My follow up to my other thread...

[comet]

I posted another thread with the title, "correct me where I'm wrong" or something close to that. I just want to clarify. I didn't mean to point out any single person here. I just get sick of reading about how stupid religious people are when most people here have the same emotional propensities and fallacious reasoning at times. And when you get called out, it just reverts back to the cognitive dissonance that makes us all feel warm at night. But I am in luck because there is an article on cracked.com that explains it better than I did. And cracked.com is one of the most respected websites so I hope you all take it really seriously. (sarcasm) I added sarcasm and this explanation incase you didn't understand that I don't really think its the most respected website on the internet.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-athei...ng-itself/

we are athiest, we "always" let facts get in the way of a personal opinion and past abuse (like a popped pooper) is never a reason for a present day claim.

   silly thiest  ... 

[robvalue]

Every atheist in the world could start communicating only by waggling their nobs or boobs around. It still wouldn't make religious beliefs any more rational.

Personally I always aim to criticise the belief, not the person. Not everyone does this I know, but I'm not responsible for every single atheist.

[Won2blv]

That's called the tu quoque fallacy. It doesn't make religion any less ridiculous because atheists sometimes fall foul of logical fallacies or emotional reasoning, especially in seperate discussions. Most atheists don't claim to be infallible. If an argument is invalid, then feel free to address it specifically.

It's a common response to criticism, which is worthwhile mentally training yourself out of. It's better to first address the argument at hand, and then later move on to any recipricating arguments if you feel it's necessary. (This is advice for everyone! My first thought when I'm criticised in real life is often to tu quoque, and I have learnt to mentally cross it out as a fallacy. It seems to be some sort of natural defence mechanism.)

I am not committing any fallacy because I am not asserting any position. Or even claiming that those atheist that I find irritating are wrong. I do believe that the tu quoque fallacy is another one commonly used on these forums. How often I have read that christians are the biggest perpetrators  of "unchristian" acts. Or that atheists are more moral of people. It just usually doesn't have anything to do with a discussion or debate. And I have addressed many about their arguments but it seem like they have one stock answer that they just rearrange the words. Not you of course

---

   silly thiest  ... 

Have you seen my religious views? I don't claim to be a theist. I am searching for truth and my gut says that I am probably just an atheist at this point. 

---

So the Amazing Atheist is an asshole and Richard Dawkins sometimes shows strong tendencies in that direction. I knew that already. So some people are annoying. What on earth is your point?

My point is that any man/woman can admit they're fallible... well almost any man... but IMO its a little bit harder when you're actually called out on it in real time. I incorrectly thought starting a thread on this subject could lead to a discussion on it but instead it was just taken defensively. 

[robvalue]

I'm happy to discuss, but I don't know what your point is. You're saying everyone should own up to being fallible? I totally agree. There's nothing more frustrating than debating someone who literally says they can't be wrong about something.

[Won2blv]

I'm happy to discuss, but I don't know what your point is. You're saying everyone should own up to being fallible? I totally agree. There's nothing more frustrating than debating someone who literally says they can't be wrong about something.

I would say that my thread is more of a venting and something that I can refer back to when I am in those discussions. 

[Alex K]

That's called the tu quoque fallacy. It doesn't make religion any less ridiculous because atheists sometimes fall foul of logical fallacies or emotional reasoning, especially in seperate discussions. Most atheists don't claim to be infallible. If an argument is invalid, then feel free to address it specifically.

It's a common response to criticism, which is worthwhile mentally training yourself out of. It's better to first address the argument at hand, and then later move on to any recipricating arguments if you feel it's necessary. (This is advice for everyone! My first thought when I'm criticised in real life is often to tu quoque, and I have learnt to mentally cross it out as a fallacy. It seems to be some sort of natural defence mechanism.)

