Kowtow to Atheists? Oh, hell to the no!

[Jollybear]

Alas, ad hominem attacks aren't against the rules.
Against the mission, ie, the intended spirit of this place, yes.
We'd benefit from our bad examples cleaning up their act.
And from some posters not actually advocating abuse of wrong (in their minds) doers.
That's about as far as I can go on that.

Ad hominums are NOT against the rules?

Now im confused.

Its not against the rules to call someone a lier or dishonest? Particularly if theres no proof there lying?

 

[Revoltingest]

Ad hominums are NOT against the rules?
Now im confused.

The rules can be confusing.

 

[Jollybear]

The rules can be confusing.

So, correct me if im wrong.

Ad hominum that dont break the rules > i think your being dishonest.

Ad hominum that breaks the rules > your a dishonest son of a B.

?

 

[Revoltingest]

So, correct me if im wrong.

Ad hominum that dont break the rules > i think your being dishonest.

Ad hominum that breaks the rules > your a dishonest son of a B.

?

Let's just say that interpretation is subjective,
And that opinions will vary.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Oh, so all the atheists you know are looking for Christian conversion, and are not socialist and globalist? Nonsense. Not to mention, they're all in the Facebook groups cheering the death of the Christian killed by the natives on that ridiculous island.

You seem very keen to pigeonhole ALL atheists as something.

Fyi, I'm a Christian, and I think the missionary was extremely foolish and the Sentinel Islanders acted completely reasonably within their paradigm.

 

[Sunstone]

Busted! The OP is spot on! Like nearly every other atheist I personally know of, I have "Death to All Believers" tattooed on my right buttock. It's practically mandatory in my neck of the woods to get the tat these days.

Of course, it was entirely optional of me to get "USDA Inspected Aged Prime Beef" tattooed on my other buttock.

 

[Polymath257]

I was invited to join a group that offers Christian support and tolerance to atheists. Here was my response:

-----

I was invited to this group for some reason. I've read the description and frankly I want to vomit in my mouth.

I'm sure others have similar reactions to things you say.

I've been dealing with atheists for 25 years online (Yes, ever since the newsgroup era). They are not looking to find answers. They want you dead. They are a manifestation of the end times. They are SGA (socialist globalist atheists).

Yikes. Most atheists don't want you dead. They want you to give up what they regard as superstitions and become what they see as more rational.

The idea that someone has suffered abuse in the Church and therefore is an atheist is hogwash. I suffered hugely in the Church, and I'm a Veridican (which is heretical to the Church, but in fact an advanced radical Christianity).

Different people have different responses to the same stimulus. Some reject the positions wholesale and others only piecemeal.

No one is that dumb, okay? They all know that whatever abuses there were in the Church that Jesus is nothing like that. Jesus never condemned homosexuality, though it was rampant in Rome (and has always been around 5% of humanity anyway). Jesus never encouraged beating Children, in fact quite the opposite. Jesus told us never to judge and to love our neighbor as ourselves and then gave an example of loving someone completely at odds with what we are (the Samaritan).

If there was a real person that was the origin of the current Jesus myth, the opinions of that person don't really matter to me one way or the other. He was a human who died. Some other people started a religion based on his teachings.

They're not dumb. They didn't leave the Church and Christ because of abuse, and they haven't left it for "science and reason" either. There are probably more scientists who are theists than there are atheists, and the greatest minds in history have been theists, and one of the greatest minds, Newton, was particularly radical to the point of occultism.

Yes, there were more theist scientists in 1700 than there are now. Why? maybe because we have learned a few things since then?

I'm not here to preach the word to the atheists. I hang out in their groups to strengthen my arguments so that I can support the faith of my brothers and sisters in Christ. And maybe, just maybe, raise a flag in a group where other Christians who have the courage to debate the SGA are present. They will see it, and join with me. Maybe they won't become Veridican, but they might join me in these end-times preparations we better start making now.

Well, I for one don't expect these are the 'end times', which I see as just another one of the myths you promote. Most atheists are like every other person on Earth: they just want to live their lives, love their friends and family, and not have to deal with a lot of silly stupidity on a day to day basis. And most see religion as contributing to that silly stupidity on a daily basis.

Thanks for inviting me to the group.

Welcome.

 

[Polymath257]

Ad hominums are NOT against the rules?

Now im confused.

Its not against the rules to call someone a lier or dishonest? Particularly if theres no proof there lying?

yes, it is usually against the rules to call someone a liar. Dishonesty is often seen as more of a matter of opinion, so it tends to be a matter of context.

