Until today I wasn't aware of fstdt.com ("Fundies Say The Darndest Things") where Atheists and skeptics can have a safe harbor in which to ridicule that which they take out of context. Actually there is a link to context, but no one seems to have used it in my case. It's the sort of snake pit where the target du jour is countered with comments like "asshole", and the standard logic errors which they insist are the logical answers to the "idiot" they are trashing.
It pretty much confirms my suspicion regarding the maturity level of the common Atheist (and I continue to capitalize that which is a religion, replete with churches, preachers, rules not to be disobeyed (political correctness enforced with ridicule and excommunication), icons (Darwin, Dawkins), and recently found - the Atheist religious moral document source: Harry Potter.
For a look at the amazing intellectual level demonstrated, go here. It's a good laugh. But remember, they really do think that way (at that age; many probably grow up eventually).
55 comments:
I have seen an Atheist Echo Chamber before. About all it does is piss me off, so I'll pass on this one, Stan.
Thanks for the offer, though ;-)
These guys seem to me like the people that Metacrock (from the Atheist Watch blog) debates and crushes all the time on CARM.
OK, I read through the first page of replies before I gave up. My favorite:
"The argument from reason is an argument from ignorance."
Huh...
I haven't read the piece yet. I'm not sure I want to. Don't forget Evolution is their creation story, eugenics are their sacrament, and whatever end of the world story is currently in vogue, currently AGW is their End of Times tale.
I find the ones with vincent cheung pretty funny. He probably is the most out-spoken calvinist not holding back. Calvinism is the atheist's most hated branch of Christianity because it gives God complete control and puts man lower than dirt which is completely opposite to the atheist's desire for freedom and autonomy. His quotes are filled with atheist rage haha. Sad thing is, many non-calvinists I have dealt with say the exact same things these atheists say.
@Rikalonius:
It's not a "piece". Someone just cobbled together a bunch of quotes from Stan's blog and let the raging atheist masses go ape-dung all over it. Typical low-content, irrational atheist echo-chamber stuff. You're not missing anything.
I just went over to fstdt.com and boy do those atheists have a lot to say, but no one is brave enough to vent their anger over here.Atheists,just like bullies,pick their targets very carefully.It seems they prefer the unarmed evangelical christian.
I'm from FSTDT and I can confirm that many of your assertions about us are downright spurious. For example, many of us are not atheist. Many are Jews (like me), agnostics, neo-Pagans, Wiccans, and even Christians who are fed up with fundamentalists, including many liberal Christians. Also, we disagree on a LOT of things. We can agree that people like Vincent Cheung are outright sociopaths, but we have many things we don't agree about. For example, we are split on the matter of Israel, with some Zionists, some anti-Zionists, several two-staters (like me), and several others who just want the whole conflict to end. Some of us are very pro-choice, some want to ban most abortions, and many of us are in the middle. Some of us believe that Islam is a religion of peace, and some believe it is as bad as fundamentalist Christianity has been. Some of us are centrist, a couple of us are communist, and most of us are in between, taking positions like socialism, liberalism, and social democracy. I'm sure even a few conservatives are on here.
What I'm saying is that FSTDT is not the echo chamber circle jerk you make it out to be. We squabble a lot. And we also make a big point out of context. That's why we link to our sources. And quotes that are even funnier in context or have humourous remarks on the original material make us laugh even more.
You are getting many things wrong about our community.
Oh, yes, I forgot to mention that many of us in FSTDT actually are older people, so the "at that age" jab was completely uncalled for as well. Not everyone in FSTDT is old, but many of us are.
FSTDT is designed, as its moniker indicates, to attract those who ridicule the Other as a main thought process. Otherwise they would show up at the source for rational discussion of their objections. But they do not do that, they cloister into groups like the cowardly bully boys on the playground, and snicker behind the backs of those they target. It is a congregation of weaklings pretending strength they do not possess.
And being older is no escape from having stunted one's intellectual propensity at a very low level. Go into any bar and you can observe that for yourself. Atheism serves the same intoxicating effect, as Dawkins shows daily.
I saw pure arrogant ridicule at FSTDT. I am skeptical of your claims to spectral appeal.
Laugh away, but be certain that if you actually had the intellectual chops, you would enter into actual discussions with those with whom you disagree. And that we know that.
Stan, often we do enter into conversations with some of the fundies we mock on the site. Often we show how incorrect they are.
Show me what you mean by "pure arrogant ridicule" and "spectral appeal?"
I'm pretty sure that cowardly bully boys operate on a circlejerk, not the type of dynamic over at FSTDT. Many times we argue, and sometimes it breaks into outright flame wars, like the time in early July that a couple people called one guy out (probably the guy with "arrogant ridicule" that you believe to be the FSTDT norm) for ableist remarks and then perceived anti-Japanese racism.
And it's not really just ridicule, either. With some quotes from people who want to do things like killing all Jews (because of hyperconservative conspiracy theories) or lowering the age of consent to 13 (because of virulent anti-feminism), we are simply shocked about them because these quotes are worse by a large margin than the normal FSTDT quotes.
Oh, and we have several quotes from atheists.
What I see is exactly what I said: a cloistered place to declare the Other to be an idiot, pretend to address him directly - but not to hazard an actual conversation - all in the warm glow of others who are exactly the same. But that's just based on the response to the clip taken from this blog.
If you see it as a valued conversation, that is up to you. I see nothing of value there at all.
However, if you have some sort of considered criticism of postss or comments made here, then make it, head on, and we can discuss it like adults.
It belatedly occurred to me that your use of the term "mock" perfectly expresses the atmosphere at FSTDT. Mockery requires no thought process at all. It is self-righteous deprecation of things which are not even understood.
That's what I see at FSTDT.
Well, you're picking from a single quote on FSTDT. I'll give you several quotes that have arguments in the comments section. Often they relate to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Here is a comparatively tame discussion: http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=102659
Here is another tame discussion: http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=102248
Here is a more heated one, albeit shorter: http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=100939
Here is a complete flame war: http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=101845
You realize that you are defending a group that calls people names, right? "Fundies" is an insult and denigration, right there in the title. So you call them Fundies. And then "mock" them? And everyone has a good "laugh", at the expense of the "Fundies". This is what you are attempting to defend? Well, at least you are loyal to your group.
I have no conceivable reason to even discuss this absurdity any longer. I am a "Fundie" in the minds of the mockers. Yet they haven't the stones to show up here, do they? Of course they don't; they know how that would turn out.
Well, we do have some disagreements about what is a "Fundie" and what isn't. And to your credit, you on the Christian Religious Reich have a site of your own in that vein, called "Moonbattery," where they pick out "moonbats" who are basically anyone who ISN'T a reactionary Christian on the political far-right.
And I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't show up here because this is a pretty small blog. Almost an echo chamber, even. It's not so (in)famous as, say, Vox Day. If I said that you wanted some of them to show up here, I could very well ask some of them when something germane to you shows up.
Ah. So it's OK with you to use the pejoratives, "Reich", "moonbat", in referring to categorizing the Other for your ridicule. You really don't see anything about that which is arrested at the junior high school, know it all level?
