Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I took the exact words from a post in this thread (#303) to show how they sound.
and to hear what objections are raised. and why.
and comment on double standard, without having to even venture even out of this thread for "evidence"
Ok. Then I withdraw my objection somewhat. Not entirely as Mircea doesn't speak for atheism as a whole. Indeed nobody does. Like i disagree with Sam Harris about dropping the title atheist (and certainly with Prof- Stavrakopoulu about her objections to New Atheists). Mircea is right about religion supporting authority, but that is not to Sole purpose. I'd also argue that you can't easily make a case by reversing it.
'What's wrong with theism is that it's based on faith rather than evidence'
'So what's wrong wrong with atheists is that it's based on faith rather than evidence'
It fails because that isn't true, and theism would still have the best case even if it was 'Faith -based' (a Religion)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
this thread is on New Atheism, therefore the focus is on the "claims of New Atheism"
such as the repeated claims of being logical, reasonable, rational, and knowledgeable.
and the "methods of New Atheism" are very much part of this thread topic, atheists in this thread acknowledge an element of "New Atheism" is the strident "in your face" contentious approach. That is germane and on topic to this thread and opening post.
Come now Tzaph. You know as well as I do that NO thread started for the purpose of finding
g fault with This or That is going to escape the Other Side going on the attack. Indeed I welcome it that this is so (note i said i found it remarkable how this was a preferred method of theism, rather than make a case, not that it was wrong that they should do it) as it gives us a chance to show that the claim is valid, and the theist side sneering at the claim are just trying to win by cheating as much as finding fault in the combative style of atheism. It's remarkable how theists try to get out of being challenged on posting 'in your face' claims and arguments by using the 'Not arguing, just telling' (1) gambit or ploy whereas atheists posting the atheist case is the " strident "in your face" contentious approach". it is to be expected that the Theist side, expecting their eggshell -fragile faith -feelings to be treated with respect will take exception to the blunt lack of respect atheists have for these faith -claims. But These feeling of being So Very Offended" have as little effect on atheists as the accusations of not 'Understanding' the Bible ( ) really believing in God because we argue against it so much, or have to use atheism as a religion to 'give meaning' to our lives.
All nonsense, probably projection, or at least as invalid as your accusations here.
(cue the : "Boy, what a lot you wrote...sorta shows that you know I'm right" ploy. No. It was just thinking a refutation through.)
(1) "not arguing - just telling": "I expect to be able to preach without being called on it" (Theist - English dictionary) p.s I can't help but recall how Mystic tried to make this into an Argument by claiming that an Opinion didn't have to be substantiated. Probably his most miserable and most quickly deflated Ploy that he has ever used.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-13-2019 at 02:38 AM..
Imagine being at a huge party and deciding to leave. Yeah, it reasonable to tell your friends goodbye but to stop the party and announce to the whole room that your leaving is weird. To assume other people care is weird. Then go rev your engine and squeal away just to let everyone know how irritated you are is funny to me.
You'll be sorry when I'm gone...
More more of my insights for you aholes
You guys ain't worth my time...
classic!
I of course can't agree, because to defuse or discredit the 'Flounce' as a way of escaping admitting losing the debate would rob theist apologists of one of their weapons. which of course means that you analogy fails because it isn't about storming out of a party for no reason (like anybody cared, as you say) but about....I must mention the early classic example of the inventor of Flat Earthism, the polemicist 'Parallax' (name of Owens as I recall) who, when he lost a debate would snatch up his top hat and stalk out.
This isn't a 'party' (chatroom) but a discussion - board (debates) and anyone who claims that it isn't, or winning isn't important, is admitting that, deep down, they know they are going to lose. Anyone who 'grabs their hat' and stalks out has lost the debate and everyone can see that they have. It's remarkable () how much of the debates are about trying to scrape a draw out of a lost argument by various means. And don't get me started on posting polemecists trying to set up the parameters for a debate that guarantee the Theist side a win before it even starts.
I of course can't agree, because to defuse or discredit the 'Flounce' as a way of escaping admitting losing the debate would rob theist apologists of one of their weapons. which of course means that you analogy fails because it isn't about storming out of a party for no reason (like anybody cared, as you say) but about....I must mention the early classic example of the inventor of Flat Earthism, the polemicist 'Parallax' (name of Owens as I recall) who, when he lost a debate would snatch up his top hat and stalk out.
