A closer look at demonstration

[gary_s]

Hey, Mitch:

"cherry picking"? I certainly will not abdicate the right to address whatever part of a persons post that someone chooses. In any case, I certainly don't see in Rian's post that it "hinted that this is the only way" an atheist "can think" any more than Yuri's post did. Atheists can fabricate utterly absurd accusations that Christians cower in the face of death so much that they have to make stuff up, but it is plain STUPID in the face of the fact that Christians die in defense of their beliefs. Yeah it isn't merely intolerant it is a slanderous LIE!

Dictionary.com's definition of "slander":

1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.
3. Law . defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.

Focus your attention on definition #3 of slander. I think the word you were looking for was "liable".

Definition of "libel":

1.Law .
a. defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.

Definition of "lie":

1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.

So, I feel safe in saying that "slanderous lie", even when misused, is redundant. What's more, it isn't a lie if someone states something they believe to be true. The correct response to that would be, "you are wrong".

[mitchellmckain]

No this does NOT support Yuri's point. Saying that someone is a Christian because of a fear of hell is a COMPLETELY different thing than saying that Christians believe in God just to sooth a fear of death. Fear of hell is a fear of something unpleasant and a fear of death (which Yuri obviously equates to nonexistence) is a fear of nothing at all.

Well, I think you are splitting hairs on this one. Hell is an unpleasant eternity. Nonexistence can be of no concern or very frightful depending on your personal outlook. The only truly cheerful alternative is the promise of eternity in heaven, and that only comes with belief in a god of some sort. And that does have the power to influence people.

You are kidding right? These supposed hairs I am splitting are bigger than logs even if they ARE in your eye.

I suppose it is possible that there are people who believe in hell before they believe in God but it is far fetched. I mean there are a lot of people who believe in God but don't believe in hell, but I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who believes in hell but does not believe in God. Therefore it is ridiculous in the extreme to support the argument that a lot of people believe a god exists because they are afraid of hell. Sure it is typical intellectual blackmail to get people to follow a particular evangelical cult with the threat threat that their god is going to send them to hell. But to take that threat seriously they have to accept the premise that there is such a god. I suppose there are people whose capacity for simple logic is so impaired that they will believe whatever you tell them for whatever reason or silly argument that you give them, and I suppose it tickles your ego no end to believe that most Christains are so impaired but the same sort of people can buy into atheist rhetoric to believe what atheists tell them for reasons that are just as stupid.

I also repeat the following because your arguments against them are meaningless hot air in that they have no impact whatsoever on these assertions.

I certainly will not abdicate the right to address whatever part of a persons post that someone chooses. Call it pink poka-dotted panthers if you like, it makes no difference whatsoever. But of course I completely dispute your bogus defintion of "cherry picking", which has to do with EVIDENCE and most certianly NOT to do with choosing what part of what a person says that you want to respond to. I absolutely DENY your silly demand regarding what people can or cannot respond to, and insist that we can comment on the use of a single word and completely ignore the rest for whatever reason including the fact that one consideres it far too stupid to waste ones time on.

Atheists can fabricate utterly absurd accusations that Christians cower in the face of death so much that they have to make stuff up, but it is plain STUPID in the face of the fact that Christians die in defense of their beliefs. Yeah it isn't merely intolerant it is a slanderous LIE!

[gary_s]

I suppose it is possible that there are people who believe in hell before they believe in God but it is far fetched. I mean there are a lot of people who believe in God but don't believe in hell, but I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who believes in hell but does not believe in God. Therefore it is ridiculous in the extreme to support the argument that a lot of people believe a god exists because they are afraid of hell. Sure it is typical intellectual blackmail to get people to follow a particular evangelical cult with the threat threat that their god is going to send them to hell. But to take that threat seriously they have to accept the premise that there is such a god.

Yes, I agree with everything you say here. Of course belief in god has to come first, or at least that has to be part of the worldview that is internalized. Hell wouldn't make much sense otherwise. But I'm not saying hell comes before god anyway. I'm saying that when a person is raised from birth to believe in god without question, and with heaven and hell and moral authority as part of that milieu, it can and does become a locked proposition for some. I'm confident that intellectual analysis can overcome this locked proposition, but the reality is that only an extremely small proportion of Christians (particularly those in the South) ever go down that road. It's not an easy road and the only things it promises are expulsion from the religious community, criticism, distrust and perhaps even the withholding of love from family members. Why would any sane person question the validity of their religion? There are zero mechanisms in place to encourage such skepticism and a ton of mechanisms designed to defend against it. And one wall of defense is the threat of hell and the moral authority argument. In fact, those are probably the highest walls of defense in the evangelical community.

