Splain this one, god loonies

[Seth]

If someone says that they don't believe in god, it's generally with a proviso that they await evidence to the contrary, but don't expect to see it any time soon.
I've said as much on here on many occasions, as have most of the other posters, at one time or another.
To most atheists, that's so obvious, it's a given, that doesn't need to be constantly repeated.
You've seen it stated here many times.

And it's always a lie..

In your opinion. Where is the critically robust scientific evidence to support it?

More than thirty years of personal observation and data analysis.

You see, atheists who are not religious Atheists simply don't talk about atheism and they certainly don't attack and disparage the religious beliefs of others. Those that do, but who claim that they do not, are perforce liars.

[surreptitious57]

All ideas should be subject to critical scrutiny. That is not the same as attacking someone who holds a particular idea
though as the two are not the same thing. For you are not your ideas. They are just abstract concepts like any idea is
It is entirely possible to attack one without attacking the other. And besides attacking the individual is not necessary

[JimC]

All ideas should be subject to critical scrutiny. That is not the same as attacking someone who holds a particular idea
though as the two are not the same thing. For you are not your ideas. They are just abstract concepts like any idea is
It is entirely possible to attack one without attacking the other. And besides attacking the individual is not necessary

Exactly. I can be as critical of many (but not all) aspects of religion, and it's effects on its adherents as I like, just as I can criticise any other social or political system humans have derived. This critique does not imply automatic scorn of individual adherents of a given religion.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from memory, Seth has been a bit critical of the "religion" called Marxism...

How nasty of him!

[Hermit]

If someone says that they don't believe in god, it's generally with a proviso that they await evidence to the contrary, but don't expect to see it any time soon.
I've said as much on here on many occasions, as have most of the other posters, at one time or another.
To most atheists, that's so obvious, it's a given, that doesn't need to be constantly repeated.
You've seen it stated here many times.

And it's always a lie..

In your opinion. Where is the critically robust scientific evidence to support it?

More than thirty years of personal observation and data analysis.

Is that your critically robust scientific evidence?

You see, atheists who are not religious Atheists simply don't talk about atheism and they certainly don't attack and disparage the religious beliefs of others.

That's two irony meters exploded with one single sentence.

Who started this thread?
How many times have you described people with opinions you disagree with as "useful idiots"?

[surreptitious57]

long as you keep your opinion of others beliefs to yourself then you can be an Apatheist. It is when you use your beliefs about God as a justification for
disparaging and demeaning others and their beliefs that you demonstrate irrational and bigoted behavior because YOUR beliefs about God are no more
no less valid than any one elses beliefs about God and therefore you have no standing to criticize others and their beliefs while claiming to be rational

You called atheists nihilistic fuckwits yesterday and so you have broken your own rule there. And this is obviously not the first time you have
been derogatory towards atheists either. Now it does not bother me personally as I have a very thick skin. But ad hominem is a logical fallacy
as you know very well. And while you might think yourself one of the wisest debaters on the internet there is plenty of room for improvement
For if you do not abide by rules that you automatically expect others to abide by you cannot expect any one to take you seriously now can you

[rainbow]

I suspect it wasn't long before a priesthood or proto priesthood which proclaimed exclusive or special knowledge started up and demanded special authority deriving from their special relationship with the supernatural.

It is called civilisation. The only way that more intelligent humans could control physically stronger ones and dominate them was through fear.
Claiming a higher power was a way to achieve this.
Hence religion.

[mistermack]

If someone says that they don't believe in god, it's generally with a proviso that they await evidence to the contrary, but don't expect to see it any time soon.
I've said as much on here on many occasions, as have most of the other posters, at one time or another.
To most atheists, that's so obvious, it's a given, that doesn't need to be constantly repeated.
You've seen it stated here many times.

And it's always a lie..

In your opinion. Where is the critically robust scientific evidence to support it?

More than thirty years of personal observation and data analysis.

You see, atheists who are not religious Atheists simply don't talk about atheism and they certainly don't attack and disparage the religious beliefs of others. Those that do, but who claim that they do not, are perforce liars.

Seth doesn't need evidence. Because, no matter what the truth is, he will write any lie he likes, for trolling purposes.
You might think his posts are incredibly stupid. But they're not, if his purpose is to troll.
Any old lie will do, to a troll, so long as it keeps the trolling going.

So Seth's posts are not quite as stupid as they look, but they are far more pathetic.

[Seth]

All ideas should be subject to critical scrutiny.

Agreed, including unscientific, irrational atheistic skepticism.

That is not the same as attacking someone who holds a particular idea
though as the two are not the same thing. For you are not your ideas. They are just abstract concepts like any idea is
It is entirely possible to attack one without attacking the other. And besides attacking the individual is not necessary

Yup.

