Sam Vimes wrote: » JimiTime, it's a bit of craic taking the piss out of the "other side".
You shouldn't take yourself so seriously.
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.
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.
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
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.
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).
JimiTime wrote: » I'm not here to argue about the problems you have with Christians on boards.
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.
JimiTime wrote: » My example was about engaging fellow Christians. Making the thread positive etc, rather than all back slappy.
Wicknight wrote: » Look at the disaster that was the Christian apologetics thread, and that wasn't even started by an atheist.
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.
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."
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.
Galvasean wrote: » And yet, you continue to make posts where you imply we are a bunch backslappers...
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!
Sam Vimes wrote: » Israel and Palestine have nothing on us On a side note, everyone thinks my name is vines It's Vimes
Dades wrote: » "claiming that God knows best allows us to avoid facing up to the reality of this situation."
JimiTime wrote: » I just don't see anything positive in it.
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!
Sam Vimes wrote: » On a side note, everyone thinks my name is vines It's Vimes
Wacker wrote: » Wow, sorry!
stevejazzx wrote: » ..which is Douglas Adams...wait no..the other guy! damn?
Galvasean wrote: » Well i'll be damned... When did you change it?
Daftendirekt wrote: » Didn't realise they had internet in Ankh Morpork :pac:
Sam Vimes wrote: » It's this guy
Galvasean wrote: » An australian garage band
Sam Vimes wrote: » I'm very confused. Where did the link to that band come from?
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.
Galvasean wrote: » You posted it!
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.
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
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.
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.
Malty_T wrote: » Stonewalling???
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?"
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.
liamw wrote: » I'm not sure how one can argue for non-belief in something, but please go ahead and start that thread