I think that, all along, you have misunderstood my defense of Yuri's statements as some sort of manufactured and silly attack on the mental agility of Christians. This isn't so. I don't question the mental capacity of Christians at all; they are as smart as anyone else, but they have a tremendous institution that is determined to prevent them from questioning their religious beliefs. You didn't grow up in a religious institution, but consider the environment you did grow up in. Did it encourage you to think outside it's accepted philosophy? I don't know; I'm asking. In Southern evangelical churches, the answer is a resounding NO! And there can be profound consequences for breaching this invisible barrier. Parents will be stunned to learn of their school-age children reading works of atheists, questioning the tenets of Christianity, or studying the tenets of another religion. And one of the very first rockets fired at them will be: Do you want to go to hell? Little children barely able to read are still told frightening stories of hell in Sunday School. I know this may sound impossible, but sadly it is true, Mitch.

I suppose there are people whose capacity for simple logic is so impaired that they will believe whatever you tell them for whatever reason or silly argument that you give them, and I suppose it tickles your ego no end to believe that most Christians are so impaired but the same sort of people can buy into atheist rhetoric to believe what atheists tell them for reasons that are just as stupid.

But it isn't silly at all, Mitch, and I don't look down on Christians for their beliefs. That's an idea you keep inferring, but I never said any such thing. When you are told from birth to believe something or you will be severely punished for eternity, and almost everyone around you from children to very old people are supporting this commandment, then it would be insane to reject them. How could so many trusted people be wrong? They are your tribe so why would they lead you astray? And it works for any sort of indoctrination, not just religion. Teaching children to believe something because it is true is the crime here. Teaching them what you know and teaching them how to weigh information and sort things out for themselves is the only honest form of teaching at all.

I also repeat the following because your arguments against them are meaningless hot air in that they have no impact whatsoever on these assertions.

I certainly will not abdicate the right to address whatever part of a persons post that someone chooses. Call it pink poka-dotted panthers if you like, it makes no difference whatsoever. But of course I completely dispute your bogus defintion of "cherry picking", which has to do with EVIDENCE and most certianly NOT to do with choosing what part of what a person says that you want to respond to. I absolutely DENY your silly demand regarding what people can or cannot respond to, and insist that we can comment on the use of a single word and completely ignore the rest for whatever reason including the fact that one consideres it far too stupid to waste ones time on.

Atheists can fabricate utterly absurd accusations that Christians cower in the face of death so much that they have to make stuff up, but it is plain STUPID in the face of the fact that Christians die in defense of their beliefs. Yeah it isn't merely intolerant it is a slanderous LIE!

Well, Mitch, if you don't understand these comments then I'm sorry for you and disappointed. I would have thought that you understood the dishonesty of cherry-picking, but perhaps you are not as intelligent as I gave you credit for. Just continue to do it if you like, but you should know that whenever you do, anyone who has any sense is merely laughing at you. You may make a point or two with someone who is mentally retarded, but what kind of victory is that?

And as for your last statement, I repeat that your statement is nothing but an exaggeration conjured in your own mind. I'm not lying when I say that I believe these things to be true about Christians because I know them first hand from Christians. You simply do not have the capacity to accept this information and so you merely cover your ears and say, La, la, la as loudly as you can.

Another angle to examine this is the foxhole atheist argument. I trust you have heard the popular Christian argument that there are no atheists in foxholes because the fast encroachment of death converts even the most reluctant atheist into a god-fearing Christian. Forget for a moment that this is actually a false argument; there are scores of atheists who have survived hellish battles and emerged still as atheistic as they entered. But why would this argument even exist if Christians didn't place such inordinate weight on the fear of death or hell in the first place? Why wouldn't the argument be more akin to: "There are no atheists with college degrees" because when one learns more about the world, they always gravitate toward god. Or perhaps, "There are no atheist philosophers" or "There are no atheist cosmologists" for similar reasoning. No, the only other proclamation you hear is that many atheists have death bed conversions and that many death row inmates convert to Christianity just before being put to death. Both of these myths also support the belief that death is the driving force for accepting god because death puts the fear of god into you and forces you to accept the reality of god just in time to reap his greatest reward. I'm not saying any of these myths are true; I'm saying that Christians perpetuate them and why else would they do so? Why do they place such emphasis on death and not on intellectual evaluation?

