Fundamentalist overload

Originally posted by lemon lime
LOL toot the theory?

tout the theory, toot the theory... okay, I guess that does work. I've been listening to FMF tooting his own horn for too long, I need to take a break from watching him tout himself. LOL

Tout. lol

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Absolutely. They seem to want to make atheism into a sort of Bizarro-religion; a dark parody of what they despise. They are the ones who actually debate questions like, "are babies atheists?" They pay their tithe to the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science and recite the Scientific Method 3 times a day while facing Christopher Hitchens' grave.

Really?

I know of nobody [including myself] on these forums who fits that description.

Who the hell are you talking about?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Any particular topics that you would like discussed in a less fundamentalist manner?
I had wanted to discuss the historicity of Jesus, but nobody wanted to take it on.

I do think that we should all stop responding to RJ. (edit: and whodey)

Promise?

Originally posted by KellyJay
The difference between those that do not believe in Sasquatches and Atheist are, Atheist
care enough to call themselves Atheist. No one bothers to call themselves whatever the
name is for not believing in Sasquatches, is isn't a big enough deal to anyone to sort
themselves from the rest by having a name for it.

The difference between those that believe in Sasquatch and those that believe in god(s) is that Sasquatch believers are a minority that doesn't have a huge influence on the world, including but not limited to starting wars over different versions of this so-called Sasquatch.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Really?

I know of nobody [including myself] on these forums who fits that description.

Who the hell are you talking about?

No, not really, so relax...

Atheists (all atheists worldwide) are superior human beings who couldn't possibly fit that description. Just ask twhitehead, and he will tell you atheists are well educated and have a superior understanding of science. It's in your genes... it's why you are not really people at all, but more like gods who have ascended like Dr Daniel Jackson... oh wait, that's not right. i must have been thinking of something else....

Never mind. As you were... or are, or... whatever.

Originally posted by lemon lime
No, not really, so relax...

Atheists (all atheists worldwide) are superior human beings who couldn't possibly fit that description. Just ask twhitehead, and he will tell you atheists are well educated and have a superior understanding of science. It's in your genes... it's why you are not really people at all, but more like gods who have ascended like ...[text shortened]... t have been thinking of something else....

Never mind. As you were... or are, or... whatever.

Just ask twhitehead, and he will tell you atheists are well educated and have a superior understanding of science.

No, no he really wont. neither will, I or any atheist here.

Originally posted by lemon lime
If this wasn't such a hot topic issue, with the potential of supporting or taking something away from a personal belief (whether it's atheism or theism), then [b]no one in their right mind would feel the need to attack the evidence or the person presenting it.[/b]

"Taking something away from your beliefs"? "Attacking" you? "Dismantling" your beliefs? Blimey. This is a debate and discussion forum. So often, you end up saying things that make you seem paranoid.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Really?

I know of nobody [including myself] on these forums who fits that description.

Who the hell are you talking about?

Not really too familiar with parody, are you?

Or is it maybe just no sense of humor?

Either way, I'm thinking you need to lighten up a little. You seem to be wound a little too tight.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Just ask twhitehead, and he will tell you atheists are well educated and have a superior understanding of science.

Not long ago you claimed that:
a) you read other peoples posts carefully to avoid misunderstanding them.
b) that you hated having your own views misrepresented.
Yet you seem to have no qualms whatsoever about outright lying about other peoples views.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Not long ago you claimed that:
a) you read other peoples posts carefully to avoid misunderstanding them.
b) that you hated having your own views misrepresented.
Yet you seem to have no qualms whatsoever about outright lying about other peoples views.

Wow, this subject really rocks - four pages in a day so far!

But never mind that, without going back over all twhitehead' posts, I DO remember something along the lines of what LL accused him off.

But let's not speculate or "falsely misrepresent" - this matter can be cleared up very simply.

Do you, or do you not believe that atheists more intelligent and better educated in science than theists?

Edit: And I specifically use the broad term "theists" of which, for the purpose of this question, I am specifically excluding the subset of YECs, which I would agree are scientifically shortchanged.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Not really too familiar with parody, are you?

Or is it maybe just no sense of humor?

Either way, I'm thinking you need to lighten up a little. You seem to be wound a little too tight.

Have you heard of Poe's law?

BDP expressed views that are frequently expressed as genuine 'attacks' on atheists [often by other atheists] ...
http://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2015/05/10/open-thread-on-episode-917/
for example....

And unless you put a big honking flashing sign on your post that says parody, there is no way of telling which
people are 'making a joke', and those that really mean it.

Given the OP, I take what he [and everyone else] says at face value unless it's clearly specified otherwise.

And as it turns out I do have a sense of humour.

When things are actually funny.

And you need to stop telling me to lighten up, because I am lightened up. You just can't read tone in forum posts.
Because nobody can read tone in forum posts.

Assuming you can is how you make false assumptions and bark up the wrong tree.

Also assuming that other people can magically deduce the tone of your posts is similarly doomed.

I read posts as is, and take them literally, unless it's clearly specified otherwise. I recommend the same to you.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
That simply isn't true.

"Given the scientific evidence that I have examined, I'm convinced there's a creature out there that is yet to be identified," said Jeff Meldrum, a professor of anatomy and anthropology at Idaho State University in Pocatello.

In response to the above statement by professor Meldrum, several of his contemporaries formed a ...[text shortened]... thing more.

(* Some creative licence has been used for the existence of Sasquatch Squashers).

Oh my, well I stand corrected! 🙂

Originally posted by KellyJay
The difference between those that do not believe in Sasquatches and Atheist are, Atheist
care enough to call themselves Atheist. No one bothers to call themselves whatever the
name is for not believing in Sasquatches, is isn't a big enough deal to anyone to sort
themselves from the rest by having a name for it.

I hear something sinking in over there. 🙂

Originally posted by googlefudge
Really?

I know of nobody [including myself] on these forums who fits that description.

Who the hell are you talking about?

I'm talking about a group of people, which most definitely includes you.

Didn't you notice the reference about people wasting time debating if babies are atheists? That one's in there for you personally.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
The difference between those that believe in Sasquatch and those that believe in god(s) is that Sasquatch believers are a minority that doesn't have a huge influence on the world, including but not limited to starting wars over different versions of this so-called Sasquatch.

How many wars are really about religion these days? Even if that's a component, is it the only one? Isn't it fair to say the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are far more about oil, and the rise of ISIS is also about repelling foreign invaders and gaining control of territory?

I say it's a myth that the number of wars would decrease even if one could snap one's fingers and end all religion. Countries would use the myriad other reasons they have for war to continue to justify it. Religion just tends to be a shortcut towards back-filling moral justification for something they were going to do regardless.