I am not committing any fallacy because I am not asserting any position. Or even claiming that those atheist that I find irritating are wrong. I do believe that the tu quoque fallacy is another one commonly used on these forums. How often I have read that christians are the biggest perpetrators  of "unchristian" acts. Or that atheists are more moral of people. It just usually doesn't have anything to do with a discussion or debate. And I have addressed many about their arguments but it seem like they have one stock answer that they just rearrange the words. Not you of course

---

   silly thiest  ... 

Have you seen my religious views? I don't claim to be a theist. I am searching for truth and my gut says that I am probably just an atheist at this point. 

---

So the Amazing Atheist is an asshole and Richard Dawkins sometimes shows strong tendencies in that direction. I knew that already. So some people are annoying. What on earth is your point?

My point is that any man/woman can admit they're fallible... well almost any man... but IMO its a little bit harder when you're actually called out on it in real time. I incorrectly thought starting a thread on this subject could lead to a discussion on it but instead it was just taken defensively. 

People probably think you are not arguing in good faith because you have an agenda. 

[robvalue]

OK well my apologies, it seems I misread your intentions

I know plenty of atheists who aren't very rational, and I can't properly discuss certain subjects with them because they get all emotional and weird about it. Or just cant back up what they are saying with any sort of argument.

I have to police myself too to try and iron out irrational thinking. I know I can never be totally successful.

[comet]

That's called the tu quoque fallacy. It doesn't make religion any less ridiculous because atheists sometimes fall foul of logical fallacies or emotional reasoning, especially in seperate discussions. Most atheists don't claim to be infallible. If an argument is invalid, then feel free to address it specifically.

It's a common response to criticism, which is worthwhile mentally training yourself out of. It's better to first address the argument at hand, and then later move on to any recipricating arguments if you feel it's necessary. (This is advice for everyone! My first thought when I'm criticised in real life is often to tu quoque, and I have learnt to mentally cross it out as a fallacy. It seems to be some sort of natural defence mechanism.)

I am not committing any fallacy because I am not asserting any position. Or even claiming that those atheist that I find irritating are wrong. I do believe that the tu quoque fallacy is another one commonly used on these forums. How often I have read that christians are the biggest perpetrators  of "unchristian" acts. Or that atheists are more moral of people. It just usually doesn't have anything to do with a discussion or debate. And I have addressed many about their arguments but it seem like they have one stock answer that they just rearrange the words. Not you of course

---

   silly thiest  ... 

Have you seen my religious views? I don't claim to be a theist. I am searching for truth and my gut says that I am probably just an atheist at this point. 

---

So the Amazing Atheist is an asshole and Richard Dawkins sometimes shows strong tendencies in that direction. I knew that already. So some people are annoying. What on earth is your point?

My point is that any man/woman can admit they're fallible... well almost any man... but IMO its a little bit harder when you're actually called out on it in real time. I incorrectly thought starting a thread on this subject could lead to a discussion on it but instead it was just taken defensively. 

Logical fallacy is a bullshit philosophy term for people that don't know what they are talking about.

The End 

---

OK well my apologies, it seems I misread your intentions

I know plenty of atheists who aren't very rational, and I can't properly discuss certain subjects with them because they get all emotional and weird about it. Or just cant back up what they are saying with any sort of argument.

I have to police myself too to try and iron out irrational thinking. I know I can never be totally successful.

yuppers.  
I am glad to see some others of my sect of athiesm have made here.

[KevinM1]

Atheists are people, and therefore flawed, film at 11.

And, given that religion is an enterprise built on creating and manipulating the emotions of others, and that many people here were subjected to such, is it any surprise that some reactions are visceral? People don't like feeling exploited.

---

Logical fallacy is a bullshit philosophy term for people that don't know what they are talking about.

The End

You're quite wrong, but thanks for playing.

[Dystopia]

I don't disagree with the article but so what? Not all of us want to be a part of the organized atheism side. I've told people that envisioning how the world works trough one group's lenses is dangerous. People criticizing religion and theism have been around since, at the very least, ancient Greece - To think atheists in 2015 are the real deal is naive and irrational.