[mitchellmckain]

I think that, all along, you have misunderstood my defense of Yuri's statements as some sort of manufactured and silly attack on the mental agility of Christians.

Incorrect. Yuri's statement is just wrong and your defense of it is just wrong wrong. Belief in God is NOT a method of soothing the fear of death or a method of abdicating moral values to authority, any more than unbelief in God is a method of soothing the fear of hell or a method of abdicating any moral values at all. Both of these are just wrong. Sure people can find a way to escape realities and abdicate responsibility from both a theist or atheist framework but it just does not follow that this is the motivation for why people decide as they do on this undecidable issue.

Well, Mitch, if you don't understand these comments then I'm sorry for you and disappointed.

Well gary, I feel sorry for you that people disagreeing with you means you have to "feel sorry for them" and believe that they don't understand you. I don't have any such problem.

I would have thought that you understood the dishonesty of cherry-picking

I do indeed understand the dishonesty of cherry-picking and I even know what this logical fallacy actually refers to no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise.

And as for your last statement, I repeat that your statement is nothing but an exaggeration conjured in your own mind. I'm not lying when I say that I believe these things to be true about Christians because I know them first hand from Christians. You simply do not have the capacity to accept this information and so you merely cover your ears and say, La, la, la as loudly as you can.

More examples of how you just don't seem to be able to accept that people disagree with you.

Another angle to examine this is the foxhole atheist argument. I trust you have heard the popular Christian argument that there are no atheists in foxholes because the fast encroachment of death converts even the most reluctant atheist into a god-fearing Christian. Forget for a moment that this is actually a false argument; there are scores of atheists who have survived hellish battles and emerged still as atheistic as they entered. But why would this argument even exist if Christians didn't place such inordinate weight on the fear of death or hell in the first place?

Yes and Dawkins boasted that any religious people who reads his book "The God Delusion" will be an atheist by the end of it. LOL People say extremely silly things. It does NOT prove anything at all. Again I repeat that these kind of generalizations are the very essence of bigotry and prejudice.

Why wouldn't the argument be more akin to: "There are no atheists with college degrees" because when one learns more about the world, they always gravitate toward god. Or perhaps, "There are no atheist philosophers" or "There are no atheist cosmologists" for similar reasoning.

Yeah and I have heard atheists make claims like "religious people cannot be scientists" and "atheists never become theists". People can be so immersed in "my-side bias" that they become rather blatantly out of touch with reality. (and since you want to look for reasons for feeling sorry for other people) I do not turn these into pictures of atheism in general and I am sorry that you feel the need to indulge in that invalid rhetoric.

[gary_s]

Incorrect. Yuri's statement is just wrong and your defense of it is just wrong wrong. Belief in God is NOT a method of soothing the fear of death or a method of abdicating moral values to authority, any more than unbelief in God is a method of soothing the fear of hell or a method of abdicating any moral values at all. Both of these are just wrong. Sure people can find a way to escape realities and abdicate responsibility from both a theist or atheist framework but it just does not follow that this is the motivation for why people decide as they do on this undecidable issue.

How is it "wrong"? How is my defense of it "wrong"? You are the one making universal and indefensible statements now while mine have always been delivered with specificity. I have explained how regional and cultural differences play into the spectrum of Beliefs of Christians, but you merely whine. Can you please explain why you reject my personal experience with Christians who believe this way? Why is it that you deny this?

I am saddened because you aren't behaving in a rational way, Mitch. I like these discussion boards, but I don't like getting into these childish arguments which you apparently relish. All I ask is that you please behave like an adult.

I do indeed understand the dishonesty of cherry-picking and I even know what this logical fallacy actually refers to no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise.

