I’ll admit it was an ill-conceived thread, but that doesn’t mean that it means what people thought that it means. I tried to clarify and people wouldn’t allow it. shrug In this case I made a mess and was strictly forbidden from cleaning it up.
We should. The ‘No True Scotsman’ argument is stupid in relation to religious people. This leads to anyone saying Christianity means that it means anythign that it wants to mean. “I’m a Christian therefore I sacrifice puppies on Tuesdays to Baal!” Would you honestly consider Der Trihs to be the intellectual equal of Sentient Meat? Should I pretend that he is just to be fair?
Sure, I agree it’s bad manners to deliberately thumb your nose at a thread’s intent, especially persistently. I’m not sure I agree about what constitutes that kind of breech – perhaps with you, but Liberal for example is currently arguing that no one is ever allowed to say they don’t believe in a person’s god or gods without being rude, and that seems obviously excessive to me.
I wouldn’t want “theists only” threads to become a general rule, but it might be nice to have one now and then.
You could simply propose that it must be the case that the atheist really does believe in god, but they just are very angry with him. In fact, you have done so in the past.
I think you’re missing the point of the entire IPU/FSM example, not surprising since it has become so loaded with negative connotations.
It doesn’t begin by assuming God is imaginary. What the example is doing is comparing the arguments for God with the arguments for something which is acknowledged as imaginary. If you put in Julius Caesar instead of God, you can tell that the methods of demonstrating Caesar’s existence include mutually reenforcing contemporary historical documents, not true for the IPU.
But everyone is busy feeling so insulted or having fun waving the FSM around that the purpose has gotten lost.
I don’t think it is necessarily rude to say you don’t believe in God, but what I believe is rude is the constant references to Santa Claus and Spaghetti Monsters and so forth. This is demeaning, and intentionally so.
But you have to put up with stuff like that in any thread that is even tangentially related to religious beliefs or practices. (cite).
I’ve said it before, but atheists are much more comfortable on the attack than playing defense. If you don’t play by the rules, they lose their temper and act hurt. See mswas’ thread about becoming an atheist and thereby losing the philosophical underpinnings of morality. Talk about Christians being up on a cross - the atheists were the ones whining about being called sociopaths.
If by “deficiency” you mean my/our lack of belief in your (or anyone else’s) supreme being, then sure, compare it to whatever you like.
These are pretty bad analogies when you consider that three involve some sort of loss (what have we lost?) and one can be rectified with a passport and a plane ticket.
Your snark (and my own) notwithstanding, what sort of open debate doesn’t involve analogy? Especially the sort of debate which relies on persuasive argument rather than scientific study.
Like I said, bullshit. That other thread clearly showed you’re crying wolf.
I can’t help it if your mammoth ego needs adversaries to justify itself, but I wouldn’t think everyone who replies to my posts was crushing on me. Especially not if I’d been engaging in outrageous trollery about them and their fellow travellers. “Executive & Gutter Atheists” indeed.
I think, from now on, I’ll refer to you as “That Sewer Syncretist” in the BBQ.
I agree. It’s also just a stupid way to make a point. I’d be happy if atheists would stick to comparing the believer’s God with all the other possible gods who have actual believers and religious traditions built around them.
Er, if someone called you a sociopath and failed to substantiate it, would you not object? What quality would your objection have to separate it from whining?
I guess I’m not getting that from what he’s saying. I’m getting that referring to someone’s god as an invisible pink unicorn is rude. Which is not the same thing.
Maybe, but I think that a lot of atheists around here have religious backgrounds and are quite capable of contributing to such threads in the spirit for which they are intended (more capable than I am, for sure). It’s a dicey area, IMO, when you start deciding who can make a valuable contribution and who can’t, based on those lines. Also, some who are not part of the designated group may have on-topic questions they want to raise, and that’s fair, too.
Here we see the real question. Nobody still believes that Zeus exists, but for a time his existence was an accepted fact.
Is it offensive to compare [modern deity X] with the Supreme Toaster or whoever just because nobody believes or believed in the Supreme Toaster, and some people do believe in ?
That was pointed out to me by another poster. My eyes glazed after about post ten or so, so I really couldn’t say. It’s an unfortunate truism that OP’s have a horrible way of backfiring both here and in Great Debates, and no amount of clarification can make it right once blood is in the water.
I think very few people are the intellectual equal of Sentient Meat. Having him back for the few weeks he was here was wonderful. That said; I would submit the differences I see in his and Der Trihs’ posts regarding religion are mostly a matter of style. I agree with both of them to varying degrees, although I would likely present my arguments differently. One is more aggressive than I, the other less, but we’re all still atheists. It isn’t like comparing Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists. And there are Christians who take the position that they’re Christians although they exhibit very little of Christ’s teachings in their actions. Which, IMO, is what Christianity is supposed to be all about. I am open to being corrected.
I don’t expect you to treat us all the same “to be fair.” I bristled because I dislike being categorized. That’s just my personal thing.
Hmm. What I remember is that by the sixth page of such threads the hijackers gave up because things got so complicated. I think it is more the case that participants on both sides realized that they were just repeating arguments already made, so it became less fun.
I am not talking about sects of atheists, but I think that Der Trihs isn’t very bright whereas I am awed by Sentient Meat. Your mileage clearly varies.
Well I keep being accused of lumping all atheists together, so I figure a ratings system will show that I am clearly drawing a distinction. I’m sorry you don’t like being categorized but you’re fast getting lumped into the Executive category. I’m sorry, but I have to have a method of separating the wheat from the chaff.
Well, what he said in response to the question of what atheistic position toward belief in a god would not be insulting was:
But that’s what atheism is, you see. Essentially, he seems to be saying we must accept that god exists in order to respectfully refute his existence.
I wonder if those discussions would be better off in IMHO? Not to say the discussions don’t get debated, but I wonder if you wouldn’t get a more civil level of conversation. Heaven knows I’ve been smacked a couple times there for making remarks that would’ve probably flown under the radar in GD.