This isn't a 'party' (chatroom) but a discussion - board (debates) and anyone who claims that it isn't, or winning isn't important, is admitting that, deep down, they know they are going to lose. Anyone who 'grabs their hat' and stalks out has lost the debate and everyone can see that they have. It's remarkable () how much of the debates are about trying to scrape a draw out of a lost argument by various means. And don't get me started on posting polemecists trying to set up the parameters for a debate that guarantee the Theist side a win before it even starts.
Which is why in debates two parts should be considered: content and emotions. How you deliver the content, matters. If it doesn't matter, then the person is there to flounce.
Which is why in debates two parts should be considered: content and emotions. How you deliver the content, matters. If it doesn't matter, then the person is there to flounce.
I should have said that it was the other way around. The content matters, not the way it is delivered. If the method of delivery is all there is and little content, then trying to Blag the win is evidence. That doesn't matter as simply tripping the blagger up does their case much more harm than the hoped for benefits. If the content is good, then there's nothing to take the puff out of the sails of the opposition by by accepting a point and adapting the argument to it. It's what theists doesn't do. It's why 'science is always getting things wrong/changing its' mind) is a Dogma/faith -based mindset that constantly finds itself paining into a corner and has to try to fiddle a way out. Various kinds of Flounce (I am pleased to see that the term is now getting into the atheist vocabulary ) are employed as well as various kinds of 'scraping a draw' (let's agree to differ'. my view ids as valid as yours' etc.)
I should have said that it was the other way around. The content matters, not the way it is delivered. If the method of delivery is all there is and little content, then trying to Blag the win is evidence. That doesn't matter as simply tripping the blagger up does their case much more harm than the hoped for benefits. If the content is good, then there's nothing to take the puff out of the sails of the opposition by by accepting a point and adapting the argument to it. It's what theists doesn't do. It's why 'science is always getting things wrong/changing its' mind) is a Dogma/faith -based mindset that constantly finds itself paining into a corner and has to try to fiddle a way out. Various kinds of Flounce (I am pleased to see that the term is now getting into the atheist vocabulary ) are employed as well as various kinds of 'scraping a draw' (let's agree to differ'. my view ids as valid as yours' etc.)
So how do we know if the content is good? I have seen good content but why didn't others recognize it?
So how do we know if the content is good? I have seen good content but why didn't others recognize it?
We have to check if we can. 'Huh anyone can get stuff off the internet' is often heard, but that isn't a valid argument. Even Top Scientists can't be guaranteed to be experts outside their own area of expertise, so the business of providing the backup evidence or making the claims and Then trying to find the backup evidence is how it often goes. Being willing to admit misinterpreted evidence or a bad source helps more than going into denial. Which is why scientific skepticism has a 40% advantage over Dogmatic thinking.
Someone believes jazz is better than opera. Is it productive to challenge their belief? That's what you're doing Harry. That is how it's seen.
How many times does it have to be sad? Personal tastes in art is one thing; personal opinions about facts that exist outside of human considerations is quite another.
There is no single "only way" to the Creator. Just as there is no single "only way" to listen to music. A person can listen to jazz or opera. Or listen to no music. Or claim all music is all terrible. Or a person can claim music does not even exist. And try to convince others of this.
Freedom of choice in "religion and spirituality" includes the choice of choosing none. There is no single way.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
how theists try to get out of being challenged on posting 'in your face' claims and arguments by using the 'Not arguing, just telling' (1) gambit or ploy whereas atheists posting the atheist case is the " strident "in your face" contentious approach". it is to be expected that the Theist side, expecting their eggshell -fragile faith -feelings to be treated with respect will take exception to the blunt lack of respect atheists have for these faith -claims. But These feeling of being So Very Offended" have as little effect on atheists as the accusations of not 'Understanding' the Bible (
) really believing in God because we argue against it so much, or have to use atheism as a religion to 'give meaning' to our lives.
) how much of the debates are about trying to scrape a draw out of a lost argument by various means. And don't get me started on posting polemecists trying to set up the parameters for a debate that guarantee the Theist side a win before it even starts. 
anyone can get stuff off the internet' is often heard, but that isn't a valid argument. Even Top Scientists can't be guaranteed to be experts outside their own area of expertise, so the business of providing the backup evidence or making the claims and Then trying to find the backup evidence is how it often goes. Being willing to admit misinterpreted evidence or a bad source helps more than going into denial. Which is why scientific skepticism has a 40% advantage over Dogmatic thinking.