Wonderful, if you understand it and agree that it is dishonest, then why do you defend your right to engage in it? Do you consider it a valid tactic in debate or discussion even thought it is dishonest?

And as for your last statement, I repeat that your statement is nothing but an exaggeration conjured in your own mind. I'm not lying when I say that I believe these things to be true about Christians because I know them first hand from Christians. You simply do not have the capacity to accept this information and so you merely cover your ears and say, La, la, la as loudly as you can.

More examples of how you just don't seem to be able to accept that people disagree with you.

No, Mitch, you are remembering your own behavior. If you can think back you will remember that this all began because I commented that Yuri's statement was largely true. I also charged Rian with cherry picking and mocking. You disagreed from the start and even justify mocking and derision on the basis that Yuri is A) wrong and B) lying. I have provided sound arguments that he is both A) partially right and B) not lying but rather offering his opinion, which could only be lying if he doesn't believe it. Your logic here is completely vacant and you have resorted to insulting and responding like a child. I can take disagreement, Mitch, but childish behavior is something different. You have not engaged in a discussion here. You have offered no argument, no theories, no facts, just sort of whining and complaining about atheists being intolerant and now you whine that I can't accept disagreement when you began this with disagreement long ago. So it is clearly YOU who cannot tolerate disagreement. I'm open to discussion, but you can't label mockery and derision as discussion and just saying "You're wrong!" isn't a discussion either. Grow up and act like an adult for a change and I'll stop treating you like a child. I know you are capable of it because you do it on threads when you feel like it.

Yes and Dawkins boasted that any religious people who reads his book "The God Delusion" will be an atheist by the end of it. LOL People say extremely silly things. It does NOT prove anything at all. Again I repeat that these kind of generalizations are the very essence of bigotry and prejudice.

So what? What does this mean? You haven't proven a thing except that Dawkins thinks that if people read his book they will become an atheist. It could be right or wrong, I have no way of knowing. At least he's making an argument that he can convince you by intelligent argument and not threatening to send you to an atheist version of hell. You obviously can't address my point, so you dodge it and make up an irrelevant point of your own. And yes, you are absolutely correct, when Christians make such generalizations about atheists in foxholes, they are the very essence of bigotry and prejudice, and a whopping helping of ignorance as well. Not to mention lying. Heck, there's a whole lot of dishonest and deplorable things going on in such a generalization, so the only question remains is why Christians keep saying such bigoted things?

Why wouldn't the argument be more akin to: "There are no atheists with college degrees" because when one learns more about the world, they always gravitate toward god. Or perhaps, "There are no atheist philosophers" or "There are no atheist cosmologists" for similar reasoning.

Yeah and I have heard atheist make claims like "religious people cannot be scientists" and "atheists never become theists". People can be so immersed in "my-side bias" that they become rather blatantly out of touch with reality.

Well, I never suggested that bias doesn't work both ways; I know it does. But the only salient point here is that I've never engaged in any one-side bias here, nor invalid rhetoric. If you will remember, I said I'm open to the idea that atheists are just sin-avoiders, but I've never met any who fit that definition. You just said you do know some like that and offered nothing else. OK, fine. You know some atheists that are very different from the one's I know. At least I never called you a liar!

(and since you want to look for reasons for feeling sorry for other people) I do not turn these into pictures of atheism in general and I am sorry that you feel the need to indulge in that invalid rhetoric.

With you, Mitch, I don't have to look for reasons; you provide them too easily. And please feel sorry for me all you want, but don't put words in my mouth. My argument are sound.

You again simply ignored my comment and ranted about things that are not important. Why don't Christians argue that learning more about the world leads one to Christianity? This would seem to be a sensible plan, but rather they focus on the fear-inducing death and hell as driving points for accepting Christianity.

[gary_s]

It seems that any time a statement is made that Mitch considers to be intolerant or bigoted or otherwise beneath his definition of defensible, he chooses to decry it as insulting and refuses to engage in actual discussion or conversation about it, but is willing to engage in never ending campaigns of childish tit for tat. Does anyone beside me see this as anything other than childish behavior? I am an adult and I assume that everyone else here is as well. When I have differences with people in real life, we don't regress to childish behavior such as calling names, ranting and mocking. I'm perfectly willing to hear out anyone's argument for why I am wrong on any given topic, but that means you have to at the very least put forth some kind of reasonable argument, not just saying, "you're wrong" and then launching into childish rants. I very much believe that the way to get someone to understand how they might be wrong is to explain it to them in an adult way. Is anyone else weary of Mitch's child-like antics?

