People are too different to ever be categorized effectively.  No group of people will ever fit the generally perceived mold that they are described to fit.  Atheists and theists alike aren't trying to deal with 1 person at a time but the entirety of their opposition. Because of that you have to generalize.  I agree that it sucks that people will use information that supports their claims while ignoring other factors, but with the first post it still doesn't invalidate his conclusion (Christianity =\= moral superiority).

With the second post, it seems like the person is just giving reasons that make her angry about religion.  I don't think the person is saying she is against every religious person, just that their anger stems from real problems related to religion.

It's hard to stay indifferent about people when you are passionately opposed to something they support, but I agree people need to make steps to keep from giving soley biased information.

Maybe I'm missing your point >.<

-Hugs-

*Snickers*

Yeah, Alison. Because you totally provided an equal sample size and analysis in that first link.

I don't understand your problem with regards to the 2nd link. Hamby is just pointing out (again) that you're still knocking down strawmen. If it gets on your nerves that people consistently call you out when you do this... perhaps it's time to stop bodychecking them?

Says the guy who merely asserts that Dion was atheist without providing proof.

Says the same guy who is too lazy to look at stats Canada

Oh and speaking of which, what was the sample size in the OP?

So you just came here to confirm what I said people will do?

I have seen you do it several times Kevin, you even re-define religion to suit your own view.

Nothing. I was pointing out how you didn't provide the proof.

Look a little lower and you will see where I ask for the sample size of the OP. Why didn't you ask for their sample size?

That's hilarious Kev, considering that's what I WAS saying

Notice my first post in that topic?

Then Bob came in with the assertion that Christianity leads to less morality.

I am not arguing the OPs point. The OPs point was that being Christian does not guarentee morality. THAT"S WHAT I SAID!

I was not arguing that Christianity leads to better societies, I was not arguing that atheists can't lead to good societies, the reason I posted those stats in my last post was to point out the compelxity of stats and cause and effect to counter Bob's assertion.

Even if I just came out and said it the way you said: "crime was a complex issue (because it is) and that naming particular catalysts or preventative measures is sort of missing the point"

You would STILL have accused me of shielding the fundies or of "denying the obvious" or of "Not being able to see that Christianity is the cause of the crime rates"

Cpt, I can't blame you. We all do that, at one time or another: conveniently ignore facts, or especially highlight other facts, based on our own biases.

I'd just like to say, though, that the appearance might not always match the actuality of it.

Here's what I mean:

In this most recent thread with Paisley, I know I come off as an anti-woo bastard. I constantly counter pretty much whatever stupid thing he says. Even here I'm being biased, saying he says stupid things (because he does).

That doesn't mean I'd do the same if I were interacting with the project lead of the Global Consciousness Project. I mean, I might, if the GCP lead acted like a jerk, said we were all close-minded bigots, and then went about acting like a closed-minded bigot. The fact is, I want projects like the GCP to succeed. I want there to be some sort of PSI effect (mostly because I want to spontaneiously combust my enemies wth my mind). My complaints are actually two-fold: the "science" part of the project seems a little dicey, for a science project. And Paisley is a big fat wanker.

My point is this: what I'm writing doesn't necessarily represent all I really think. It's biased because of several factors, not the least of which is that I'm in a safe place. Yeah, that means I'm taking advantage of the echo chamber effect. I do that because when I'm at work, or when I was at school, or when I'm just in the fucking mall, fer fuck's sake, I have to behave myself. I have to watch who I am, and I try very hard not to offend anyone. Partly that's me, because I'm a nice guy (though I might be self-deceived on that), and I don't want to offend anyone. Partly because I truly feel that society functions best when everyone demonstrates real or simulated respect for each other, at least during personal interactions. And it's partly because I'm a big pussy, and I hate confrontation.

But here ... here I feel safe. I can make completely offensive posts, because this is my place. I try to be funny as much as I'm offensive, but I feel safe. Because I don't have anyplace else to be an atheist.

Yeah, it might be a bit of an echo chamber, as I said. And maybe we should, as rationalists, attempt to be even more rational. But sometimes it's nice to just vent in a completely irrational way. Because we're human.

