For FUN: You Might Be an Anti-theist Fundamentalist if...

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Actually you are mixing terms... Its a fact that electricity works, how it works is a theory.... It's a fact that evolution occurs, how it occurs is a theory...

We use theories postulate how things work.... A model per se, and that model will always be a theory, and it will be valid or less valid to how that model stands up to experimentation....

The only time a model is not a theory, is when something has been designed around the model... As opposed to using a model to understand something that already is a priori

Originally posted by LHP666

Blatant mockery? Mockery mockery mockery!


You can say how evil I am as a Satanist and mock me to your hearts content and it wouldn't bother me in the least. In fact it might make me laugh out loud. Dont believe me? try me. I promise I won't turn anyone into toads. Unless you push me too far, that is...

You can be a Satanist to your heart's content. I have no desire to mock you. But where I as a Christian, get annoyed is when you feel that your faith entitles you to abuse and attack Christians.
It's simple really!

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

...I'm sorry, but no. This one is called projection. Kent Hovind, classic example of this.

Noes! I had a huge post and what happened to it? I'll content myself with asking 'who on earth is Kent Hovind?' You're always mentioning him as if I (for one) should already know. I don't. That should tell you something!

Once again, why do you' like Dawkins, choose to decide we're all creationists? You've been told often enough that's not so...

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by LHP666

Blatant mockery? Mockery mockery mockery!


You can say how evil I am as a Satanist and mock me to your hearts content and it wouldn't bother me in the least. In fact it might make me laugh out loud. Dont believe me? try me. I promise I won't turn anyone into toads. Unless you push me too far, that is...

You can be a Satanist to your heart's content. I have no desire to mock you. But where I as a Christian, get annoyed is when you feel that your faith entitles you to abuse and attack Christians.
It's simple really!

Well, I have no faith. But from my own position I find it justified to 'mock' (a word I wouldn't choose myself), when sanctimoneous elitism tries to interfere with other peoples' lives.

reply to post by SaberTruth


Here's my answer to OP:

[1- You have a 'grievance' but they 'whine'.]

I insist on facts, and complain about rethorics and semantic gymnastics.

[2- You are obsessed with theism and make the focus of your life that which you are sure isn't real.]

Inmates in concentration-camps or gulags also used much time on nazism or stalinism.


[3- You routinely judge theists as lacking intelligence simply because they disagree with you.]

I often complain about theists exceeding their competence.

[4- You demand evidence but have already decided that none of it will be valid.]

Nope, it just happens so, that theists usually make disappearence-acts, when 'evidence'-criteria are examined.


[5- You appeal to popularity and authority, burn straw men, argue in circles, rely heavily on special pleading, and commit numerous other logical fallacies, but declare victory in every debate if the theist slips up once.]

Some athists do this. It's not general.


[6- You demand that only theists be put and kept on the hot seat forever, while never allowing yourself to be put under the same degree of scrutiny.]

Try me.


[7- You accept as true and original every scrap of ancient paper but hold the Bible in derision as a collection of fables.]

The bible IS a collection of fables, until it's validated.

[8- You refer to theists as backward, unenlightened, anti-science, etc. but hide behind the disclaimer "I'm not ridiculing you, I honestly want to know what you think"].

Extremist theists have their own competitor-version of 'science', which relies on principles far from those of standard science. Theists avoid debate on that point.

[9- You can't understand why theists eventually stop responding to you in spite of all of the above, then continue trying to get them to go back on their word to ignore you. (You know who you are, and I can almost guarantee you'll comment here anyway.)]

A point of no interest for me. This is a public forum for debate, not a 'gods' champion' contest.

[10- You take a theist's decision to stop trying to reason with you as an admission of defeat.]

Rather as incompetence.


[11- You get your talking points from infidels dot org or evilbible. Why reinvent the wheel?]

Are you generalizing atheists (and similar). I seldom use references for 'opinion', only for information in positions.


[12- In spite of no. 11, you flame theists for getting talking points from theistic websites.]

If it's parroted with no understanding, it's meaningless. Just being megaphones for various authorities.