[gary_s]

Since Mitch basically ignored almost all of my arguments and discussion here, I'm going to post the entire post again, hoping someone might comments with something reasonable.

I suppose it is possible that there are people who believe in hell before they believe in God but it is far fetched. I mean there are a lot of people who believe in God but don't believe in hell, but I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who believes in hell but does not believe in God. Therefore it is ridiculous in the extreme to support the argument that a lot of people believe a god exists because they are afraid of hell. Sure it is typical intellectual blackmail to get people to follow a particular evangelical cult with the threat threat that their god is going to send them to hell. But to take that threat seriously they have to accept the premise that there is such a god.

Yes, I agree with everything you say here. Of course belief in god has to come first, or at least that has to be part of the worldview that is internalized. Hell wouldn't make much sense otherwise. But I'm not saying hell comes before god anyway. I'm saying that when a person is raised from birth to believe in god without question, and with heaven and hell and moral authority as part of that milieu, it can and does become a locked proposition for some. I'm confident that intellectual analysis can overcome this locked proposition, but the reality is that only an extremely small proportion of Christians (particularly those in the South) ever go down that road. It's not an easy road and the only things it promises are expulsion from the religious community, criticism, distrust and perhaps even the withholding of love from family members. Why would any sane person question the validity of their religion? There are zero mechanisms in place to encourage such skepticism and a ton of mechanisms designed to defend against it. And one wall of defense is the threat of hell and the moral authority argument. In fact, those are probably the highest walls of defense in the evangelical community.

I think that, all along, you have misunderstood my defense of Yuri's statements as some sort of manufactured and silly attack on the mental agility of Christians. This isn't so. I don't question the mental capacity of Christians at all; they are as smart as anyone else, but they have a tremendous institution that is determined to prevent them from questioning their religious beliefs. You didn't grow up in a religious institution, but consider the environment you did grow up in. Did it encourage you to think outside it's accepted philosophy? I don't know; I'm asking. In Southern evangelical churches, the answer is a resounding NO! And there can be profound consequences for breaching this invisible barrier. Parents will be stunned to learn of their school-age children reading works of atheists, questioning the tenets of Christianity, or studying the tenets of another religion. And one of the very first rockets fired at them will be: Do you want to go to hell? Little children barely able to read are still told frightening stories of hell in Sunday School. I know this may sound impossible, but sadly it is true, Mitch.

I suppose there are people whose capacity for simple logic is so impaired that they will believe whatever you tell them for whatever reason or silly argument that you give them, and I suppose it tickles your ego no end to believe that most Christians are so impaired but the same sort of people can buy into atheist rhetoric to believe what atheists tell them for reasons that are just as stupid.

But it isn't silly at all, Mitch, and I don't look down on Christians for their beliefs. That's an idea you keep inferring, but I never said any such thing. When you are told from birth to believe something or you will be severely punished for eternity, and almost everyone around you from children to very old people are supporting this commandment, then it would be insane to reject them. How could so many trusted people be wrong? They are your tribe so why would they lead you astray? And it works for any sort of indoctrination, not just religion. Teaching children to believe something because it is true is the crime here. Teaching them what you know and teaching them how to weigh information and sort things out for themselves is the only honest form of teaching at all.

I also repeat the following because your arguments against them are meaningless hot air in that they have no impact whatsoever on these assertions.

I certainly will not abdicate the right to address whatever part of a persons post that someone chooses. Call it pink poka-dotted panthers if you like, it makes no difference whatsoever. But of course I completely dispute your bogus defintion of "cherry picking", which has to do with EVIDENCE and most certianly NOT to do with choosing what part of what a person says that you want to respond to. I absolutely DENY your silly demand regarding what people can or cannot respond to, and insist that we can comment on the use of a single word and completely ignore the rest for whatever reason including the fact that one consideres it far too stupid to waste ones time on.

Atheists can fabricate utterly absurd accusations that Christians cower in the face of death so much that they have to make stuff up, but it is plain STUPID in the face of the fact that Christians die in defense of their beliefs. Yeah it isn't merely intolerant it is a slanderous LIE!