And the idea that I would "want" someone to ask them to show up here indicates that you have no idea what the issue actually is. I really don't care what they do. The entire enterprise is intellectually contemptible and without any value to anyone who honestly seeks valid knowledge through persistent and consistent grounded logic.
A question: why did you come here? Do you intend to convince me that their behavior is somehow correct, mature, or valuable?
Actually, "moonbat" is a pejorative used by the religious right (happy now?) to describe us on the left. And I've seen plenty of Nazi-related rhetoric coming from the right as well. Even from supposedly grown people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.
I came here because I was Googling FSTDT and omitting the site FSTDT to get results from other sites, and I came here. I commented because I noticed several misconceptions regarding your post about our fair site.
Ok. Your perception of my misconception has been recorded. As has my unmoved perception of the intellectual character of FSTDT.
Well, you said that atheism is a religion and that FSTDT is some kind of echo chamber. It's not. Neither is true.
Atheism is very different across different nonbelievers. There is weak atheism, which does not assert there is no god but rejects conditionally the assertion that there is one, and there is strong atheism, which is the assertion there is no god. Additionally, different atheists have different perceptions toward feminism (some for and some against), conservatism (believe it or not, there are many atheist conservatives, like Ayn Rand), evolution (yes, there are some atheists who deny evolution), political correctness, how to deal with people of other religions (a spectrum from tolerance to the most extreme forms of antitheism), and people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, who are actually incredibly controversial in the atheist community. And I don't even know how to answer "churches" and "preachers"... that is a whole new level of incorrect...
Meanwhile, we argue about a lot in FSTDT. That's the thing. We're not the same. I have to tell you this many many times. Some are old; some are young. Some are socialist; some are centrist. Some are Christian; some are neo-pagan. Some are theist; some are atheist. Some are male; some are female, and others are all across the board of gender. Nobody is exactly like another person here on FSTDT.
Atheism starts with rejectionism, placing one directly into the Atheist VOID. From the Atheist VOID, the Atheist presumes himself to be the arbiter of all things, making himself the elite judge over the inferior masses.
It is not surprising that an elite judge does not necessarily accept all or any other elite judges. The conflict between Coyne and Pigliucci and Dawkins and everyone else, plus the arrogance of Dennett and PZ, and the condemnations of Harris - all attest to the personal narcissistic hubris and elitist judgmentalism of Atheists and Atheism. That they squabble and condemn each other is an expectation. To be involved in that, and to think that it is of value, is amazing. To think that you can convince me of its value is a pipe dream.
I'm going to need a citation on that whole "atheism void" thing. The atheists I know are not voids and don't consider themselves elite judges. And it's not rejectionism, especially for weak atheism. I could say that Christianity is rejectionism with respect to Ahura Mazda, Amaterasu, Zeus, Ra, and all the other thousands of gods that have been known to have been worshipped, except for Jesus and GAY (God/Allah/Yahweh).
And the second paragraph contradicts directly with your "religion" assertion, too. Not that a religion doesn't have squabbling, but you said that these people are their high priests as if atheism were an organised body (hint: it's not).
Let's not forget the in-squabbling among Christians. The Protestants hate the Catholics, the Catholics hate Protestants and Orthodox Christians, and hyper-Calvinism hates almost everybody. And there are several disputes among doctrinaire scholars who see themselves as the elite judge of the meaning of the vague and self-contradictory BuyBull. David J. Stewart thinks, for example, Graham, Hagee, and Comfort are apostate non-Christians, over tiny matters of doctrine. I see a lot of squabbling among Christians too.
”I'm going to need a citation on that whole "atheism void" thing. The atheists I know are not voids and don't consider themselves elite judges. And it's not rejectionism, especially for weak atheism. I could say that Christianity is rejectionism with respect to Ahura Mazda, Amaterasu, Zeus, Ra, and all the other thousands of gods that have been known to have been worshipped, except for Jesus and GAY (God/Allah/Yahweh).”
Several errors here. First I did NOT say that Atheists were Voids. I said that they enter the Atheist VOID, which is a state. Atheists, upon their acceptance of Atheism, have absolutely no common moral precepts, and no common principles of logic, nor do they have any material evidence which supports their Atheism. None, none and none; i.e. their commonality is the void in which they exist, morally, intellectually and evidentially.
From there, they exit the Atheist VOID by creating their own reality, especially in terms of morality, but also in terms of rational processing which is overwhelmingly rationalization in pursuit of self-righteous self-justification, despite having no empirical justification for their belief system.
Further, the subject is Atheism, not Christianity; to drag Christianity into the conversation is a Red Herring Fallacy. And the acronym GAY is a feeble attempt at insult, which is what is expected as an argument form from Atheists of all stripes: ridicule, not rational Aristotelian argumentation.
”And the second paragraph contradicts directly with your "religion" assertion, too. Not that a religion doesn't have squabbling, but you said that these people are their high priests as if atheism were an organised body (hint: it's not).”
Being organized has no bearing on religious beliefs and behaviors. Atheism has all the characteristics of ecclesiastic religions, now even including churches. Atheism is nothing if not a belief system which for most part hates other belief systems, and is evangelical in its hatred. Go here for a complete analysis:
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2010/09/is-atheism-religion.html
Many Atheists have attested to their conversion based on the testimony of Dawkins or one of the other evangelical “New Atheists”. These hyper-religious Atheists are iconic to millions of Atheists around the world. They even have a symbol and a church.
Let's not forget the in-squabbling among Christians. The Protestants hate the Catholics, the Catholics hate Protestants and Orthodox Christians, and hyper-Calvinism hates almost everybody. And there are several disputes among doctrinaire scholars who see themselves as the elite judge of the meaning of the vague and self-contradictory BuyBull.””
First, the conversation is about the rational and emotional failure of Atheists and Atheism, especially in the arena of morality and logic. You cannot escape that conversation by attacking Christians as an attempted deviation from the failures of Atheism. That is a rational error, the common Red Herring Fallacy of deviation to avoid the topic at hand. It further points to the failure of your previous claim due to your comparison of a religion to the behavior of Atheists, which strongly tends to validate the religious properties of Atheism.
And finally: You are awash in sleaze. Your insults are cheap and without any merit other than childish self-satisfaction, and self-congratulatory elitist denigration, of which you are obviously proud. And that is a strong characteristic of Atheism as well: pride in ridicule. You are doing well at demonstrating that Atheists have no legitmate rational case in support of their Atheism other than their denigration and hatred of religion. Further they cannot disprove religion, so all they can do is denigrate it, usually with cheap, childish insults which have neither logic nor empiricism attached.
Take your juvenile insults elsewhere, preferably somewhere where you might learn how to think rationally (try learning deduction, for example) and without having only cheap snark and logical fallacy to resort to. I do not buy your claim that you are older, unless you are permanently stunted in the junior high school emotional stage, because that is the level which you exhibit.
Adios.
Oh, yay - another "buybull" basher.
You realize, (don't you?) Brandon, that with every pejorative, every petty put-down, every juvenile insult, you're simply proving Stan's point: you're incapable of discussing the issues at hand on a rational, adult level. Your resorting to adolescent rhetorical tricks like "buybull" serves only two purposes : to provide an emotional reinforcement of your delusion of intellectual superiority while simultaneously demonstrating just how illusory that delusion is.
