True Irony [Trollville]
Offline When one thinks of a radical Theist, many thoughts come to mind; irrationality, ignorance, arrogance, and general stupidity. And yet, those adjectives aren't solely limited to radical Theists. The key word in that phrase is the term radical. And another noun that can easily accompany that word is the word Atheist. But that's impossible right? After all, atheists live without an irrational belief in a god and are therefore freethinking and open to a whole new world. But that phrase, oft-used as an atheist’s self-description, falls right under the descriptor of arrogance. The fact of the matter is that many Atheists, in particular, my audience the Rational Response Squad, readily coin any Theist a number of condescending terms, as their if belief in a god somehow makes them inferior to such “enlightened” people. In reality, these people so deeply enthralled in the belief of disbelief are no different than the fundamentalists and extremists that give religion the image that atheists superimpose on anyone who holds a belief in a higher power.
In essence, radical theists are no different than radical atheists. A look at the words themselves, theist and a- (anti) theist, show that the two are simply opposites of each other. One can deduce from Newton’s third law of gravity that for every one thing, there exists an equal counterpart of said thing. As such, an extreme atheist is equal to an extreme theist.
Examples of this equal and opposite existence can be found easily; and one of the quickest and best sources for examples is, of course, the internet. On one end of the spectrum exists the Christian Teen Forum, on the other, the Rational Response Squad. The former dedicates itself to spreading the “good news of God” while the other seeks to stop any expression of the word “god,” save the few Christians that are baited into Atheist vs. Theist debates that leave both ends believing that the other was foolish for believing what he or she believes, with the grand conclusion of each argument being, “Where is your god now?” (and oppositely, “Where is your science now?&rdquo
.
In conclusion, both sides believe they have life figured out and that the other side is completely foolish. The difference, however, is that radical Christians are proud to declare their involvement in a religion, a religion with God at the center of it. However, radical atheists are offended when their beliefs are labeled as a religion, which is truly what radical atheism is, a belief with science at the center of it. By denying that their beliefs form a religion, radical atheists are free to criticize theists for their beliefs without risk of scrutiny for being essentially the same as any radical Christian. And with this control over the word “religion,” in conjunction with the ability to attack Christians with the word like a knife, atheists comfortably settle into the mindset of superiority. From this mindset, groups such as the Rational Response Squad exist to exert their dominance over radical theists despite the fact that the word radical—and all the descriptions that entail the word—describes the group just as well as it would describe any fundamentalist.
EDIT - changed text color for readability - dead_again
EDIT - It's like ray-ee-ayn on your wedding day, a free riiiiiiiiiiiiide when you're already late... - magilum
So quick to point the finger
Yet you fail to realize you've become what you've hated.
- Login to post comments
Offline BB please don't pretend to know me.
Interesting plea from someone who has called everyone on this forum delusional, idiots, irrational, stupid, dumbasses, etc. etc. etc.
This post is beyond confusing.
Good diversion.
Those questions weren't rethortical when I asked them
Rhetorical question can mean any question that is posed for a persuasive effect.
and you know the behavior I'm referring to.
Yeah, the behavior that is inherent in all theists and atheists, but not Arj.
If you don't then denial's playing a factor. That's cool.
Begging the question again, with a passive aggressive twist.
And I said I was asking the questions (which I highlighted) to you and anyone else who wanted to answer but those comments belonged to the person I addressed in those posts.
I've already addressed that question Arj. I haven't given a yes or no answer because it is a bullshit question. Didn't you read my response?
"Misleading rhetorical question. The structure implies that the statement that RRS members know nothing about logic is a proven fact when this is simply the same baseless, insulting assertion that you've been parroting the whole time."
This is like me asking you, "Why are you stupid?" The obvious answer would be, "I'm not stupid." Now, imagine how you would feel if I responded with, "But you didn't answer the question! Why are you stupid?"
And the last post you mentioned in which you fail to see the correlation between posts 51 and 52 really exhibit your advanced degree of deductive reasoning.
More fallacies, ha ha. Posts 51 and 52 had virtually zero correlation other than the fact that you posted both of them, and you haven't shown how I've failed to see a correlation. You're still throwing empty assertions at me without any warrants. You don't even understand the basics of philosophical discourse.
And then you pretend to use common sense.
Another assertion. Ad hominem.
Sure. This discussion is truly pointless.
Refer to my previous post on the exact same issue.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
- Login to post comments
Offline Arj ... you make me think of St. Martin Luther. Do I make you think of anyone?
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/luther1.htm
.......... LUTHER, THE DERANGED THEOLOGIAN ..........
"The damned whore Reason...."
"To be a Christian, you must pluck out the eye of reason."
"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason."
== Insert Atheists for Jews, and prayer books and Talmudic writings for science ==
"We are at fault for not slaying them [the Jews]."
"What shall we do with...the Jews?...I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings...are to be taken from them."
"What shall we do with...the Jews?...I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews."
"What shall we do with...the Jews? I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach on pain of loss of life and limb."
"What shall we do with...the Jews?...set fire to their synagogues or schools and bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them."