The goal here is polite discussion that respects the opinions of others, even when they fundamentally disagree with your whole world view.

BTW: you might want to look up what an ad hom really is.

Ad hominem - Wikipedia

In particular, calling someone a liar is usually, in and of itself, not an ad hom. it is a challenge to the veracity of their claims.

 

[Axe Elf]

In particular, calling someone a liar is usually, in and of itself, not an ad hom. it is a challenge to the veracity of their claims.

Since the definition of a "lie" or of "lying" almost always implies an intent to deceive, calling someone a liar is, to me, a personal attack upon their character. One may challenge the veracity of claims by saying that another person is in error or is mistaken, because that is merely an unfortunate circumstance that they may passively have found themselves in. It is the fault of misinformation or misinterpretation. But to accuse them of actively intending to deceive goes beyond merely challenging the factual basis of their claims to impugning the nature of their person.

This post is merely a personal interjection of opinion, and not an invitation to debate, nor an attempt to hijack. Carry on...

 

[Jollybear]

BTW: you might want to look up what an ad hom really is.

Ad hominem - Wikipedia

In particular, calling someone a liar is usually, in and of itself, not an ad hom. it is a challenge to the veracity of their claims.

Huh? Calling someone a lier is not ad hom? How so, since it attacks there charector rather then there argument?

 

[Sunstone]

Huh? Calling someone a lier is not ad hom? How so, since it attacks there charector rather then there argument?

It's not an ad hom to say, "Smith is a liar". It's an ad hom to say, "Smith's argument fails because Smith is a liar" -- assuming the fact Smith is a liar is irrelevant to Smith's argument.

See post #64 for a fuller explanation.

 

[Revoltingest]

Huh? Calling someone a lier is not ad hom? How so, since it attacks there charector rather then there argument?

"Ad hominem" has more than one usage.
The term commonly refers to an informal logical fallacy....
Ad hominem - Wikipedia

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious
argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead
attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons
associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

But as one might think from the above, "ad hominem" needn't be an abbreviation for the fallacy.
Ref (dictionary.com)...
the definition of ad hominem

adjective

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Another mainstream source, Merriam-Webster agrees....
Definition of AD HOMINEM

So also in common usage is the non-fallacious type of personal attack,
which is comports with the direct translation from Latin to English.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

It's not an ad hom to say, "Smith is a liar". It's an ad hom to say, "Smith's argument fails because Smith is a liar".

The key is whether or not the attack is used to undermine their argument.

What if the argument is a lie?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not an ad hom to say, "Smith is a liar". It's an ad hom to say, "Smith's argument fails because Smith is a liar".

The key is whether or not the attack is used to undermine their argument.

I have tried to explain this to him to no avail.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Not to mention, they're all in the Facebook groups cheering the death of the Christian killed by the natives on that ridiculous island.

I'm not an atheist and I thought what the islanders did was hilarious. Jesus said to walk away and shake the dust off your feet if your victims didn't want to listen to you. He disobeyed Jesus. He died because of it.

What the flying **** is a "socialist globalist atheist?"

An atheist who cares about the same kind of economic morals as Jesus.

 

[lukethethird]

I was invited to join a group that offers Christian support and tolerance to atheists. Here was my response:

-----

I was invited to this group for some reason. I've read the description and frankly I want to vomit in my mouth.

I've been dealing with atheists for 25 years online (Yes, ever since the newsgroup era). They are not looking to find answers. They want you dead. They are a manifestation of the end times. They are SGA (socialist globalist atheists).

Ask them where we can get SGA T-shirts.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

This describes none of the atheists I know on here and is blatant slander against an entire group.

Meh...I don't waste time on expressions of ignorance, @Rival. I've always thought that was something you and I had in common.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I understand what your saying to some extent. Every atheist i have ever debated with aventually has ad homed me.

Of course, id like to remain open and believe there are some out there who would not. But so far, my experience has not been that.

I've mentioned this to others who act like atheists form some sort of coherent group...

Spend time in Australia, or New Zealand, Norway, Sweden...

Talk to 100 people.

You've now met a lot of agnostic atheists, and they will be quite the diverse group. Much like theists, in that way.

 

[lukethethird]

This describes none of the atheists I know on here and is blatant slander against an entire group.

Prove you're not a member of the SGA and we will believe you.

 

[Vee]

I've been dealing with atheists for 25 years online (Yes, ever since the newsgroup era). They are not looking to find answers. They want you dead.

Don't you think you're exaggerating a little? Atheists don't want us dead. They want us to stay alive and well so we can keep debating which one of us is right. Trust me, their lives would be very boring without us believers.