Your tu quoque arguments are, as Stan has pointed out, nothing more than red herrings.
Which explains your inability to understand the qualitative difference between this site and FSTDT: not that AA is just another echo chamber (another to quoque argument), but that Stan engages with and provides rational analysis of the views he posts. Conversely, the Stan thread at FSTDT was just a cobbled-together collection of quotes for one purpose only: to invite taunts and ridicule. I quickly lost count of the number of profanities directed at Stan personally. There wasn't the slightest iota of intellectual content in any of the comments I perused.
I have no idea whether the rest of FSTDT is an echo chamber. And how much you may or may not disagree on other stuff is irrelevant. The comments I read WERE typical of other atheist echo chambers I've wandered into.
Stefani Monaghan, I do think I see the problem--you did not read the rest of FSTDT.
Stan, I am actually not an atheist. But I don't think the BuyBull is true, and I disagree vehemently with fundamentalist Christianity (or Chri-stainity), which is so divorced from the actual Jesus's teachings of "love thy neighbour" and everything that comes with it.
And you posed two completely contradictory reasons for atheism being a religion. First you say everyone agreeing in lockstep makes it a religion, and then you say that everyone squabbling over doctrinaire minutes makes it a religion. As the atheists often say, "atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position or not collecting stamps is a hobby."
Also, atheists are a lot like you in some ways. You disbelieve in all other deities except for GAY and your perception of Jesus. That is as if someone only tried oral in one position or only played the piano for fun commonly. Atheists disbelieve in every deity, including frummie Jesus and GAY. This is like someone who is abstinent or doesn't have a specific hobby. Both of these model people refrain from anal and have little interest in riding bikes. Similarly, you both reject most gods.
And you yourself are committing a fallacy by saying I'm not an adult. Maybe I am; maybe I'm not. One should really study an interlocutor's points without thinking about the other's age. Even a baby can raise a philosophical question inadvertently, and an adult, whether Richard Dawkins or, well, you, can have several consecutive brain-farts.
And where is your deduction that atheism is a religion or that these "churches" are a major institution in atheism? You could argue that maybe some elements of New Atheism are a religion. But that doesn't make atheism in general a religion.
Brandon,
I am not sure why you are still here. I thought I made it clear, but let me clarify it even more:
If you don't stop using your juvenile insult language, your comments will be removed.
Now let's take your positions one at a time.
1. FSTDT is a bunch of nice guys having intellectual discussions, which we would understand if we would just read everything over there.
You, yourself, make this claim while using cheap and sleazy juvenile insults. You cannot quit, apparently, and see nothing untoward in this behavior; therefore, you are not a proper judge of the tone at FSTDT. I choose not to subject myself to such.
2. The Bible is not true, but Jesus' teachings in the Bible (love your neighbor) are true, and Christians don't behave to your satisfaction. So you call them names.
You have assumed the mantle of elitist judge. You are superior to them, those [pejoratives] whom you hate, i.e., don't love. You judge the bible based on your own fundamentalist literalist conception of how it should be written - to your superior satisfaction. Further, the [pejoratives] must behave according to your fundamentalist standards. You demonstrate your superior love with continuous slurs, denigrations and insults.
3. You are the one who made the claim that Atheism is not a religion because it is not an organized belief; then you pointed out all the different branches of Christianity. The confusion is yours, as I tried to point out.
4. As the atheists often say, "atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position or not collecting stamps is a hobby."
False Association, False Analogy.
You did not read the link, you just regurgitated a canned fallacious non-argument.
There are no non-stamp-collectors who are demanding that they address stamp collector meetings to promote non-stamp-collecting; demand that the government be only non-stamp-collecting and sue the US Post Office for having collectable stamps; swarm the internet to ridicule and mock stamp collectors; or form non-stamp-collector churches and non-stamp-collector children's camps to keep children from collecting stamps. How many books on non-stamp-collecting can you quote?
There is no comparison, whatsoever.
Do you not ever analyze the bumper-sticker foolishness that is produced by Atheists?
5. Similarly, you both reject most gods.
Your attachment to the most simplistic and easily falsified Atheist principles is astonishing.
First, you have no idea what I believe because I discuss Atheism, and only Atheism. Your presumption of what I believe is both arrogantly presumptuous and incorrect.
Second, regardless of what I believe or don’t believe, your characterization of Christianity is incorrect. The Bible enjoins not to accept other gods; it does not claim that there are no other gods. It says that other gods are to be rejected.
This is why I suspect that your intellectual level, if not juvenile, is at a minimum, undeveloped. You do not question the most simplistic and fundamentally erroneous clap-trap which the arrested-juvenile Atheists think is wisdom. By not questioning it and actually repeating it as argumentation, the level of your personal inquiry is laid bare.
6. And you yourself are committing a fallacy by saying I'm not an adult. Maybe I am; maybe I'm not. One should really study an interlocutor's points without thinking about the other's age. Even a baby can raise a philosophical question inadvertently, and an adult, whether Richard Dawkins or, well, you, can have several consecutive brain-farts.
I’m not saying you’re not physically an adult, and I did not say that above. What I said, and I maintain at this point, is that your arguments and your continuous mockery (your own word, of which you are obviously proud) are at the level of junior high school: with completely unanalyzed repetition of mocking “arguments” which are blatantly false, and with the apparent inability to address anyone using non-mockery in your language. You are, in fact, proud of your mockery, as if that and canned fallacious argument is as far as you care to extend your thought process.
So. Why are you even here? You so far have not produced original arguments, and surely if you've read any of this site you know that the simplistic canned arguments found on the AtheoWeb rant sites won’t fly here. What do you hope to gain?
1. Then you are making judgments on inordinately small parts of FSTDT, which is not a good thing.
2. I never suggested that I am a perfect person. Superior? Possibly in some manners. But perfect? By no means.
3. Some religions are organised into branches and some, generally smaller ones, are not. Whether something is a religion is independent of how organised it is. It is dependent on certain beliefs. And atheism is not necessarily a belief, but often a lack of belief. Forms of "strong atheism" are a positive belief in a lack of a deity, though, and this particular claim of strong atheism gives them the burden of proof, much like how theists who are not agnostic have the burden of proof on their claims.
4. Do stamp collectors persecute non-collectors for not collecting stamps? No. So there is no need for non-collectors to force stamp collectors to give them representation--because they already have it! And I'm pretty sure some non-collectors do consider stamp collecting childish. I'm going to need citations on those atheist churches or atheist camps.
And as for abstinence being a sex position, it is a good analogy. Society is very sex-negative and only really likes some forms of sex (Christianity) and in some cases only PIV sex (take your pick of branches of Christianity: Catholicism, Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Mormonism ...). Some people also rape others (forced conversion). Increasingly, though, society is becoming more tolerant of gay sex and other forms of sex (non-Christian classical religions), as well as of people who do not want to have sex (atheists) and those who masturbate (New Age beliefs). But there are still some people who want more PIV sex so as to increase population, as if we needed it. Some abstainers are in opposition to having sex, but in most cases people are learning to be more sex-positive (religious tolerance).
You say,
”And atheism is not necessarily a belief, but often a lack of belief.”
