Angry atheists rant thread.

[onewheeldave]

Once again you're way too quick to jump on anything I say to try and score a cheap point but you keep failing miserably.

If you carried on reading that page you'll see that there are similar fallacies that fit similar scenarios. So, if you want to be pedantic this is the more accurate fallacy that you're committing. Either way you're clearly committing a fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-common-practice.html

 

But I'm not committing a fallacy.

 

All I've said is that many dictionaries define atheism in a different way than you do, and, in terms of the common usage of the word, most of the public also define it in a different way to you. I also pointed out that, in the video you linked to, that speaker (a sceptic) also used the definition you oppose.

 

So, I'd suggest that if you have good reason, why all those should, instead, stick to your definition, you've got some convincing to do (not to me, I've made my own mind up, but to everyone else who uses the word to mean other than what you do).

 

By the way, the reason I consider the definition to be valid, isn't, as you accuse me of, any kind of appeal to common practice, but, because, words are the kind of entities which, by the nature of language, have meanings which are determined, in part, by their usage.

[onewheeldave]

Absolutely. Anybody who claims 'there is no god' is a gnostic atheist.

 

 

 

 

No, he said 'atheist' not 'gnostic atheist': by your terms, he got it just plain wrong.

[janie48]

He isn't, he's saying that atheists can go and enjoy churches. Quite the opposite.

 

Yes i guessed that,i don't think he's quite as militant as to want to go that extreme yet.

[quisquose]

We expect no better than insults and verbal violence from a ranting, deluded fundamentalist hate-filled preacher: rationalists and sceptics should be showing a better way.

 

Here is some "verbal violence from a ranting, deluded fundamentalist hate-filled preacher" ...

 

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/05/23/pastor-put-gays-behind-electric-fence

 

It's a Pastor suggesting that gays should be put behind electric fences. It was the first video of 31,700 results that I got when I typed in "hate filled preacher".

 

This is a paid employee of a religious organisation, who represents his congregation, and there is even video of some of his congregation defending him.

 

I could have picked one of any number of videos, from many many examples.

 

When I typed in "hate filled atheist" I got 19,500 hits*. Now back up your rather offensive (that's me taking offence btw) claim and provide an example of an rationalist sceptic using similar "verbal violence".

 

* There were no results for "hate filled sceptic" or "hate filled rationalist".

[onewheeldave]

The fact that you agreed with me in your post #238 that "derogatory and deliberately provocative language is prevalent amongst all demographics", and then in the very same post and the next post #239 you single out the sceptic community for making such remarks, and in turn make offensive comments against them.

 

I'm afraid this tell me that you have an agenda against that community, and I don't think there's much point in debating with you.

 

Then we must agree to differ on this. IMO, sceptics and rationalists, when debating/discussing in public, should aspire to, and, as far as possible, acheive, a higher standard, and, should never resort to pointless insults and goading.

 

They are trying to educate people into a better way of thinking about things, so, they should set an example.

 

There's no place for critisising others for using, for example, emotive language, or strawmen, and then proceeding to use such things for their own arguments.

 

The same goes for insults and goading.

[onewheeldave]

Here is some "verbal violence from a ranting, deluded fundamentalist hate-filled preacher" ...

 

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/05/23/pastor-put-gays-behind-electric-fence

 

It's a Pastor suggesting that gays should be put behind electric fences. It was the first video of 31,700 results that I got when I typed in "hate filled preacher".

 

This is a paid employee of a religious organisation, who represents his congregation, and there is even video of some of his congregation defending him.

 

I could have picked one of any number of videos, from many many examples.

 

When I typed in "hate filled atheist" I got 19,500 hits*. Now back up your rather offensive (that's me taking offence btw) claim and provide an example of an rationalist sceptic using similar "verbal violence".

 

* There were no results for "hate filled sceptic" or "hate filled rationalist".

 

I join you in condemning that video- it's a sick individual with sick views, and I sincerely hope he, and others like him, never get close to being in such a position, that they can fullfil their sick wishes.

 

I've not, at any point claimed that I've seen/heard a rationalist sceptic using similar "verbal violence".

[quisquose]

I join you in condemning that video- it's a sick individual with sick views, and I sincerely hope he, and others like him, never get close to being in such a position, that they can fullfil their sick wishes.

 

I've not, at any point claimed that I've seen/heard a rationalist sceptic using similar "verbal violence".

 

So when you said "We expect no better than insults and verbal violence from a ranting, deluded fundamentalist hate-filled preacher: rationalists and sceptics should be showing a better way", you now concede that they are showing a better way.

 

Or was your statement just another throwaway derogatory remark?

[onewheeldave]

So when you said "We expect no better than insults and verbal violence from a ranting, deluded fundamentalist hate-filled preacher: rationalists and sceptics should be showing a better way", you now concede that they are showing a better way.

 

Or was your statement just another throwaway derogatory remark?

 

I'm truly confused

 

I stand by my above statement- what do you see as being wrong with it?

[Chris_Sleeps]

I'm really not sure. I've always viewed the belief that there is no God as mild anti-theism. Theism itself isn't a god, so I can't see how anti-theism would mean refusal to worship.

Using Hitchens, theism is the belief that God(s) not only exists, but takes an active role in controling and directing human life.

 

He uses the term deism to be a belief that God exists. Thomas Paine was a deist. (The Age of Reason)

 

The one thing I am pretty sure about is that to qualify as an atheist, you only need to be without belief in god/s.

I agree completely. It's the only thing it can mean.

[quisquose]

I'm truly confused

 

I stand by my above statement- what do you see as being wrong with it?

 

You're equating sceptics with hate filled preachers with the statement, just like you are equating atheists with terrorists when you use the term "militant atheist".

 

I know you can run round in ever decreasing circles of pedantry, and claim that logically this and that, but the deliberate insulting use of language is all too obvious.

 

Sorry, you've been rumbled.