throw in the towel, Strodel. And in the finest tradition of sullen teenagers everywhere, too.

[CleanShavenJesus]

(Smoking deprives the brain of oxygen.)

Smoking also causes various types of cancers.

Sorry, I thought we were just blurting out things that smoking does to the body that have absolutely no relevance to anything in this topic.

Smoking does a lot of things. It doesn't make you stupid.

And before you accuse me, no, I do not smoke.

[jstrodel]

I wrote probably 6 or 7 pages on on those subjects Equilax