This is an Atheist fraud which is perpetrated in order to avoid defending the rejectionism which is inherent in Atheism. If an Atheist is conscious of his Atheism, then he has rejected some form of theist argument which he believes is false. That is a firm belief, not a lack of belief. Claiming lack of belief is an intellectual fraud.
The claim of lack of belief is rejected by Atheist philosophers, who understand the implications: if lack of belief is all that Atheism is, then it applies to rocks, pond scum, and dead amoebas, all of which have no belief. The modern use of “lack” is purely to avoid intellectual responsibility for presenting a positive case and reasoning for Atheism. And that is because it cannot be done.
” Do stamp collectors persecute non-collectors for not collecting stamps? No”
Persecution complex much? You are being sued? No, that is Atheism suing non-Atheists. You are being attacked in the street? No, those are democrats who are rioting and stealing at the moment. Not allowed in church? No, churches allow non-believers, if they don't steal stuff. Don't get justice? No, justice is not based on religion. Can't get a job? Again there is a Democrat Atheist responsible for that.
Atheists seem to think that the mere existence of the Other is persecution. The poor Atheist darlings get dyspepsia at the sight of a cross (that is the exact argument made by the American Atheist Ass'n lawsuit against the 9/11 cross in a private museum). They get all fainty if they encounter a small community which endorses non-Atheism, and they pervert the First Amendment in order to force Atheism on all others.
Atheists fly into tantrums when anyone asserts the First Amendment right not to have government prohibit the right to religious expression.
” I'm going to need citations on those atheist churches or atheist camps.”
Try google. Read the actual news, rather than that Left wing stuff.
” And as for abstinence being a sex position, it is a good analogy. Society is very sex-negative and only really likes some forms of sex (Christianity) and in some cases only PIV sex (take your pick of branches of Christianity: Catholicism, Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Mormonism ...).”
You must truly live in a cave if you believe that. There is only one abstinence claimed, and that is for sex to be within marriage between a male and female. You are quoting Greta Christina, right? The porn queen turned sex dictator wannabe for the entire globe. Or someone like her. By making cartoon cardboard caricature claims about Christianity one is able to place an entire population in a box with a phony label and then take pot shots at the box.
Atheism is nothing like your comparison: on-line Atheists are in the business of attacking everyone who is not like themselves, all the time, and using whatever lies they choose to believe and to derrogate.
There is no Atheist Book Of Moral Principles. What ever any Atheist chooses for his morals is completely up to him to satisfy his own desires and proclivities: in other words, it is not morality at all, it is a description of how the Atheist chooses to behave and then call it “morality”. And then further to berate anyone who has actual moral principles, because having moral principles is a threat to the libertinism of the Atheist.
” Some people also rape others (forced conversion).”
What?? Now you’ve been raped?? Good grief, how many cartoons are you going to haul out? Or wait, maybe you are referring to Dawkins' children indoctrination camps, and his program to remove all children from non-Atheists, because non-Atheism is child abuse. That’s probably what you mean.
”Increasingly, though, society is becoming more tolerant of gay sex and other forms of sex (non-Christian classical religions), as well as of people who do not want to have sex (atheists) and those who masturbate (New Age beliefs).”
This makes no sense whatsoever. What is a non-Christian classical religion? Greek gods? Norse Gods? So they have become tolerant these days?
And Atheists do not want to have sex??? Better talk with Greta some more. And I had no idea that New Agers were into masturbation. Interesting, but not pertinent to anything that I can see.
” But there are still some people who want more PIV sex so as to increase population, as if we needed it.”
So there you are: a feminist victim. There’s nothing I can do for you then.
” Some abstainers are in opposition to having sex, but in most cases people are learning to be more sex-positive (religious tolerance).”
I love that term: sex-positive; pretty sure Greta Christina made that up. What it means is that, as I have pointed out earlier, there is absolutely NO set of Atheist Moral Principles, except for this:
we DEMAND that there be no moral principles because we want to have sex all the time, everywhere, with everyone, and NOBODY better get in our way, and the existence of Other Peoples' morals offends us and it must be stopped, so we will sue and pass laws.
The same lack of principle goes for everything which one might consider to be a moral issue, if one were not an Atheist:
We Atheists want NO constraints moral or otherwise because: TOLERANCE OF EVERYTHING WE CHOOSE TO DO, EXCEPT YOU PEOPLE, NO TOLERANCE FOR YOU, and NOBODY better get in our way when we do whatever we want, whenever we want, however we want to do it, whoever we want to do it to - and you better not criticize us or we will sue you for everything you own or will own, ever, you INTOLERANT EVIL people who have your own morals which make us sick because they exist!!
And PIV is ALWAYS rape, all the time and every time. All men are rapists. And women are sensitively superior, and should eradicate all men. Except sperm donors. QED.
So let's be sex-positive, why don't we do it in the road? (John Lennon).
I’ve heard all this before. It’s pitiful.
The Atheist principle of Enforced No Principles has brought this country to its knees. Even the blacks on the Democrat reservation are catching on: they have nothing and the browns from Guatemala are getting the good stuff in return for their future votes. No principles at all any more. That should make everyone happy. Right? Like Libertinism and Rome.
And the US Constitution is useless when the constituents are valueless. So there are no constraints, meaning anarchy and chaos which is our future.
[BTW, thank you for dropping the insults]
You said,
”I don't subscribe to radfem nonsense like "PIV is always rape." And I support religious tolerance, but that does not mean to let other people suppress others' freedoms. Freedom does not give you a license to take the freedoms of others.”
No Atheist in this country has his freedom taken from him due to religious suppression. I was an Atheist for four decades in a far more conservative and moral culture than today’s culture; I never was “raped” by religion; I never saw anyone “raped” by religion. No one took away my freedoms. In fact, it was this kind of Atheist claim that made me re-evaluate Atheism in general, and I found that Atheism is virtually always inverted from reality, and in the years I have run this blog I have found that to be true and that the Atheist response is totally emotional.
Free exercise of religion is specifically guaranteed in the US Constitution. Freedom from religion is not. Freedom from religion is found in China and Russia, and the resulting culture is one where the government has the “license to take the freedom of others”. Atheism is the real world threat; religion is merely hated for its restrictions on libertinism and its promotion of actual character in it youth.
And the world's population is indeed growing inordinately. It is heading toward the earth's carrying capacity and might well have already exceeded it.
Yes, the Left always says that. It’s the precursor to eugenics, already begun in the western world, including the USA (abortion for convenience, death panels). Population panic started half a century ago, but then genetically designed food crops popped up and now there is enough to feed everyone, if the totalitarian dictators and terrorists would step aside. But of course the Left always fights against those things which would deny the fulfillment of their dream of mass starvation resulting in martial law and the NWO, so they fight against GMO foods, they deny DDT to the third world, they insist on not changing the cultures to fight AIDs, they bring mass-murdering African dictators to the White House and break bread with them.
”Who is the supposed Democratic atheist responsible for people not getting jobs?”
Obama, of course. If one judges based on his actions, not his lies. His administration has exponentially increase regulations on business, has been obscure in its intentions toward business, gave GM to the union, while stiffing investors, both stock and bond holders. He says things like “you did not build that” to small business entrepreneurs. ObamaCare forces huge expenses on small businesses. Every agency from the EPA, OSHA, to the IRS now has business designated as a targeted foe.