Of course I'm a hypocrite when it comes to stuff like this. I won't call an atheist out for bad stats, when I will call a theist out for equally-egregious stats, simply because sometime I might want to vent and not worry about being called out. If someone gets some facts wrong about a topic I hold dearly (physics, computer science, or the history of pachinko), I very well might gently chastise them; but otherwise, they get a free pass. Because by god (I'm giving away my incipient god-belief! Oh noes!), I want a free pass once in a while, too. So in that respect, you have a bit more freedom than I do here, in that you are free to call anyone out on anything. (I suppose I also have that freedom, if I were perhaps a little less of a pussy.)

Anyway, I reckon all I'm saying is, of course we behave that way. It's human nature. It's part of what makes this forum a community for me, the fact that I can do basic human-nature things like being a complete asshole.

I can see how you'd take all that personally. You make no bones about being a theist, even if your theism is far more rational than most (from what I know of it). You come to the defense of theism when all we want to do is bash it a little. So it might seem as if we're being assholes to you. (And some of us might be. But then, it's rare that everyone gets along with everyone else in any community.)

I'm not trying to defend that behaviour. But neither will I condemn it. I am attempting to explain it, at least from my point of view; but that is all.

I hope this hasn't been too disjointed. I've had a psychotic cat demanding attentiion as I've written this. If I'm not coherent, I blame the cat.

Internet. Serious Business.

Yeah, we all like to vent, I was venting when I created this topic. And turning your enemies into fire with your mind sounds cool.

Kevin, read my first post in that topic. Aside from revealing that I like pudding, I said that being Christian doesn't necessarily make you moral is self-evident.

I was refering to Bob's post, not the OP.

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my last post in that topic because I was....ummm..... kinda pissed off.

i bet Pineapples cute when shes pissed off...

Permission to come aboard Captain?

... since fucking when do i make flirty little sex jokes? o_O ... i must be coming down with a cold

Oh, Captain. This is a support group for atheists. Occasionally, it gets a bit on the preaching-to-the-choir side in exactly the same way as a site like TheologyWeb does. You're going to have to take the use of statistics with a grain of salt. In a sociological sense, they're only to show an inkling of an idea, and are bound to be fraught with bias.

Edit: TheologyWeb just has a lot more crazy. With a capital K. Someone on there has equated being atheist with being irrational and then gay. All I could respond was "wow."

Pineapple, I'd suggest that the main reasons you are constantly pissed are approximately these:

1) You are not good at expressing your beliefs clearly, and people (being basically smart critters) tend to catch you when you say something inconsistent, contradictory, or dunder-headed.  The way you express your beliefs may or may not reflect the actual content of your beliefs, so maybe there's some cognitive dissonance there, and it's pissing you off.

2) You are very bad at both grasping the expressed content of philosophical arguments and responding directly to the point being made.  In other words, you very often miss the point completely and then get pissed when people don't follow you on a tangent.  For example, you still don't seem to have grasped the point of the OP you're objecting too so stringently.

3)  You have a base level, abnormally strong aversion to people thinking you're stupid, so you try really really hard to prove that you're not, but when you combine this tendency with #1 and #2, people tend to think you're stupid, and that starts a really vicious cycle where you keep trying to get your point across (without giving in... because giving in would mean you were stupid to not be right in the first place...) all the while getting more and more frustrated that nobody agrees with you.

4) You do seem to be looking for some kind of social validation here, and frankly, if you don't have enough social validation from real live people you can see and touch, it's a sad, lonely road trying to find it on the internet.

Err... yeah, you're probably right.  Not cognitive dissonance.  But yeah, if you're thinking one thing, saying another, and the people you're talking to are saying another, that's a pretty disjointed conversation, and I can see how it would piss you off.

But I think your main issue is that you have an abnormally intense aversion to people thinking you're stupid.  That makes you incredibly stubborn, even with yourself.

All I have to say is you have to remember where you are. Spend some time at a theist forum and you'll thankful for our slight double standard. It isn't nearly as bad as that, and probably not as bad as you think it is. No reason to get your feathers all ruffled just because atheist members of an atheist forum tend to agree more often with other atheist than with theist/deist. That's just the way it is. You don't have to take it personally.