[Seth]

long as you keep your opinion of others beliefs to yourself then you can be an Apatheist. It is when you use your beliefs about God as a justification for
disparaging and demeaning others and their beliefs that you demonstrate irrational and bigoted behavior because YOUR beliefs about God are no more
no less valid than any one elses beliefs about God and therefore you have no standing to criticize others and their beliefs while claiming to be rational

You called atheists nihilistic fuckwits yesterday and so you have broken your own rule there.

Yes, I did, quite deliberately, as a demonstration of the very "rule" I stated. It's an example intended to prick the consciences of those who choose to disparage others by demonstrating that it's just as easy to disparage them, and just as pointless.

And this is obviously not the first time you have been derogatory towards atheists either. Now it does not bother me personally as I have a very thick skin. But ad hominem is a logical fallacy as you know very well.

Correct. I use derogation of Atheists as a tool to stimulate debate by applying irrational derogation to them and their arguments in the same sort of pointless and irrational insult that they apply to theists.

And it works. If you go back a bit in this thread you find people defending themselves and their atheistic beliefs against my accusations and insults, just as you are doing now, which opens up obvious point that just as they feel unfairly and irrationally maligned and mischaracterized, those theists who they attack in the same way probably feel the same way. More importantly is the point that in neither case are the ad hominem components of such arguments representative of rational, logical and unbiased thinking.

One may presume that theists are simply delusional in their beliefs if one chooses to do so, but in any argument put forth by someone claiming to be less delusional than someone else, the argument must be to the argument and not to the person for it to be anything less than equally irrational and specious rebuttal. Mental health professionals don't laugh at their patients and derogate them because their mental processes are deranged, and atheists shouldn't derogate theists because they disagree with theistic belief. Rebutting a theistic claim does not require insulting the persons holding those beliefs, either as individuals or as a group. Truly rational thinkers rebut the claims without resort to ad hominem.

In pointing out my fallacious ad hominem argumentation towards Atheists you highlight the fallacious ad hominem arguments made towards theists, and getting you to do that is my purpose in making such arguments.

And while you might think yourself one of the wisest debaters on the internet there is plenty of room for improvement

There always is, which is why I keep doing it.

For if you do not abide by rules that you automatically expect others to abide by you cannot expect any one to take you seriously now can you

The process of Socratic dialog sometimes demands breaking of rules in order to get people to think outside the box. Whether the interlocutor is taken seriously or not is less important that how the debate unfolds, as we see here.

[Seth]

If someone says that they don't believe in god, it's generally with a proviso that they await evidence to the contrary, but don't expect to see it any time soon.
I've said as much on here on many occasions, as have most of the other posters, at one time or another.
To most atheists, that's so obvious, it's a given, that doesn't need to be constantly repeated.
You've seen it stated here many times.

And it's always a lie..

In your opinion. Where is the critically robust scientific evidence to support it?

More than thirty years of personal observation and data analysis.

You see, atheists who are not religious Atheists simply don't talk about atheism and they certainly don't attack and disparage the religious beliefs of others. Those that do, but who claim that they do not, are perforce liars.

Seth doesn't need evidence. Because, no matter what the truth is, he will write any lie he likes, for trolling purposes.
You might think his posts are incredibly stupid. But they're not, if his purpose is to troll.
Any old lie will do, to a troll, so long as it keeps the trolling going.

So Seth's posts are not quite as stupid as they look, but they are far more pathetic.

Er, one cannot be trolled if one possesses basic intelligence and skills of debate and a modicum of self control.

Also, the definition of "trolling" does not happen to include merely saying provocative things that move the debate forward, which is explicitly what I do.

Except to mindless troll bait who cannot distinguish between debate and personal insult.

[mistermack]

Er, one cannot be trolled if one possesses basic intelligence and skills of debate and a modicum of self control.

Also, the definition of "trolling" does not happen to include merely saying provocative things that move the debate forward, which is explicitly what I do.

Except to mindless troll bait who cannot distinguish between debate and personal insult.

That explains why you bite so readily then.

[surreptitious57]

I use derogation of Atheists as a tool to stimulate debate by applying irrational derogation to them and their arguments

But is there not a danger persistent use of ad hominem will only result in reciprocal abuse which will not stimulate debate at all
The best way to do that is to critically deconstruct an opponents arguments which can be done without recourse to ad hominem

[Jason]

Assuming, of course, that Seth's aim is to stimulate debate and not seek a gunfight in which ad hom's are bullets.

[Seth]

Assuming, of course, that Seth's aim is to stimulate debate and not seek a gunfight in which ad hom's are bullets.

I only fire when fired upon. I'm usually a much better shot too.

[Seth]

I use derogation of Atheists as a tool to stimulate debate by applying irrational derogation to them and their arguments

But is there not a danger persistent use of ad hominem will only result in reciprocal abuse which will not stimulate debate at all
The best way to do that is to critically deconstruct an opponents arguments which can be done without recourse to ad hominem

True enough.