Therefore, few real jobs are created. Jobs now are part time to avoid the government excesses. This happened due to Obama and his governing.
” So rocks, pond scum, and amoebas are indeed also weak atheists because they have no positive belief in a deity. What, you thought they were Christian?”
That is no defense. It is just more childish snark.
” The news media does not have a "leftist bias." If anything, reality does. There are sufficient left-wing and right-wing publications to go around.”
What? Reality does? There are organizations devoted specifically to reporting the exact news that the Leftist televangelists do not report, MRC, for example (Media Research Center). DO NOT GO THERE if you wish to preserve your Leftist ignorance of actual world and domestic events.
When the media doesn’t even report half of the events in the nation or the world, specifically the half which reflect badly on Leftism, that is bias. The reason Obama publically hates real news sources (commonly European, British, but also FOX and Drudge, etc) is that those sources report ALL the news from the Left AND news from the Middle AND news from the Right. The Left hates this open reporting, so makes up more lies to cover – Obama is the poster boy for Leftist lying; Reid and Pelosi are acolyte liars.
Leftist reality is the impending collapse of the American model of freedom for the world. The blacks in Ferguson have caught on to the Leftist reality: they are on the Leftist Reservation, maintained at poverty level to keep their vote, and then abandoned when the border is left wide open to the new brown kids who get all the benefits. Blacks are being systematically repressed, and aborted as well.
American blacks are about to wake up to their abuse for votes. Maybe the Ferguson attacks on Obama and black “leaders” who profit from their poverty shows an awakening. When that fianlly spreads, the riots will be spectacular. And that is Leftist reality.
A final thought. Because Atheists don't believe in good or evil (Nietzsche killed that along with God), then logically Atheists cannot be good. They just "are". So claiming to be good, and that the reigning deity should accept them in all their moral anarchy is the ultimate in irrationality because under Atheism:
(a) there is no good or evil;
(b) there is no deity;
(c) Atheists can't be good;
(d) A deity can't be evil. [see (a) and (b)].
The Atheist has exactly no reason to even discuss the deity, unless they actually fear the deity.
Christians cannot place dead Atheists into hell. The Atheist has nothing to fear from Christians. So all the hullabaloo is due specifically to the Atheist hatred of anyone with rules for their behavior, which goes against the Atheist moral anarchy which the Atheists cherish.
"Since you are your own deity who gets to make up rules for what you fear is an actual deity, why don’t you punish the deity yourself?"
Hey, I like that response, Stan. Mind if I borrow it?
"Don't like God's rules? Just go whack him!"
Oh, and Brandon - the reason neither Stan nor I bothered to read the rest of FSTDT is because we could predict exactly what we'd find there. And then you came along and confirmed it all. But out of courtesy I did go read a couple of the links you provided.
I was right. One hundred percent.
The only mystery that remains is why you think anyone here would be favorably impressed by what passes for discussion at FSTDT.
Stefani Monaghan, can you say "confirmation bias?"
And I will adapt your response:
"Don't like Hitler's rules? Just go whack him!"
Might doesn't make right.
Actually, in the case of Hitler, that's exactly what happened: only he whacked himself pre-emptively, to avoid the whacking he would get if he stuck around.
So. Can you say: False Association?
Can You say: False Analogy?
Can you say: Red Herring Fallacy?
Can you say: Conclusion doesn't bear on the actual proposition: Non Sequitur Fallacy?
Can you say: silly excuse for avoiding the topic?
I use your terminology here to demonstrate the unnecessary sarcasm and presumptive self-elitism: when you say, "can you say", you have reverted to the juvenile style of rhetoric, again. Why not just say what you mean, using subject and predicate?
Well, Hitler didn't not like Hitler's rules. The point is that your argument is an argument by consequences. Just because Gobs has the power doesn't mean he has the morals.
Umm. "Hitler didn't not like Hitler's rules"
That is a nonsense statement if ever I heard one. You are the one who brought up Hitler as an example (which immediately failed!)
An argument by consequences?? Are you talking about Atheist Consequentialism? If that is the case, then Consequentialist Atheists should adopt it quite readily.
All I'm suggesting is that you are muddling two things together which are mutually independent.
First, since you defend Atheism while claiming not to be one, I will assume first that you are really an Atheist, regardless of what you claim. So as an Atheist, there is no god to fear, so any fear you have is emotionally derived, not logically arrived at. Being an Atheist, there is no belief that there exist religious elements including a deity which can affect you. So your fear is of nothing, which is irrational.
Second, as a theist (if you actually are one), you are subject to a deity, which is a being so superior to you that you cannot comprehend its existence much less its motivations for having created you, even much less for having created morals. That you don't like the creating deity's morals has no bearing on the validity of those morals; in no manner is your moral authority higher than that of such a superior being, nor is your moral thought greater in moral capacity or validity.
But the problem for you is this: You cannot prove that there is no such being, and in fact there is intellectual evidence that such a being could well exist. That places you in an awkward position, because you think that your personal moral thought and authority should prevail, even when you know it very likely could not.
So you face a dichotomy: EITHER you force yourself to believe that there is no deity in order to escape consequences for your rejection, OR you must accept both the existence and the superiority of the extant deity in both power and morality.
This dichotomy doesn't have a happy place for you to land. So you condemn the deity (which might just exist), by fruitlessly trying to assert that your own morality is superior, even in a manner which is fearful that it actually is not. Very uncomfortable for you, yes?
Because under these conditions, you cannot win.
In other words, the supreme being is supreme and completely morally good just because of its power? Again with the "might makes right."
I don't doubt there might be a superior being, but not a SUPREME being. Especially not the one that you believe in because the book it was based off, the Bible, was a badly cobbled together and self-contradictory compendium of older myths. The Greeks believed that their gods were very powerful, but not perfect. Superior, but not supreme.
And then there is maltheism: the idea that there is a supreme being who is not morally perfect at all. If the supreme being is not capable of explaining it to me in terms I can understand, then the being cannot be omnipotent for want of an ability to explain.
False dichotomy, by the way. There could be a superior but not supreme being, an evil supreme being, multiple superior beings, etc.
And as for the argument from consequences: what this means is basically that it amounts to "If this isn't true, you will be very sad." This is wishful thinking: you don't want to be very sad, but that doesn't mean you won't be. It's not related to so-called "atheist consequentialism."
I mixed myself up there though (apologies); it's not an argument by consequences but an argument by force, which is related. Basically, it's "If this isn't true, I'll hit you with this stick."
The point is that Hitler thought himself morally right in killing Jews, gays, socialists, etc. He even enshrined the idea that you can't comprehend his morality in law with "Fuhrerprinzip"--basically "the Fuhrer is always right."
As for the self-whacking spiel, that was a non-sequitur. Hitler didn't not like Hitler's rules, so it is irrelevant that he "whacked" himself. And some people actually did try to "whack" him.
Sadly, if your petty tyrant of a deity were real, nobody would come close to killing it.
Brandon Epstein
”I don't doubt there might be a superior being, but not a SUPREME being. Especially not the one that you believe in because the book it was based off, the Bible, was a badly cobbled together and self-contradictory compendium of older myths..”