"What shall we do with...the Jews?...their homes also should be razed and destroyed." ~~~~~
.... Umm, denounce those who insist on evidence .... is that you Arj ?
- Login to post comments
Offline I'm basically asking, how can you advocate something (rational, sane, common sense, logic) which you know nothing about? Where is this rational sane logic you boast about using?
You are not dealing with a case of mistaken identity, you are dealing with a case of IDENTIFYING your true self. I am saying that you and apparently everyone else in this forum has misunderstood the definition of atheism because I have not seen one atheist respond rationally or logically in this entire forum. These posts prove it.
You are the one that misconstrued my words and are now acting like somehow that's my fault (logical, indeed). LOL. I addressed your argument but you just failed to see that. Now (that which I highlighted) THIS I am debating. I asked a question and norm, jc and you have yet to respond... it's been several hours.
You've been bludgeoned with it repeatedly - that's why you came saying "Leave my beliefs alone" when we examine them for you.
You also assume that folks here somehow identify ourselves as atheists. Most of us identify ourselves by our names - atheism is a postiton we hold in common but it's not an identifier.
Is your identity wrapped solely in the belief in the spirit world and mediums?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline Arj wrote:Of course you would call it that simply because I'm right.Repetition.
Quote:You asked me what the dictionary said about Atheism so I responded with that information. Then you're gonna tell me I have you confused. This is a bullshit conversation.Strawman, you completely ignored my argument. You stated that many atheists also declare that there is no afterlife. I was obviously responding to this line since it was the line I quoted. As a clarification, I was warning you not to confuse the definition of the term with a position that is also frequently held by the people who fit that term, since you usually confuse the two.
Quote:Again, you misconstrue my words and somehow it becomes my fault.... Sure.I quote you every time I make a rebuttal. It would be simple to show where I have misconstrued your words. If you committed a fallacy, it's your fault. If I misinterpreted your words, it's my fault. If you want to accuse me of misinterpreting your words, stop whining and show me where I have done this.
Quote:This forum is starting to show how it's not all there with any of you.Ad hominem. Assertion with no evidence. No warrant.
Quote:I asked, Which of these terms did I use? And y? You respond with that???Um, yeah, you referred to the Ad Hoc fallacy when you didn't know what it meant?
Quote:Get this bullshit outta here, man.Meaningless snide remark. No substance. Doesn't add anything to the conversation.
Quote:Where in that statement did I refer to that particular logical fallacy or any other??? "You committed the fallacy."You don't have to actually state a proper noun in order to refer to it. Have you ever heard of pronouns? I quoted your sentence from the other thread. "You committed the fallacy." You were arguing with DG, referring to the Ad Hoc fallacy.
Quote:Do you know how to use YOUR dictionary???Yes, the words progress in alphabetical order.
Quote:Fallacy: a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning.... is a mistake in reasoning..... A logically unsound argument....That's the definition of it. So what?
Quote:No. It was a metaphor for what's going on in this thread.... now.The reference to the grammarian and the boatman was in an earlier post, it was not the one I was quoting. It's not that hard to figure out. Whichever line I am quoting, that's the line I'm addressing.
Quote:Since you didn't get the point I kinda figured it went over your head.It went way over my head. I don't understand your logic at all! You're repeating yourself again, and you're still refusing to explain how the metaphor relates to this thread.
Quote:You mentioned all the science, logic, and religion and basically my reply was well it didn't teach any of you how to swim.... use rational logic or common sense.You still haven't explained the entire metaphor. What is swimming in this context? Experiencing life?
Quote:BB your logic is not going anywhere.You're right. My logic isn't going anywhere. I enjoy being free from delusion, and I enjoy being sane.
Quote:This is a waste of time.Probably, but I, like many of the posters, have developed a strange obsession with wanting to help you. If you keep posting, I'll most likely continue trying to teach you.
‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178
- Login to post comments
I was agreeing with you. You are WRONG on ALL counts. LOL
Yes, but I don't see what that has to do with topic we're discussing.
I'm sure you don't.
What does the dictionary say about the term "atheism?"
From what I do know of the word, it's a disbelief in god but it says nothing about the afterlife. Yet plenty of atheists can comment as if they know a thing or two about that.
3) And, you don't throw philosophical terms around without understanding their meaning.
What is a fallacy of equivocation? Ad hoc? Ad hominem? True Scotsman? Non sequitur?
Which of these terms did I use? And y?
‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178
I'm basically asking, how can you advocate something (rational, sane, common sense, logic) which you know nothing about? Where is this rational sane logic you boast about using?
You are not dealing with a case of mistaken identity, you are dealing with a case of IDENTIFYING your true self. I am saying that you and apparently everyone else in this forum has misunderstood the definition of atheism because I have not seen one atheist respond rationally or logically in this entire forum. These posts prove it.
You are the one that misconstrued my words and are now acting like somehow that's my fault (logical, indeed). LOL. I addressed your argument but you just failed to see that. Now (that which I highlighted) THIS I am debating. I asked a question and norm, jc and you have yet to respond... it's been several hours.
‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178
Childish and pointless.
Forcing the topic to end instead of actually backing up your claim.
Well, then your confusing the dictionary definition with a position that is held by the majority of atheists. I don't believe in the afterlife, but that doesn't mean that the definition of atheism includes such a rule. Similarly, most Christians probably oppose abortion, but the belief is not inherent in the religion.
Here's one.
This is from the first page of your famous thread, post #48, where you referred to the Ad Hoc fallacy without knowing what it meant. Start there and work your way through the conversation; count how many times you refer to a fallacy.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726
Unfathomably, you were able to massacre logic with DG for over a page. I've never seen a theist do that.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
If I am communicating with you, I will almost always quote your statements. If I don't, you can assume that I'm speaking to someone else or the thread in general.
Misleading rhetorical question. The structure implies that the statement that RRS members know nothing about logic is a proven fact when this is simply the same baseless, insulting assertion that you've been parroting the whole time.
Really, what is my true self? Care to expand on that?
Non sequitur. Atheism is a lack of belief in God. Not responding rationally doesn't logically follow to misunderstanding the definition of atheism. Plus, your still spewing the same assertion that you espoused in the first sentence. You only stacked another claim on top this time instead of a rhetorical question.
Another fallacy. Begging the question. You have not shown how these posts prove your claims because it's impossible; your claims are bullshit to begin with. Thus, your entire argument is circular.
No warrant. No evidence. Not even referring to a specific example.
Another fallacy. You've skipped an entire segment in the line of inquiry. You've failed to mention how you've addressed my argument and even what argument you are referring to.
Contradicting yourself on the subject of debating.
Many of these people are scientists, entrepreneurs, etc. They've actually gotten an education and experienced the world. You have not. Even I'm busier than you, albeit slightly. Being offline for several hours doesn't mean that they're scared of your comments; it means that they're busy or that your posts are so pathetic that responding to them would be a waste of their time.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Childish and pointless.
Of course you would call it that simply because I'm right.
Well, then your confusing the dictionary definition with a position that is held by the majority of atheists. I don't believe in the afterlife, but that doesn't mean that the definition of atheism includes such a rule. Similarly, most Christians probably oppose abortion, but the belief is not inherent in the religion.
You asked me what the dictionary said about Atheism so I responded with that information. Then you're gonna tell me I have you confused. This is a bullshit conversation.
Again, you misconstrue my words and somehow it becomes my fault.... Sure. This forum is starting to show how it's not all there with any of you. I asked, Which of these terms did I use? And y? You respond with that??? Get this bullshit outta here, man. Where in that statement did I refer to that particular logical fallacy or any other??? "You committed the fallacy."
Do you know how to use YOUR dictionary???
Fallacy: a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning.... is a mistake in reasoning..... A logically unsound argument....
Forcing the topic to end instead of actually backing up your claim.
No. It was a metaphor for what's going on in this thread.... now. Since you didn't get the point I kinda figured it went over your head. You mentioned all the science, logic, and religion and basically my reply was well it didn't teach any of you how to swim.... use rational logic or common sense.
BB your logic is not going anywhere. This is a waste of time.
‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178
‘Cause you keep tellin’ me this and tellin’ me that...You say once I’m with you, I’ll never go back... You say there’s a lesson that you wanna teach.... Well, here I am, baby, practice what you preach...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15726?page=9#comment-206178
Repetition.
Strawman, you completely ignored my argument. You stated that many atheists also declare that there is no afterlife. I was obviously responding to this line since it was the line I quoted. As a clarification, I was warning you not to confuse the definition of the term with a position that is also frequently held by the people who fit that term, since you usually confuse the two.
I quote you every time I make a rebuttal. It would be simple to show where I have misconstrued your words. If you committed a fallacy, it's your fault. If I misinterpreted your words, it's my fault. If you want to accuse me of misinterpreting your words, stop whining and show me where I have done this.
Ad hominem. Assertion with no evidence. No warrant.
Um, yeah, you referred to the Ad Hoc fallacy when you didn't know what it meant?
Meaningless snide remark. No substance. Doesn't add anything to the conversation.
You don't have to actually state a proper noun in order to refer to it. Have you ever heard of pronouns? I quoted your sentence from the other thread. "You committed the fallacy." You were arguing with DG, referring to the Ad Hoc fallacy.
Yes, the words progress in alphabetical order.
That's the definition of it. So what?
The reference to the grammarian and the boatman was in an earlier post, it was not the one I was quoting. It's not that hard to figure out. Whichever line I am quoting, that's the line I'm addressing.
It went way over my head. I don't understand your logic at all! You're repeating yourself again, and you're still refusing to explain how the metaphor relates to this thread.
You still haven't explained the entire metaphor. What is swimming in this context? Experiencing life?
You're right. My logic isn't going anywhere. I enjoy being free from delusion, and I enjoy being sane.
Probably, but I, like many of the posters, have developed a strange obsession with wanting to help you. If you keep posting, I'll most likely continue trying to teach you.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare