Most annoying theist lines of argument?

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

JimiTime, it's a bit of craic taking the piss out of the "other side".

Its all well and good reducing it to that, but a quick look about this forum and its anything but tbh. Some of the vitriol is quite serious IMO.

You shouldn't take yourself so seriously.

I don't even get this phrase tbh.

I'm sure you've seen some awful arguments yourself that you can contribute, not every reason given to be a theist is a good one.

Completely agree, which is why context is important.

Something I often say, not just about religious people, is that those who are capable of rebutting an argument do so and those who aren't get offended and defensive.

I am neither offended nor defensive. What have I to defend or to be offended at?

If, when someone makes fun of something you've said, instead of explaining exactly why they're wrong you get angry and lash out at them, maybe you should ask yourself if your position is valid

And those who are insecure need to keep harping on about how right they are, usually by pointing fingers at people who they think are stupid. Throwing mild insults is hardly constructive is it?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Well in fairness we have tried such discussions on numerous occasions and they alway end with the regular Christians posters getting huffy and accusations flying around about the motivations of the atheists and how just troll and how we like to disrupt discussion etc etc.

You don't have such a discussion with Christians, you would have it with your fellow atheists.

It is hardly surprising that we discuss things "over here with our friends" when theists on Boards.ie seem so utterly uninterested in having proper discussion about the quality of the arguments for theistic belief (or atheist belief for that matter).

I'm not here to argue about the problems you have with Christians on boards. If they refuse to engage you for whatever reason, thats their perogative. However, my point was not about engaging Christians, but rather how to go about engaging fellow atheists. My example was about engaging fellow Christians. Making the thread positive etc, rather than all back slappy.

Anyway, I'm officially ignoring this thread now. Promise.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm not here to argue about the problems you have with Christians on boards.

I figured you were here for the C@ke. Atheists have the best cake

JimiTime wrote: »

If they refuse to engage you for whatever reason, thats their perogative. However, my point was not about engaging Christians, but rather how to go about engaging fellow atheists.

Well, er, most of the fellow atheists seem to be enjoying this thread and not taking it too seriously.

JimiTime wrote: »

My example was about engaging fellow Christians. Making the thread positive etc, rather than all back slappy.

Back slappy isn't positive? Most people seem to be enjoying it :pac:

You're Awesome!
I know! So are you!
Hi-five!

Strip out the homo-erotic under tones and you have a good time had by all

Wacker

Wicknight wrote: »

Look at the disaster that was the Christian apologetics thread, and that wasn't even started by an atheist.

I read every comma of that thread, and I actually quite like how it turned out. Or at least, the way it was at page 15. When yourself and Sam Vimes seem to find some kind of common ground with PDN, it always makes me hopeful for a peaceful solution between Israel and Palestine!

Galvasean

JimiTime wrote: »

Lucky It wasn't an impression of an atheist then. Rather an impression of a groupthinker generalising. Some of you really need to get your heads out of each others @rses. It will benefit you tenfold. Who knows, you may even learn something, and develop wisdom.

Weird, when I read that post earlier it was just the first sentence. Just couldn't resist poking at the beehive huh?

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I loved Dara O'Briain's response to this:

"Of course science doesn't know everything, because if it did, it'd stop."

1:45

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDYba0m6ztE

JimiTime wrote: »

I would not be moved to do such a thing. It would be fairly useless, as is this one IMO. i suppose my point is made, so I wont spoil the thread anymore.

And yet, you continue to make posts where you imply we are a bunch backslappers...

stevejazzx

Read the thread - maybe I missed it but the
"where do you get your morals from"- drives me bananas.
and the classic (like they've any idea of what they're talking about)
you can't prove the big bang - god is outside fo physics and sicenece has been wrong in the past..............aghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh@!!!!!

JimiTime

Galvasean wrote: »

And yet, you continue to make posts where you imply we are a bunch backslappers...

I've realised from the start that my input was of a spoiling kind. I've added nothing to the thread but my disapproval, I do realise that. I hold out some hope that somebody out there see's my point though. As for poking the hive, well, I'm only human:)

Sam Vimes

Wacker wrote: »

I read every comma of that thread, and I actually quite like how it turned out. Or at least, the way it was at page 15. When yourself and Sam Vines seem to find some kind of common ground with PDN, it always makes me hopeful for a peaceful solution between Israel and Palestine!

Israel and Palestine have nothing on us

On a side note, everyone thinks my name is vines

It's Vimes

Wacker

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Israel and Palestine have nothing on us

On a side note, everyone thinks my name is vines

It's Vimes

Wow, sorry!

FruitLover

Dades wrote: »

"claiming that God knows best allows us to avoid facing up to the reality of this situation."

This pretty much sums my opinion of religion in general.

JimiTime wrote: »

I just don't see anything positive in it.

Mate, you're on a website that has a forum for mustard (among other nonsense). It's a bit late to be disappointed that not every thread ever created has a thought-provoking point to it; some of us enjoy a bit of casual chat in between our life-changing revelations.

stevejazzx

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Israel and Palestine have nothing on us

On a side note, everyone thinks my name is vines

It's Vimes

..which is Douglas Adams...wait no..the other guy! damn?

Daftendirekt

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Israel and Palestine have nothing on us

On a side note, everyone thinks my name is vines

It's Vimes

Didn't realise they had internet in Ankh Morpork :pac:

Zombrex

Wacker wrote: »

I read every comma of that thread, and I actually quite like how it turned out. Or at least, the way it was at page 15. When yourself and Sam Vimes seem to find some kind of common ground with PDN, it always makes me hopeful for a peaceful solution between Israel and Palestine!