Well, Mitch, if you don't understand these comments then I'm sorry for you and disappointed. I would have thought that you understood the dishonesty of cherry-picking, but perhaps you are not as intelligent as I gave you credit for. Just continue to do it if you like, but you should know that whenever you do, anyone who has any sense is merely laughing at you. You may make a point or two with someone who is mentally retarded, but what kind of victory is that?

And as for your last statement, I repeat that your statement is nothing but an exaggeration conjured in your own mind. I'm not lying when I say that I believe these things to be true about Christians because I know them first hand from Christians. You simply do not have the capacity to accept this information and so you merely cover your ears and say, La, la, la as loudly as you can.

Another angle to examine this is the foxhole atheist argument. I trust you have heard the popular Christian argument that there are no atheists in foxholes because the fast encroachment of death converts even the most reluctant atheist into a god-fearing Christian. Forget for a moment that this is actually a false argument; there are scores of atheists who have survived hellish battles and emerged still as atheistic as they entered. But why would this argument even exist if Christians didn't place such inordinate weight on the fear of death or hell in the first place? Why wouldn't the argument be more akin to: "There are no atheists with college degrees" because when one learns more about the world, they always gravitate toward god. Or perhaps, "There are no atheist philosophers" or "There are no atheist cosmologists" for similar reasoning. No, the only other proclamation you hear is that many atheists have death bed conversions and that many death row inmates convert to Christianity just before being put to death. Both of these myths also support the belief that death is the driving force for accepting god because death puts the fear of god into you and forces you to accept the reality of god just in time to reap his greatest reward. I'm not saying any of these myths are true; I'm saying that Christians perpetuate them and why else would they do so? Why do they place such emphasis on death and not on intellectual evaluation?

[mitchellmckain]

I think that, all along, you have misunderstood my defense of Yuri's statements as some sort of manufactured and silly attack on the mental agility of Christians.

Incorrect. Yuri's statement is just wrong and your defense of it is just wrong wrong. Belief in God is NOT a method of soothing the fear of death or a method of abdicating moral values to authority, any more than unbelief in God is a method of soothing the fear of hell or a method of abdicating any moral values at all. Both of these are just wrong. Sure people can find a way to escape realities and abdicate responsibility from both a theist or atheist framework but it just does not follow that this is the motivation for why people decide as they do on this undecidable issue.

Well, Mitch, if you don't understand these comments then I'm sorry for you and disappointed.

Well gary, I feel sorry for you that people disagreeing with you means you have to "feel sorry for them" and believe that they don't understand you. I don't have any such problem.

I would have thought that you understood the dishonesty of cherry-picking

I do indeed understand the dishonesty of cherry-picking and I even know what this logical fallacy actually refers to no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise.

And as for your last statement, I repeat that your statement is nothing but an exaggeration conjured in your own mind. I'm not lying when I say that I believe these things to be true about Christians because I know them first hand from Christians. You simply do not have the capacity to accept this information and so you merely cover your ears and say, La, la, la as loudly as you can.

More examples of how you just don't seem to be able to accept that people disagree with you.

Another angle to examine this is the foxhole atheist argument. I trust you have heard the popular Christian argument that there are no atheists in foxholes because the fast encroachment of death converts even the most reluctant atheist into a god-fearing Christian. Forget for a moment that this is actually a false argument; there are scores of atheists who have survived hellish battles and emerged still as atheistic as they entered. But why would this argument even exist if Christians didn't place such inordinate weight on the fear of death or hell in the first place?

Yes and Dawkins boasted that any religious people who reads his book "The God Delusion" will be an atheist by the end of it. LOL People say extremely silly things. It does NOT prove anything at all. Again I repeat that these kind of generalizations are the very essence of bigotry and prejudice.

Why wouldn't the argument be more akin to: "There are no atheists with college degrees" because when one learns more about the world, they always gravitate toward god. Or perhaps, "There are no atheist philosophers" or "There are no atheist cosmologists" for similar reasoning.

Yeah and I have heard atheists make claims like "religious people cannot be scientists" and "atheists never become theists". People can be so immersed in "my-side bias" that they become rather blatantly out of touch with reality. (and since you want to look for reasons for feeling sorry for other people) I do not turn these into pictures of atheism in general and I am sorry that you feel the need to indulge in that invalid rhetoric.

-----------------

It seems that any time a statement is made that gary disagrees with, he chooses to decry it as insulting and refuses to engage in actual discussion or conversation about it, but embarks instead on never ending campaigns of personal assassination. I make no assumptions about the adulthood of the person I am talking and do not need to because I treat everyone as an adult. When I have differences with people outside the internet, we don't regress to childish behavior such as calling names, ranting and mocking. But I am pretty sure this is because people are more careful about expressing their opinions mostly not saying much of anything at all. I'm perfectly willing to hear out anyone's argument for why I am wrong on any given topic, but that means you have to at the very least put forth some kind of reasonable argument, not just launching into rants about how there must be something wrong with me. I very much believe that the way to get someone to understand how they might be wrong is to explain it to them without a bunch of condescending hot air about how you are the adult and they are just children.

[gary_s]

Mitch, I can keep this up as long as you can. Let's just see how long you can behave like a five year old, shall we? Everyone, this is little baby Mitch throwing another one of his tantrums because someone refuses to bow before his majestic powers of control. Hint, they are imaginary of course, but Mitch doesn't know it.

In the meantime, is there anyone else who would like to have an adult conversation about this?

[gary_s]

By the way Mitch, you can proclaim your right to mock anyone you like anytime you want. So I proclaim my right to state whatever opinion I have, right or wrong, and defend it as a mature adult.

[mitchellmckain]

Mitch, I can keep this up as long as you can.

Well I make no such promises to continue indulging your desire to do this.

Let's just see how long you can behave like a five year old, shall we?

Let's just see how long you can continue deluding yourself that you are so much better than those who dare to disagree with you.

Everyone, this is pope gary continuing to rant about how he is the adult and the people who disagree with him are just children.

In the meantime, is there anyone else who would like to have an adult conversation about this?

Translation: if you join the thread to agree with gary then he will call you an adult but otherwise he will call you a child the same as he does me.

OR... what actualy is the mature way of handling disagreements? You simply acknowledge that this is something that you disagree upon and leave it there without having to tell them about all these things that you like to imagine is wrong with them. In this case the disagreement is in regards to the statement of Rian at the bottom of the first page of the thread which I think is quite appropriate but gary wants to dictate rules of proper discussion that he has invented that basically amounts to saying that just because atheists say ridiculous things about theists that does not mean that theists can show everyone how the same tactics are just as objectionable to atheists when used on them.

By the way Mitch, you can proclaim your right to mock anyone you like anytime you want. So I proclaim my right to state whatever opinion I have, right or wrong, and defend it as a mature adult.

I have no desire to mock anyone, but I certainly claim the right to turn the tables on those who mock other people. I not only recognize your right to state whatever opinion you have but will defend it, as I have defended Rian's in this case.

[gary_s]

Well I make no such promises to continue indulging your desire to do this.

I have no desire for childish quarrels, Mitch. Good discussion, yes. That's all I've asked for. When you stop this childish ranting about intolerance when there is none, then real conversation can begin. And by the way, you have yet to address my comments about Christians in any sort of a reasonable way. You just said they were intolerant and bigoted. That's not a response; that's an indictment.

Let's just see how long you can continue deluding yourself that you are so much better than those who dare to disagree with you.

Please, no one here is buying that load of crap. I made reasonable and mature comments. You are the one with continuous childish rants and demands that everyone else is being "intolerant, bigoted and prejudice" because THEY DON'T AGREE WITH YOU, Mitch. Any time you read something you disagree with, you throw out those tired old charges as if there is a jury sitting there keeping score.

Everyone, this is pope gary continuing to rant about how he is the adult and the people who disagree with him are just children.

Yes, please continue to show us how children behave when they don't get their way. In this case it is me shutting up, isn't it? Well, I will not shut up for you. I will continue to make mature statements about mature topics and watch you continue to make a fool of yourself.

Translation: if you join the thread to agree with gary then he will call you an adult but otherwise he will call you a child the same as he does me.

