18 Nov 15
Originally posted by LemonJelloIt is however a very successful at showing that trolling works. ie people will continue to argue almost indefinitely with someone who clearly doesn't care what the truth is, doesn't believe his own claims but just keeps on insisting he is correct regardless of the facts.
And I take it that this thread is yet another epic failure by FreakyKBH to employ the Socratic method with effect.
Its interesting just how irresistible certain posts can be.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
18 Nov 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt's a similar urge to scratching an itch, or picking at a scab.
It is however a very successful at showing that trolling works. ie people will continue to argue almost indefinitely with someone who clearly doesn't care what the truth is, doesn't believe his own claims but just keeps on insisting he is correct regardless of the facts.
Its interesting just how irresistible certain posts can be.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
18 Nov 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadNah, it's the traditional refusal of 'moderate' believers to confront the extremists in their midst.
They are all closet flat earthers?
If you attack an extremest for believing in weird stuff that is unsupported by evidence, you lay yourself
open to being attacked for exactly the same thing.
So [for example] you don't criticise people for looking to the bible to learn lessons on morality or the
nature of reality, because you [the moderate theist] does exactly the same thing.
The most you do is criticise the extremest for 'misinterpreting' the words of the bible.
Or if you are from a different religion, you criticise for using 'the wrong holy book' etc etc.
You can't attack the very notion of forming beliefs via faith, because any such argument destroys
your own position.
So instead, you keep quiet while atheists and skeptics do the work. And then maybe attack the
atheists and skeptics for lumping all theists together and tarring them with the same brush...
whether they did or not.
Of course, I could be wrong.... But that's what I hear in the deafening silence from all the theists.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117579
18 Nov 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeI know you may still be piqued with me, but I don't think you can include me in this allegation. I relentlessly confront extremist beliefs from all areas of theism here. I'm not really clear what the actually issue in this thread is (I've not read it front to back), but FreakyKBH seems to be barking up a wrong tree for some reason.
Nah, it's the traditional refusal of 'moderate' believers to confront the extremists in their midst.
If you attack an extremest for believing in weird stuff that is unsupported by evidence, you lay yourself
open to being attacked for exactly the same thing.
So [for example] you don't criticise people for looking to the bible to learn lessons on m ...[text shortened]... urse, I could be wrong.... But that's what I hear in the deafening silence from all the theists.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
18 Nov 15
Originally posted by divegeesterI wasn't actually thinking of you in particular.
I know you may still be piqued with me, but I don't think you can include me in this allegation. I relentlessly confront extremist beliefs from all areas of theism here. I'm not really clear what the actually issue in this thread is (I've not read it front to back), but FreakyKBH seems to be barking up a wrong tree for some reason.
But I will note that it's not until we make a connection to the other theists here that
any of you bother to state that you don't accept/agree with Freaky's delusions either.
A fact that might be relevant seeing as he is insisting that we are the odd ones out for not
agreeing with what he is saying.
Perhaps one or two of the theists around here who claim to be more reasonable might want
to tell him that your silence doesn't constitute agreement with his ravings. And that he doesn't
speak for you when he claims that everyone is seeing what he's claiming to see but for us few
atheists. [and FMF, who is a notable exception to the not challenging on bull**** rule I mentioned.]
However, I would ask you to think about how much of your attacks on other theists constitutes
challenging their interpretation of their religion? As opposed to challenging the very notion that
you can learn/know anything about morality or the nature of reality by reading holy books etc
in the first place.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117579
18 Nov 15
3 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeMaybe people aren't interested in this thread; it is quite boring after all. However, I've frequently called out the partisan nature of the theist posters I this forum, who will compromise their principles to side with their buddies.
I wasn't actually thinking of you in particular.
But I will note that it's not until we make a connection to the other theists here that
any of you bother to state that you don't accept/agree with Freaky's delusions either.
A fact that might be relevant seeing as he is insisting that we are the odd ones out for not
agreeing with what he is sayi ...[text shortened]... anything about morality or the nature of reality by reading holy books etc
in the first place.
But your comment I was referring to was about "extremist" religious views not the reading of books. Calling a book "holy" because you don't like it, does not mean it cannot be informative. I don't consider the bible (in terms of pages and paper) to be "holy". It's just a book.