Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Susan Stanko on February 19, 2012 at 8:53am

The no-true-Scotsman doesn't apply.

Then what is your evidence that he is not an atheist?

Permalink Reply by Joseph P on February 18, 2012 at 11:22pm

It's nothing like that.  He's not proposing Creationism.  You're pulling out one of the lines about teaching I.D. in school, as if it was somehow relevant.  That's not even vaguely appropriate.  He's not stepping outside the bounds of things associated with atheism.

It's as if he's confusing atheism and humanism ... or skepticism.  He's just getting his concepts a bit scrambled, which is often the result of a language barrier, as I've discovered dealing with Asian immigrants at work, who haven't completely mastered English.  Getting technical concepts across to them can be a real pain in the ass, when I'm using very precise language to construct the concept.

Permalink Reply by Joseph P on February 18, 2012 at 11:56pm

And this makes you accuse him of being a theist ... why exactly?

 

The comparison to Stork Theory is horrible, even if you weren't trying to draw it to the heavily used counter-argument for "teaching the controversy" about Evolution in science class.  It's actually worse that you weren't making a play on the I.D. argument.  Your usage of it is a complete mismatch.

We're not talking about theories or hypotheses.  We're talking about classifications and semantics.

 

And don't call me 'son'.  Using diminutives in an argument just makes you look like an asshole.

Permalink Reply by Joseph P on February 19, 2012 at 12:26am

That's a partial accusation, yes.  You're using a comparison to theism as a pejorative.  It's one of the more disgusting things I see from atheists, unless it's a direct, detailed comparison to dogmatic behavior or irrationality.  Madhukar's issue is one of semantics and comprehension.  You can't get from there to dogma and irrationality.

 

And no, it's not spot-on.  Presenting Stork Theory versus adding on additional baggage to the definition of an atheist.  Complete type mismatch.  Please demonstrate how the two are analogous.

So, now you've switched from usage of diminutives to outright childishness.  And you have the nerve to criticize Madhukar?

Permalink Reply by Joseph P on February 19, 2012 at 1:21am

You make such grandiose use of the royal we.  I'm still waiting for anyone else to back you up.

You are right, though.  I think you're a total waste of time, at this point.

Permalink Reply by Susan Stanko on February 19, 2012 at 9:01am

You want to continue supporting this person, go ahead

WOW!  Unless he agree with your characterization of Madhukar then he supports him?  Have you not noticed that he is in agreement with the rest of us about the atheist character nonsense?

Permalink Reply by Madhukar Kulkarni on February 19, 2012 at 10:42pm

Tom Fant

I do not think that there is any need to be so much angry because someone does not bow to your opinion. I haven't demanded anything particular from any atheist. I have not demanded that atheists must not use foul language or that they all must be gentlemen or anything that will offend any atheist. I do not think that I am commiting any crime because I am not convinced.

If you or he can't stand the heat then get out of the kitchen.

This is too strong Tom, think of it a bit.

Permalink Reply by David Philip Norris on February 19, 2012 at 10:51pm

Sigh. This conversation has become ridiculous. It's like having a serious debate with a four-year-old.

Permalink Reply by Ficking Chucken on February 20, 2012 at 2:39am

Go to Browns's list of Human Universals.  There just aren't any outward characteristics that we DON"T share with the xians, or with any OTHER culture for that matter...the problems mostly occur because the theists are protecting the moral turf. The problem that atheists have is getting over the moral high ground dominated by the theists. Best way to do that is through science (in particular evolutionary psychology, and sociobiology and evolutionary neurochemistry) and provide sound objectively obtained evidence for a non-revelational cause of morality. Searching for differences amongst us only deepens the philosophical divide. Kind of fighting Protestantism with Mormonism...both sides will claim a metaphysical reason for why they hold their respective positions and why it is superior. We atheists can not be drawn into these kinds of discussions.

Permalink Reply by Madhukar Kulkarni on February 20, 2012 at 6:28am

Ficking Chucken

Let me first thank you sincerely for not trying to brow-beat me.

I am not trying to find any commonalities among atheists. It takes all kinds to make this world and atheists are also are among these all kinds. Those who have argued with this assumption above, have argued needlessly.

All I am saying, with as much patience as I can gather, that atheists may acquire some good common characteristics as a group. For example,(just for example) we may say that atheists should not use foul language, a very simple proposition. Let me repeat that this is only an example, but assuming such a character would make atheism appear only in a better light.

Now, a foul-mouthed person would certainly want to oppose this and would find any pretext, true or false, not to agree with me. Now, just carrying the same example forward, whether everybody agrees with it or not, a person should be willing to discuss the pros and cons of the matter, in a manner that appeals to intelligence. To tell you the truth, after reading my name, some persons seem to feel a superiority complex and feel that I should accept something because they say it, if not they have the right to tell me to 'get out of the kitchen' as if they own the kitchen for several previous generations!

I hope I have clarified my position. I repeat that I  know that commonalities do not exist. I am so relieved that I have been able to do this after some 80 replies.

 

Permalink Reply by Madhukar Kulkarni on February 20, 2012 at 12:51pm

John D

If you please, I wish to say that I have merely given an example. Enjoy yourself.

Permalink Reply by Susan Stanko on February 20, 2012 at 12:55pm

You do know you are contradicting yourself, right?  If you find common characteristics of a group then they have commonalities.  As for your statement that we have superiority complexes.  The only person who is trying to tell us what an atheist is or is not is you.  We keep telling you what atheism is, just because you don't like what you are hearing does not makes us wrong but, telling people you will not change your mind no matter what we say does show the close mindedness that you accuse others of having.  What you want is skepticism which is not the same as atheism.  Ironically, you have no desire to be skeptical of your own ideas.  You demand that others agree to it or tat makes them wrong.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• Next ›
• Page