This claim, that the bible is “cobbled together from older myths” is thoroughly debunked. It is traceable to a movie,Zeitgeist, the Movie, which is likely based on the book, The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold.
http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/#horus
The claims in the book are completely unsourced, i.e. completely fabricated. This is an example of Atheist credulousness – wanting to believe, because it satisfies an emotional need. But intellectually, it is a complete failure. Actual research into the claims shows the falseness. When Atheists speak of believing in unprovable falseness, they should be reminded of this belief of their own.
Some of the accusatory contrarian sites such as thinkquest have been discontinued.
” The Greeks believed that their gods were very powerful, but not perfect. Superior, but not supreme”
What the Greeks believed is of no importance to your argument contra Christianity, which is what you hate, and what you think I believe, which you do not know but have presumed.
The discussion is Atheism, and how Atheists know that they are right in their rejection of the concept of a creating agent for the universe. Deprecating Christianity has no bearing on the issue of Atheist rejection of a deity, especially when the deprecation is, itself, false.
” And then there is maltheism: the idea that there is a supreme being who is not morally perfect at all. If the supreme being is not capable of explaining it to me in terms I can understand, then the being cannot be omnipotent for want of an ability to explain.”
The presumption that a deity cannot, is made in ignorance of all the other possibilities, such as that the deity made morality available in one manner which you can understand but reject. And your rejection is based not on not understanding but on your desire to have things your own way and not encounter any consequences, as if you are a deity yourself. So this argument fails, because it has the intent of covering for the desire of personal superiority and the escape from consequences by rationalizing an absurd condition for a deity.
” False dichotomy, by the way. There could be a superior but not supreme being, an evil supreme being, multiple superior beings, etc.”
a) First case: superior but not supreme: for supreme then either you are supreme, or there is an infinite regression of superior beings which does not culminate in a supreme being. You are not supreme, despite your claim to superior morality. An infinite regression of superiors with no actual supreme is a logical absurdity. This fails.
b) Second case: evil supreme: this would be evil by your standards, only, making you once again the supreme arbiter of morality. You are not. So this fails.
c) Third case: multiple superior beings: Presumably you are referring to many exactly equal beings who are exactly equally superior to all other beings, and who are exactly as evil as each other, by your definition of “evil”, which again renders you the supreme arbiter of morality. You are not the supreme arbiter of morality; there is no rational reason to posit multiple, exactly equal, superior beings. This fails.
” And as for the argument from consequences: what this means is basically that it amounts to "If this isn't true, you will be very sad." This is wishful thinking: you don't want to be very sad, but that doesn't mean you won't be. It's not related to so-called "atheist consequentialism."
If that is what it means, then it is not a logical fallacy because it doesn’t address the actual argument; it is rather an attack on the arguer, not the argument. So it is an irrational accusation, used for rhetorical effect. But rhetoric never trumps actual logic.
I mixed myself up there though (apologies); it's not an argument by consequences but an argument by force, which is related. Basically, it's "If this isn't true, I'll hit you with this stick.”
False. If there is no God, then there is no stick. You cannot be hurt by what does not exist. Try again.
” The point is that Hitler thought himself morally right in killing Jews, gays, socialists, etc. He even enshrined the idea that you can't comprehend his morality in law with "Fuhrerprinzip"--basically "the Fuhrer is always right."
And yet he was proven wrong, which again refutes your original argument using Hitler.
” As for the self-whacking spiel, that was a non-sequitur. Hitler didn't not like Hitler's rules, so it is irrelevant that he "whacked" himself. And some people actually did try to "whack" him.”
Good Grief. It was your argument, and all of that refuted it, multiple ways. Hitler was whackable. Admit it.
” Sadly, if your petty tyrant of a deity were real, nobody would come close to killing it.”
You still presume to know what you do not know: who or what I believe. More importantly, you hereby admit that such a deity is superior to humans. But you still claim that your morality is the superior morality of the universe. And that still makes you a wannabe god, yourself, which is an emotional issue, not a rational issue. Because you believe that there is no deity, then that makes you, in your eyes, the obvious candidate for the job, what with your superior morals and all. But no one accepts your obvious qualifications, and that is a problem for you.
I don't say that I have supreme morals. Nobody is perfect.
As for the argument by consequences, it IS indeed a fallacy. Just because the consequences are undesirable doesn't mean it won't happen.
And your argument of Gobs' morality is an argument by force indeed. It basically says, "You don't have to understand Gobs' morality. If you don't think he's moral, he'll torture you forever. Therefore, he's moral." That's not morality--that's insanity.
@Brandon
"Stefani Monaghan, can you say "confirmation bias?""
Yes, I can, thank you. The only problem with accusing me of cherry-picking is that *I* didn't do the picking, you did. I read the four threads *you* linked to, and they confirmed my suspicions of, as Stan said, the "intellectual character of FSTDT".
"Fuck you" "asshole" "fundie" "fucking assholes" "fundie" "scumbag" "shithead" "nazis" "Fundie Jews" "fascists" "Fuck you Nemo" "douchecanoe" "fundie Muslims" "christo/pedo sexuality" "Twat" "fundie Christians" "wankerboy" "douche" "dipshit" "fundies" "retard" "fundie" "conservitards"
Yeah, the good folk at FSTDT sure know how to carry on an intellectual conversation.
And then there are THESE from two of the apparent regulars:
"aren't we all here to call fundies out on their bullshit ... Aren't we all on the same side here?"
"I'm going to go watch Psych and hope this goes away, so we can get back to insulting fundies"
Confirming Stan's and my original impression -- any digressions into catfights on other topics are simply a diversion from the site's REAL raison d'être: "insulting fundies".
Quod erat demonstrandum.
Stefani, one of the things about FSTDT is indeed that we get to bash fundies. However, very often we link to other sources to demonstrate our assertions.
And this is just like taking the opinion of a few Jews about Gentiles and saying that all Jews hate Gentiles.
And Nemo can indeed be a "twat" sometimes, especially with respect to Muslims.
The common thread that links us with that first quote from an "apparent regular" is indeed calling out fundies. We may hold different views on Christians, atheism, homosexuality, abortion, Israel, Muslims, etc., but we are all here to call out fundies (not just Christians, either! there are plenty of secular, Muslim, atheist, Buddhist, Jewish, and Hindu fundies too).
Brandon, first I'll address your comment to me, and then in a separate comment address what you said to Stefani.
You said,
”I don't say that I have supreme morals. Nobody is perfect.”
Well, that doesn’t match your claims earlier, where you asserted your own particular superior moral judgments over those of a deity. In fact, you condemned the deity, based on your particular personal morals, morals which you claim are better than those of the deity.
” As for the argument by consequences, it IS indeed a fallacy. Just because the consequences are undesirable doesn't mean it won't happen.”
You will need to expand this into something which incorporates the original issue; otherwise I don’t see any connection.
” And your argument of Gobs' morality is an argument by force indeed. It basically says, "You don't have to understand Gobs' morality. If you don't think he's moral, he'll torture you forever. Therefore, he's moral." That's not morality--that's insanity.”
You cannot even bring yourself to say “God”, can you? Your fear and hatred of the non-existant is what is irrational to the point of actual insanity.