ROFL ... yeah those pussies don't know what real conflict is :P

Galvasean

Sam Vimes wrote: »

On a side note, everyone thinks my name is vines

It's Vimes

Well i'll be damned... When did you change it?

Sam Vimes

Wacker wrote: »

Wow, sorry!

Don't worry about it, everyone thinks it's vines. No one's ever seen the word vimes except people who read Terry Pratchett books so they just see what they expect to see. The m hides away in plain sight

stevejazzx wrote: »

..which is Douglas Adams...wait no..the other guy! damn?

The other guy indeed

Galvasean wrote: »

Well i'll be damned... When did you change it?

This might be a joke going over my head but it was always Vimes......

It's this guy:
www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Vimes

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Didn't realise they had internet in Ankh Morpork :pac:

I'm posting by clacks :pac:

Galvasean

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's this guy

An australian garage band

Sam Vimes

Galvasean wrote: »

An australian garage band

I'm very confused. Where did the link to that band come from? What's going on? Are those my feet? Where did you get that grenade brick?

Galvasean

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm very confused. Where did the link to that band come from?

You posted it!

Osgoodisgood

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

In regards to ID'rs whenever I hear someone say "teach the controversy" I feel like punching them right in the solar plexus.

An aunt of mine, who is the headmaster of a catholic girls school in Australia, is always banging on about "teaching the options" and my fave "encouraging students to at least think about creation as an alternative theory".

Sam Vimes

Galvasean wrote: »

You posted it!

No I didn't. I'm very confused

Funglegunk

Most annoying theist line of argument: "It's just what I believe."

That's argument enough for most theists I've met, it seems.

Sam Vimes

Funglegunk wrote: »

Most annoying theist line of argument: "It's just what I believe."

That's argument enough for most theists I've met, it seems.

That one doesn't bother me so much. They're basically saying that they have little or nothing to support their belief but they want to believe it anyway and that's fine with me as long as they keep it to themselves. I wouldn't even call that an argument tbh, it's an acknowledgement that it's wishful thinking

Funglegunk

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That one doesn't bother me so much. They're basically saying that they have little or nothing to support their belief but they want to believe it anyway and that's fine with me as long as they keep it to themselves. I wouldn't even call that an argument tbh, it's an acknowledgement that it's wishful thinking

That's what's annoying about it, it's not an argument at all (it's more of an anti-argument designed to shut the conversation down there and then, there must be a word for that?) and it's seen by them as a satisfactory answer. It's more an acknowledgement of 'I don't want to think about it' rather than wishful thinking.

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That one doesn't bother me so much. They're basically saying that they have little or nothing to support their belief but they want to believe it anyway and that's fine with me as long as they keep it to themselves. I wouldn't even call that an argument tbh, it's an acknowledgement that it's wishful thinking

This is what I allude to with my 'Back slappy' remarks. The above only acknowledges the the depth of thought, nothing else. Ask your average Joe, 'Do you believe in Gravity' and they wil probablyl say 'Yes'. You ask 'why?', and they will probably say, 'I just do'. All this says, is that they have never really thought about it in depth. There are many people who are like this about religion. Why is it, that you desire to jump to the conclusion that they are 'acknowledging wishful thinking' etc? It seems you simply want an 'I win' or somesuch. Be they right or wrong, some people don't think about the things they have always just taken as a given, simple as.

So much for me ignoring this thread.

Turtwig

Funglegunk wrote: »

That's what's annoying about it, it's not an argument at all (it's more of an anti-argument designed to shut the conversation down there and then, there must be a word for that?) and it's seen by them as a satisfactory answer. It's more an acknowledgement of 'I don't want to think about it' rather than wishful thinking.

Stonewalling???

Turtwig

JimiTime wrote: »

This is what I allude to with my 'Back slappy' remarks. The above only acknowledges the the depth of thought, nothing else. Ask your average Joe, 'Do you believe in Gravity' and they wil probablyl say 'Yes'. You ask 'why?', and they will probably say, 'I just do'. All this says, is that they have never really thought about it in depth. There are many people who are like this about religion. Why is it, that you desire to jump to the conclusion that they are 'acknowledging wishful thinking' etc? It seems you simply want an 'I win' or somesuch. Be they right or wrong, some people don't think about the things they have always just taken as a given, simple as.

Although I get your point, really bad analogy Jimi.:p

We see and feel the effects of gravity around us everyday.
A better question would be,
"Do you believe in protons?"

Funglegunk

Malty_T wrote: »

Stonewalling???

Yes! Thank you. :P I feel kind of silly now...

JimiTime

Malty_T wrote: »

Although I get your point, really bad analogy Jimi.:p

We see and feel the effects of gravity around us everyday.
A better question would be,
"Do you believe in protons?"

Its actually a very good analogy, as its something most people don't actually know about. They know they are not floating about, and someone said, 'Thats Gravity working'. They don't know the theory behind it, but they simply believe it, and don't think about what it means.

doctoremma

JimiTime wrote: »

Its actually a very good analogy, as its something most people don't actually know about. They know they are not floating about, and someone said, 'Thats Gravity working'. They don't know the theory behind it, but they simply believe it, and don't think about what it means.

I would never ask someone if they believe in gravity, it's nonsensical. I could ask someone if they believe a particualar theory of gravity but not if they believe in the fact of gravity. People know what gravity is because they recognise the effect all around them. Not being able to articulate why that effect might happen (due to lack of a physics degree) doesn't alter the fact of gravity for anyone. Gravity isn't a matter of faith.

philologos

liamw wrote: »

I'm not sure how one can argue for non-belief in something, but please go ahead and start that thread

That's what most of you do when you post in the Christianity forum. Seems ironic, but meh.