[13- You demand that in any debate the theists must agree to terms which eliminate all sources they might cite, on the basis that those sources do not already agree with yours. That is, your own sources are neutral but theirs are biased.]

Source-criticism is as justified as 'answer' criticism. Theists are usually unwilling to carry this very far.


[14- You believe that naturalism is a neutral philosophy.]

It isn't, but it's darned good, when referring to the 'natural'. Whereas the different theist methods mainly are guesses.

[15- You believe that faith is a crutch but denial is not.]

Faith is a crutch, when it's used to justify missionary attitudes. For the average theist faith is just a personal position like being interested in football.


[16- You mistake theories for facts.]

And you haven't come around yet to even define precisely, what 'facts' are. If you want the ultimate epistemologic debate on that: DO IT.

[17- You believe that if you can come up with an alternate theory for something, then it somehow invalidates the other theory.]

Are you referring to science/logic/objective procedure? In that case you are ignorant about it.

[18- Mocking theists is justified, but mocking anti-theists is hate speech and hypocrisy.]

And that explains the present theist fad of incompetent diagonizing of mental illness in atheists (and similar)?.

[19- Theist-run message boards are intolerant, but anti-theist-run boards are tolerant.]

What ANTI-theist boards are you referring to?

[20- You want to report this thread to ATS authorities as a violation of TOC in spite of "redundancy" obviously not earning disapproval.]

Who are 'you'. It's my impression, that the complaints usually come from theist direction.

reply to post by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Actually you are mixing terms... Its a fact that electricity works, how it works is a theory.... It's a fact that evolution occurs, how it occurs is a theory...

...yes, that's what I was saying! That it works is a fact, the theory covers works.

We use theories postulate how things work.... A model per se, and that model will always be a theory, and it will be valid or less valid to how that model stands up to experimentation....

The only time a model is not a theory, is when something has been designed around the model... As opposed to using a model to understand something that already is a priori

Totally agree with you. If you misunderstood me, I'm sorry. These were the points I was trying to get across with regard to many things being both a fact (that it works) and a theory (how it works).

reply to post by Vicky32

I'll content myself with asking 'who on earth is Kent Hovind?' You're always mentioning him as if I (for one) should already know. I don't. That should tell you something!

That you're not very familiar with certain creationists.

Once again, why do you' like Dawkins, choose to decide we're all creationists? You've been told often enough that's not so...

And I've told you often enough that I don't think it's so. In fact, I mentioned William Lane Craig, who is more of a 'prime mover' person than anything else and a theologian. He's not what you would classify as a 'creationist' except in the nebulous sense that you are also a creationist...you think a deity had some hand in creating some portion or all the universe.

Oh, and Dawkins himself has pointed out that most Christians aren't creationists...if you can find a single place in which he actually does, I'll be surprised and admit I was wrong.

reply to post by Vicky32


I see I and other Christians have had a shedload of posts removed overnight... (This one to which I am replying was allegedly off-topic, but of course it actually was not off-topic, but very much on-topic!)

Men, you've proven SabreTruth's point for her. I don't understand why you don't get that you've simultaneously shot yourselves in the foot?!

Originally posted by Vicky32
reply to post by Vicky32

 

I see I and other Christians have had a shedload of posts removed overnight... (This one to which I am replying was allegedly off-topic, but of course it actually was not off-topic, but very much on-topic!)

Men, you've proven SabreTruth's point for her. I don't understand why you don't get that you've simultaneously shot yourselves in the foot?!

I have to be very careful how I put this...

I can only say that I agree with your observations, and that whistleblowers are not endured lightly. For this and other reasons, there are certain topics and areas of ATS I will no longer be a part of, which I'm sure will be tremendously joyous news for many. If people of faith are ever to conduct a civilized and meaningful discussion, it will have to be done elsewhere.

And that's all I have to say about that. (If my efforts at writing carefully are too cryptic, feel free to U2U.)

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

That you're not very familiar with certain creationists.

And that surprises you? Why should I be, as I am not one...