But as for your argument by force, there is no force involved (for the Atheist), because if there is no God, then there is no superior agency by which force could be applied. Only a theist can believe in such a force, and for the theist the force is not a threat. So either way, you are not threatened by such a force. Unless you are a theist in rebellion, one who declares his own opinions to be superior to all other existing moral claims including those of a deity, you are in no personal danger.
But again, you are in what must be a very uncomfortable spot: you apparently think that there very well could be a deity, one with power over you, BUT you obviously don’t want any consequences for your actions. So you declare that consequences – especially serious consequences – are evil, and that is the basis for your “morality”. Under your “moral opinion”, you should be allowed to do whatever you wish, including acting as if you are the moral deity, and that there should “morally” be no consequences for your behaviors.
Since that is not how the deity sees it, then it is the deity which is immoral, not you, because the deity doesn’t cave into your moral demands. Your judgment of the deity will, of course, not sit all that well with the deity and you know that. So you are in a bad spot, one from which you cannot remove yourself forcibly (being less powerful than the deity), and one in which the hated consequences might, in fact, apply to you even though your “moral opinion” precludes them, although with no authority or force.
Now, you might condemn your situation as being subject to a reviled decision by force, but if the deity does, in fact, exist, then reality is that force exists in the universe and you are subject to it, whether you like it or not. In fact, your opinion of it, morally, is trivial in the overall scheme of things, and amounts to mere whining about the nature of reality.
”Stefani, one of the things about FSTDT is indeed that we get to bash fundies. However, very often we link to other sources to demonstrate our assertions.”
This sums you up completely. You cannot go beyond ridicule within the chamber set up explicitly for ridicule.
”And this is just like taking the opinion of a few Jews about Gentiles and saying that all Jews hate Gentiles.”
One bad apple…
”And Nemo can indeed be a "twat" sometimes, especially with respect to Muslims.”
You are completely oblivious to the corrupt nature of your thought process and your discourse. I told you before that your denigrations would be deleted; you have ignored that, obviously, because you cannot discern between civil discourse and filth. While I hate to ban you, I’m on the hairy edge of doing so.
”The common thread that links us with that first quote from an "apparent regular" is indeed calling out fundies.”
You do not discern the arrogance of that statement, do you?
”We may hold different views on Christians, atheism, homosexuality, abortion, Israel, Muslims, etc., but we are all here to call out fundies (not just Christians, either! there are plenty of secular, Muslim, atheist, Buddhist, Jewish, and Hindu fundies too).”
Your collective prejudice against a designated group which doesn’t exist as a coherent category in reality, a category which is created for the express purpose of ridicule (bashing), is without any intellectual merit. It is based on hatred of principles in general, and people who have principles. Such people who have principles are called fundamentalists and are attacked with cheap name calling and other juvenile trash talk.
FSTDT is like a toilet bowl for the unprincipled and verbally incontinent.
The reason you like it there is because you don’t like anyone who has actual principles; and that is why you hate the deity: you don’t wish to have any principled restraints on your thoughts or behaviors. The unprincipled behaviors at FSTDT therefore fit your desire for an unprincipled lifestyle, and you are one of the residents there.
This is a perfect specimen of the catalog of Atheist Moral Principles: none, and proud of it. And an even better demonstration of the rational confusion of a theist who hates the deity.
Explain to me why I should NOT ban you from this blog.
@Brandon :
"one of the things about FSTDT"
"One of the things"? No, Brandon. THE thing. By your own admission. By the admission of the authors of the quotes I cited. Encapsulated in the very name of the site itself -- bashing fundies is not "one of the things" about FSTDT, it is the unitatis principium of the place.
"However, very often we link to other sources to demonstrate our assertions."
Huh? "Mmm, bashing GOOD! See? Hyperlink!"
Are you sure you don't see the ludicrousness of that assertion? Not to mention that it flies in the face of your earlier assertion:
"And I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't show up here"
You mean, despite the fact that there was a link? They'll bash from the safety of FSTDT, but they won't actually follow the link to engage Stan directly. You even admitted that it wasn't a link that brought you here, but a google search.
"And this is just like taking the opinion of a few Jews about Gentiles and saying that all Jews hate Gentiles."
Sorry, I've missed the analogy here. We're not talking about all Jews. We're discussing the level of discourse at FSTDT. And if the "Jews" of your analogy are the FSTDT regulars, and the "Gentiles" are "fundies", then by the statements I cited and your own admission "all Jews" do indeed "hate Gentiles", and the express purpose of FSTDT is to provide a forum for the unbridled expression of that hatred (which is, apparently, rendered morally laudible by the inclusion of hyperlinks).
It's possible I've misread your analogy, so I welcome any corrections.
Sure, it's possible to draw some parallels between FSTDT and Atheism-Analyzed. The regulars here are "united" in their disagreements with atheism. If you want to call A-A an anti-atheist "echo chamber", I suppose you could (you'd be wrong, but I won't get into that now). You could take exception with Stan's frequently harsh and pointed critiques of atheISM.
But what you won't find here is bashing. You can search this site from first post to last, and not one example will you find of Stan calling any atheist a "dipshit" or "douchebag", because pejorations are by their nature anti-rational. They speak volumes about the mentality of the basher, but say nothing at all about the arguments of the bashee.
There's a reason why this place isn't called "Atheists Say The Darndest Things".
Stan, your objection that "force will only be exerted upon the atheist, not the theist" is exactly why the argument from force is fallacious. And basically what you are saying is the deity is moral, dammit, and I you think differently the deity will do something horrible to me. That basically removes all meaning from morality because it becomes utterly arbitrary, and this is related to the Euthyphro dilemma.
Also, about Nemo, he is not one of the people commonly regarded as being "fundie" on FSTDT. Normally, he's a rather good commentator, but he is quite Islamophobic. I also generally like Swede but worry about the extent of her anti-Zionism. I have not yet denigrated you and do not wish to do so. I have called out two of my fellow commentators, common commentators them both.
Fundies are often rather the opposite: not people who have principles, but people with absolutely no principles, or people who have so many they restrict the rights of others. We feature the first type (apologists) often: Nazi apologists, paedophiles (as in actual paedos who want to lower the age of consent), Soviet apologists, people who advocate genocide, etc. And we have a lot on the other prong of the fork (puritans) too: people who want the death penalty for homosexuality and interracial marriage, people who complain about how old TV shows are satanic, etc. We praise the religious who tolerate other beliefs and condemn atheists who vehemently oppose religious freedom.
Stefani, the link is not for the purpose of "touching the poop," so to speak (term shamelessly borrowed from the subreddit ShitRedditSays, which is a similar repository of outrageous quotes from Reddit). It is for sourcing quotes and ensuring that they were actually said. The admin, Distind, and the PubAd team use this to check if a quote is authentic.
The analogy is that taking a few opinions about hate does not equate to a valid generalisation.
As for atheism, it is as broad a category as theism is.
The site's logic is in many ways fundamentally wanting. Notice that, up to this point, I have not bashed you. As with Stan mentioned above, I do not desire to do so, and do not plan to. I have bashed Vincent Cheung, your god, anti-Semites, two of my fellow commentators, and several impersonal, insentient, intangible concepts. But I have not bashed you.
