A False Dilemma, in Atheism

In order to validate their own superstitious beliefs theists have to convince others to believe in the same superstitions. If they can then that convinces them that they must be right to believe in their superstitions.

When they can't it upsets them because it invalidates their beliefs in their superstitions. In essence theists are afraid of discovering that their superstitious beliefs have no substance because they are rejected by those who use rational thought and logic and know that there is no merit to these superstitions.

 

There also seems to be a strange need to attack out of defensive anger that borders on an obsession for a few. As if they feel a need to put the idea of disbelief in their chosen God into the sin category....perhaps a new commandment?

Thou Shalt Not Disbelieve.

 

Yup!

Which is why Theocracies are some of the WORST forms of government in the world because they inflict harsh punishment for failing to believe in the superstitious dogma.

Just look at what happened under the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials.

 

..can't reason, so run to the fallacy resort, and lay on some ad hominem!

Why deflect and heckle a thread clearly labeled as a logical, philosophical discussion?

Desperation? Bigotry? Intolerance? Irrational hatred? If you don't like a discussion/thread, there are others, or you can start your own. What is the point of disrupting and trashing threads you have no interest in? Does everyone have to be like you, or you throw a tantrum?

Does every thread have to be the phony, 'Atheists vs Christians!' flame war? Can others not debate or discuss philosophical and logical matters that interest them?

Pathetic..

 

Phony narratives, disruption, heckling, and religious bigotry.. what a combination!



..ok, i know you guys like a juicy flame war, but this is supposed to be a logical, philosophical discussion.. not a jihadist gathering of Militant Internet Atheists. Can't you find somewhere else your religious zeal could find a better outlet, than heckling here?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
It's not very bright to think there are only two possible conditions , a god or no god.,
It's ignorant to think there can't be other options....that's not very "philosophical"

 

Perhaps you might review your own OP with this in mind?

 

No rebuttal. No arguments given.. just ad hom.

This is 'logical!' to you?

 

No rebuttal, no arguments, just needling, ad hom, and provocation.. just trying to trash the thread? Disrupt so no discussion can take place? Needle me, hoping for return fire, to ban me?

..pathetic..

 

..ok, i know you guys like a juicy flame war, but this is supposed to be a logical, philosophical discussion.. not a jihadist gathering of Militant Internet Atheists. Can't you find somewhere else your religious zeal could find a better outlet, than heckling here?

 

Interesting how that response just goes to substantiate your point regarding "thou shalt not disbelieve".

 

Very. Intolerant Militant Internet Atheists cannot stand diversity of belief, but become enraged if anyone dares to question their arguments or beliefs..

Really? This is an ATHEIST ARGUMENT thread.. theistic arguments are not even the topic.. do you even bother to read, before launching into your talking point tirades? Just pound your propaganda drum, even if it has no bearing on the subject?

 

Ironic PROJECTION duly noted and ignored for derogatory reasons.

 

..i guess not. Is this your 'Sunday go to meetin' gathering?


Or is it something about me, personally? Have some repressed homoerotic fantasies about me, and just can't help yourselves? ..have some sadomasochistic fantasies about Christians, and I'm an easy target? With all the focus on me, and deflecting from the topic, i should be flattered, but seriously, guys.. i don't swing that way. I'm sure on the internet there are plenty of places you can indulge your homoerotic feelings, without disruption. The whole bondage and submissive thing really doesn't appeal to me. Thanks for the offers, though..

 

please, read a ****ing dictionary so you can stop incorrectly using words. You have no idea what an ad hom fallacy is. You just throw it out when your arguments are challenged.

You also have no idea what delusion means (actually you've just been caught selectively editing the defitnion), so please stop using those words until you can use them correctly.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
It's not very bright to think there are only two possible conditions , a god or no god.,
It's ignorant to think there can't be other options....that's not very "philosophical"

No rebuttal. No arguments given. This is "philosophy" to you?

 

Okay....perhaps not.

Have A Nice Day

 

Oh good. More hecklers jumping on the dogpile, or indulging in their homoerotic imaginations.. should i send you guys a picture, so you have a face for your sadomasochistic fantasies?

 

Did you read the OP? Or any of the many responses, filled with dazzling arguments and impeccable logic? No? Just projecting your lack on me? Or still getting worked up with sadistic fantasies?

 

Have you looked up the definition of ad hom, or delusion yet? Because you're using them both incorrectly.

 

You sir....made it a subject by your OP and then continuous ranting after the fact. YOU have become the subject of your own thread by your own doing and design.

I will now use what seems to be your favorite term....PATHETIC.

 

your OP has been completely picked apart and shown to be invalid as a false dichotomy.

 

why bother? Ive got hecklers to say what i really mean, anyway! Logic is wasted, once you guys get going..

I thought you bid me good day?

Not all the way finished, yet?

..right.. with nothing but fallacies and heckling? You just try to use my words, but you don't know what they mean.. but it is arousing, evidently! You guys really get worked up over me!

 

so you can stop being wrong.

you've been given the actual definitions of ad hom and delusion, and you continue to use them incorrectly. It's silly. Your OP has been shown to be a false dichotomy. You have no rebuttal to this, so you throw out "ad hom" having no clue what it means.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
No rebuttal. No arguments given. This is "philosophy" to you?


BTW, I never saw ""dazzling arguments and impeccable logic"" coming from you.