Fundamentalist Atheists

[AmbiguousGuy]

I am not an atheist. But I think I've a documentary about atheist breeding cycles on NatGeo.

Have you ever noticed how those who preach most fiercely against homosexuality often turn out to be homosexuals?

Same with atheist bashers. They are often closet atheists who are angry at the feelings and beliefs which are stirring within themselves and which they can't really control. And so they lash out against it.

Those who are angry at atheists, but who deny their own atheism... well, it's a little sad, I think.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Have you ever noticed how those who preach most fiercely against homosexuality often turn out to be homosexuals?

Same with atheist bashers. They are often closet atheists who are angry at the feelings and beliefs which are stirring within themselves and which they can't really control. And so they lash out against it.

Those who are angry at atheists, but who deny their own atheism... well, it's a little sad, I think.

So you are saying I am like Fred Phelps?

 

[Sees]

Have you ever noticed how those who preach most fiercely against homosexuality often turn out to be homosexuals?

Same with atheist bashers. They are often closet atheists who are angry at the feelings and beliefs which are stirring within themselves and which they can't really control. And so they lash out against it.

Those who are angry at atheists, but who deny their own atheism... well, it's a little sad, I think.

And vice versa

 

[CynthiaCypher]

What? I have no issue with the use of identifiers.

Well that is what labels are. What do you have against labels?

 

[Bunyip]

Well that is what labels are. What do you have against labels?

What on earth are you talking about? I take no issue with labels - you appear to be trolling.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

What on earth are you talking about? I take no issue with labels - you appear to be trolling.

This is you protesting the use of labels:

And the point is that labels are insufficient to describe or define people's philosopnical views.

In fact most of my discussion with you as been you saying we shouldn't use labels. And I keep asking you as to how one can describe anything without the use of labels, which so far you have refused to answer.

So who is trolling now?

 

[Bunyip]

This is you protesting the use of labels:





In fact most of my discussion with you as been you saying we shouldn't use labels. And I keep asking you as to how one can describe anything without the use of labels, which so far you have refused to answer.

So who is trolling now?

Cynthia, you take a very aggressive and patronising approach. That quote had a context and is not 'me protesting the use of labels' at all, please read it again.

I have not at any point said that people should not use labels, as I said - please read our exchange more carefully.

My saying that labels are in this case insufficient is not the same as 'protesting the use of labels.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Cynthia, you take a very aggressive and patronising approach. That quote had a context and is not 'me protesting the use of labels' at all, please read it again.

I have not at any point said that people should not use labels, as I said - please read our exchange more carefully.

No...no...no. You keep insisting that labels are not useful and that they are insufficient. But you have to to explain how they are not useful and how they are insufficient.

You do know the basic of language and communications don't you?

 

[Bunyip]

No...no...no. You keep insisting that labels are not useful and that they are insufficient. But you have to to explain how they are not useful and how they are insufficient.

You do know the basic of language and communications don't you?

Please re-read the exchange.

I explained in detail several times exactly why labels are not useful or sufficient.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Please re-read the exchange.

I explained in detail several times exactly why labels are not useful or sufficient.

No you have not. If you have please show me where.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

So you are saying I am like Fred Phelps?

You called me an atheist. I don't know why you did that. Do you?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

You called me an atheist. I don't know why you did that. Do you?

Because you frequently argue an atheistic position.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Because you frequently argue an atheistic position.

So do you. But I don't presume to label you as an atheist.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

So do you. But I don't presume to label you as an atheist.

When do I ever do that? :areyoucra

 

[Sunstone]

I'm beginning to suspect some folks are too emotionally set against atheism to have fair or objective view of it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But you should think about Cynthia's point. We are all (or almost all) certain that we are not a brain in a vat, but we cannot know that as an absolute certainty? Why? Because our experiences sometimes deceive us. Reality can be other than it appears. The fact that you are certain of your religious beliefs has to be measured against that fact that every religion has people certain of their religious beliefs. Hence, we must always be open to skepticism, even in matters that we think we know for certain. The more so, if others cannot confirm our experiences.

Still, the decision to live our lives as if we're not brains in vats instead of living as if we are is something that's common to everyone, theist or atheist. The fact that this small measure of "faith" is made by atheists doesn't mean that the atheist position is faith-based to the same degree as that of a theist who not only makes assumptions about solipsism, but also has faith in a whole boatload of religious tenets and dogma.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I'm beginning to suspect some folks are too emotionally set against atheism to have fair or objective view of it.

Emotionally set against? As I have said before, I have nothing against atheism.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

When do I ever do that? :areyoucra

All the time. It's why I see you as an atheist, although I'm too mannered to call you one -- unless you first start calling me one.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Emotionally set against? As I have said before, I have nothing against atheism.

You also claim not to be an atheist.

But we judge folks on their behaviors, not on their claims about themselves.

 

[Quagmire]

***Mod Post***

Several posts in this thread have been deleted per rule 3:

Rule 3. Trolling and Bullying
We recognize three areas of unacceptable trolling:
1)Posts that are deliberately inflammatory in order to provoke a vehement response from other users. This includes both verbal statements and images. Images that are likely to cause offense based on religious objections (e.g. depictions of Muhammad or Baha'u'llah) or the sensitive nature of what is depicted (e.g. graphic photos of violence) should be put in appropriately-labeled spoiler tags so that the viewer has freedom to view the image or not. Such images are still subject to normal forum rules and may be moderated depending on their contents.
2)Posts that target a person or group by following them around the forums to attack them. This is Bullying. Deliberately altering the words of another member by intentionally changing the meaning when you use the quote feature is considered a form of bullying. The ONLY acceptable alteration of a quotation from another member is to remove portions that are not relevant or to alter formatting for emphasis.
3)Posts that are adjudged to fit the following profile: "While questioning and challenging other beliefs is appropriate in the debates forums, blatant misrepresentation or harassment of other beliefs will not be tolerated."

Please keep this rule i mind while posting. ​