There's another reason the place isn't called Atheists Say the Darndest Things: because that name was already taken. There was a site with that name. It was not popular and easily went into disrepair.
@Brandon :
"Stefani, the link is not for the purpose of "touching the poop," ... It is for sourcing quotes and ensuring that they were actually said."
But this is not what you said:
"...indeed that we get to bash fundies. However, very often we link to other sources to demonstrate our assertions."
Now you say it's only for fact-checking, which would appear to be an implicit admission that no one at FSTDT bothers checking the link because no one is actually interested in, oh, I don't know, checking the context or something. Which plays right back into our inititial judgments about the site: its purpose is not intellectual engagement, but ridicule and mockery.
"Fundies are often rather the opposite: not people who have principles, but people with absolutely no principles, or people who have so many they restrict the rights of others."
As Stan observed earlier, "fundie" doesn't even have a coherent definition, so how could we say what fundies are or are not?
That Stan was targeted by someone at FSTDT for ridicule strongly implies that he (and by association, the rest of us?) is considered a member of that amorphous category. So, would you apply the above description to either him or any of us? You have, it seems to me, three possible responses. Yes? Then I'll have to ask for your evidence of our lack of principles. No? Then why Stan was targeted? "I don't know"? Then perhaps you'll be so kind as to explain FSTDT's rush to judgment.
Phrases such as "restricting the rights of others" and "forcing your values down my throats" are incoherent rhetorical nonsense. There is no such thing as an unfettered right. All rights of all citizens have to be balanced against each other, competing claims adjudicated, compromises reached. And many rights are revocable. Every time you say, "Your rights end at my door", you are by definition restricting my rights. It's not a question of whether rights should be restricted, but of which restrictions are to be held acceptable.
So if you have a specific example of any "fundie" here (because Stan was specifically targeted as a "fundie") who is trying to "restrict the rights of others", lay it out and we can discuss it.
"The site's logic is in many ways fundamentally wanting."
Our very point.
"Notice that, up to this point, I have not bashed you."
For which (along with your loyalty to FSTDT, however misplaced) you are to be commended, though no one has accused you of doing so. I do note, however, your difficulty in laying off the pejorations and denigrations. However, this is Stan's blog, so that's more his business than it is mine.
"I have bashed ... several impersonal, insentient, intangible concepts"
I think we are not on the same page here. "Bashing" is akin to mockery and ridicule -- a non-rational, emotional scree. Having rational discussions and disagreements with Stan over the logic of some point (up to and including the logic of belief in the existence of God) is not bashing. Persistence in employee denigrations likes "buybull", "GAY", "fundie" and "Gob" is.
"There's another reason the place isn't called Atheists Say the Darndest Things: because that name was already taken."
Is it? I hesitate to presumptuously speak for Stan, but I highly doubt that's why he didn't choose the name.
Brandon says,
”And basically what you are saying is the deity is moral, dammit, and I you think differently the deity will do something horrible to me.”
Will you perpetually not attempt to comprehend what I have written? I did not say that. You say that, and the reason you say that is to add your hatred to the mix. I went to great lengths to illuminate your precarious position, and you can read that again, above; I won’t repeat it here. So I’ll try to condense it to this:
You want to have a deity that does what you demand of it, not what the deity wants for you.
In other words you want a bottle genie deity that grants you the following wish: absolutely no consequences for anything you wish to do. And that is a wish born of the innocence of childhood, not of responsible adulthood.
”That basically removes all meaning from morality because it becomes utterly arbitrary, and this is related to the Euthyphro dilemma.”
First, Euthyphro’s dilemma is a False Dilemma Fallacy:
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2010/07/euthyphro-dilemma-and-atheist-credulity.html
Second, It is your contention that you should never receive consequences for whatever actions or irrational rejections that goes counter to morality. Morality presupposes consequences, whether you like it or not; morality is independent of your personal desires and opinions. If morality were just an opinion, it would not be morality, it would be an opinion about morality, and that is what you have: an opinion about morality (you don’t like it).
”. I have not yet denigrated you and do not wish to do so.”
I have to admit, this cracked me up.
”Fundies are often rather the opposite: not people who have principles, but people with absolutely no principles, or people who have so many they restrict the rights of others.”
This is a common complaint from people who have not had ANY of their rights restricted, but are fearful that there might be consequences for their anarchy.
” As for atheism, it is as broad a category as theism is.”
Actually Atheism can lead to absolutely any behavior or belief, because it is a “lack” or VOID of any belief beyond whatever the Atheist makes up for himself. There is no Atheist Constraint on either thought or behavior, except to hate theists and theism (which is the general tenor, starting with the pope of Atheism, Richard Dawkins).
I have to stop here due to time constraints; but I ask you this: What principles do you use to denigrate those “fundies” with whom you disagree? Just list your actual principles and the source of their authenticity.
I'm back for a short time, and I'll address the rest of Brandon's statement:
"The site's logic is in many ways fundamentally wanting.
If you are referring to this site, then you must give specifics, or have that charge ignored. You have been given a number of logic failures of your own, all of which you have completely ignored as if they did not exist.
Logic is the currency of this site, so if you want to discuss logic or the logic of your theories, then we can certainly do that. But you must own whatever logic failures you assert, and so far you have not.
Notice that, up to this point, I have not bashed you. As with Stan mentioned above, I do not desire to do so, and do not plan to. I have bashed Vincent Cheung, your god, anti-Semites, two of my fellow commentators, and several impersonal, insentient, intangible concepts. But I have not bashed you."
Whether you have "bashed" me is of no consequence to me. What matters is whether you can prove whatever it is that you believe, whether your beliefs are logically coherent, valid, and grounded, if you assert them to be true.
You, along with other denigrationists, appear think that your views are so true that you can denigrate without actually having to prove the logical and moral supremacy of your own views.
Atheists tend to habitually deny any burden of rebuttal, specifically because they cannot prove the validity of Atheism using either disciplined logic, or empirical, experimental data showing that Atheism is valid, true, logical, and grounded.
So all that Atheists can do is ridicule and denigrate from behind cloistered boundaries so that their vulnerability is protected by the volleys of ridicule from the gang. And that is schoolyard behavior.
It is good that you are withholding your denigration of those of us here, because if you cannot, then you would not be allowed to comment here.
And if you wish to prove that your beliefs are correct, then you are free to do that, without denigrating anyone else's beliefs.
I don't pretend that FSTDT is meant for intellectual discussion, though the dismantling of many quotes can often be very educational. It's a place I go when I'm bored after work.
The reason atheists don't try to "prove" their claim is because atheism is a negative claim. In a world where nobody had a concept of "deity" or "God" or what have you, everybody would be an atheist, but nobody would identify as such. In order to hold the position of atheism, I don't have to explore the universe and personally disprove the thousands of different concepts of the divine that have been postulated. Instead, the ideas of God presented to me must either be falsified or unfalsifiable. For example, while a god who created the universe 6000 years ago is laughably easy to disprove, I cannot disprove a more deistic God, like that of Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson. But I don't need to. If the people making the claim of such a god also include claims of how such a god interacts with the world that are testable, I can debunk those claims. And if they don't make any testable claims, then a world where such a god exists is indistinguishable from a world where it does not exist.
Post a Comment