No, I've never complained about disagreement, but I'm not going to just bow before you if I disagree; I'm going to explain why I see it differently. You're the one who throws a tantrum if the conversation doesn't begin to bend to your favor. You are the one who called me intolerant and bigoted. All I ever said is that I agreed with Yuri's comments and gave my reasons why. How does that resemble your fantasy you are pitching here?

OR... what actualy is the mature way of handling disagreements? You simply acknowledge that this is something that you disagree upon and leave it there without having to tell them about all these things that you like to imagine is wrong with them. In this case the disagreement is in regards to the statement of Rian at the bottom of the first page of the thread which I think is quite appropriate but gary wants to dictate rules of proper discussion that he has invented that basically amounts to saying that just because atheists say ridiculous things about theists that does not mean that theists can show everyone how the same tactics are just as objectionable to atheists when used on them.

Not at all. I called out Rian's comments as rude, but I've called out atheist comments in the same way before, just look them up if you don't believe me. I did nothing unreasonable here. If someone posts their opinion and it offends you, then you are the first person to mock them and insult them about it. So who has a problem with disagreement? Clearly it is you.

[gary_s]

Well I make no such promises to continue indulging your desire to do this.

I'm sorry, was that an admission that you will cease your childish antics? Well, welcome it is then.

[gary_s]

Let's just see how long you can continue deluding yourself that you are so much better than those who dare to disagree with you.

I consider myself better than no one. But I do consider myself a much better debater than a jackass who cannot respond to an intellectual statement with another intelligent statement.

Everyone, this is gary continuing to rant about how he is the adult and the people who disagree with him are just children.

No, this is gary waiting on an intelligent response by Sir Mitch, the Lord of Intolerance.

[mitchellmckain]

And by the way, you have yet to address my comments about Christians in any sort of a reasonable way. You just said they were intolerant and bigoted. That's not a response; that's an indictment.

I am sorry but I don't know what you want or even what you are talking about exactly. Do you have a question for me?

Please, no one here is buying that load of crap. I made reasonable and mature comments. You are the one with continuous childish rants and demands that everyone else is being "intolerant, bigoted and prejudice" because THEY DON'T AGREE WITH YOU, Mitch. Any time you read something you disagree with, you throw out those tired old charges as if there is a jury sitting there keeping score.

I am certainly not buying your load of crap. I see your continuous ranting about how you are mature and how I am being childish, and no I don't accept that as an example of being reasonalbe and mature or anything that is worthy of immitation. There is a type of thinking that I consider to be inconsistent with the principles of a free society and no I will not stop pointing this out when I see it.

In this case it is me shutting up, isn't it? Well, I will not shut up for you.

Nope. My objective would be to help you step out of the confines of your own thinking to see how things might look to someone else from their perspective.

I will continue to make mature statements about mature topics and watch you continue to make a fool of yourself.

Well I certainly applaud your attempt to live up to whatever ideals of "maturity" or whatever that you may have. But I will refrain from comment on your maturity or foolishness. I find that sort of topic a little boring.

No, I've never complained about disagreement, but I'm not going to just bow before you if I disagree; I'm going to explain why I see it differently. You're the one who throws a tantrum if the conversation doesn't begin to bend to your favor. You are the one who called me intolerant and bigoted. All I ever said is that I agreed with Yuri's comments and gave my reasons why. How does that resemble your fantasy you are pitching here?

I think that your behavior in this thread is far more tantrum-like than anyone elses. And no I don't think that I called you intolerant and bigoted -- certainly not because you disagree with me. I agree with Rian's response to Yuri and I gave my reasons why.

Not at all. I called out Rian's comments as rude, but I've called out atheist comments in the same way before, just look them up if you don't believe me. I did nothing unreasonable here. If someone posts their opinion and it offends you, then you are the first person to mock them and insult them about it. So who has a problem with disagreement? Clearly it is you.

No that does not logically follow. If someone uses an argument or tactic that I think is intolerant and offensive then I try to demonstrate it by showing how the same kind of argument or tactic can be used in a way that is offensive to them.

Clearly there are all kinds of issues where I have no problems with disagreements whatsoever and you have seen this repeatedly in other threads. But when I see people passing judgement on people different from them and dictating the the thinking and motivations of other people to fit their inane strawman arguments then I most certainly will object because those are NOT neutral opinions -- they are offensive by their very nature.