Caveat Lector

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, reader, be ware:

I have been reading some of the exchanges here, and see some reason to suspect that some or all of the self-styled "Strident Atheists" are in fact Christian Apologists, cleverly employing misrepresentation, absurdist logic, and gratuitous discourtesy in a move to lead the most articulate, most informed, and most serious Christians among us to post counter statements which must necessarily show up well against the shabbily discourteous background.

I have to think a genuine antitheist would know the enemy better and would have a greater ratio of reason to Nyaa Nyaa Nyaa.

lol

That is a very amusing reaction. As someone who has consistently presented facts towards religious discussions i have discovered that facts have no effect whatsoever towards someone who is embedded in religion and developed a very efficient teflon coating which repels reason totally. Because people choose religion, not out of reason, but out of the seduction of all the ghostly goodies like afterlife and ultimate justice and a beneficent universe, all of which have absolutely no basis in observed fact.. People who function out of reason can only conclude that faith is a mental disease.

I think you just proved Philologos's point.

Philippians 1:18, mon.

All I have indicated is that religious people are insulted by truth and rational people are amused by nonsense.

Don't forget the other one -

educators are saddened and annoyed by those who are unable or unwilling to get the point and waste class time, negatively impacting those who would learn and discuss.

Can you explain the Holy Trinity, professor? Har de har har. - one of my students, slightly tipsy, in a language course.

If you find it possible to explain the idiotic delusions about a nonexistent deity whose performance even by believers is described to indicate it as as primitive and vicious and totally irrational then I am interested. Can you psychoanalyze Mickey Mouse? He is far more rational and delightful than the Christian God. But just about as believable.

Off the point - I'll give you a B- mostly because of grade inflation and literate bile.

By the bye - since you bring up Mickey - are you Thumper conscious?

Aah. Again the sense of insult when faced with an analysis that indicates you are not offering truth but merely smug delusion. If we are donating letters I'll grant you a Z.

I'm sorry, you don't analyze.

And you don't perceive.

Come,let us reason together.

You say:

Aah. Again the sense of insult when faced with an analysis that indicates you are not offering truth but merely smug delusion.

This is puzzling. When I examine your notice:

"If you find it possible to explain the idiotic delusions about a nonexistent deity whose performance even by believers is described to indicate it as as primitive and vicious and totally
irrational then I am interested. Can you psychoanalyze Mickey Mouse? He is far more rational and delightful than the Christian God. But just about as believable."

I fail to see any analysis, I fail to see any relevance to anything I said. Pray elucidate:

What has my point "educators are saddened and annoyed by those who are unable or unwilling to get the point and waste class time, negatively impacting those who would learn and discuss." got to do with explaining "idiotic delusions" [which it seems I am not to interptret as insult but as cogent exposition] about a deity you assume to be non existen?

My point, my sole point at this point, including the Thumper reference, is that you do NOT offer reason and analysis. Instead, assuming and claiming that reason is pointless when speaking to idiots, you throw out verbiage [to use no more negative term] that simply proves you can;t be bothered to figure out what I did say.

WHICH to go full circle is the behavior I originally described as saddening and annoying.

Insulted? Alas, you would not know where to start to insult me. My brother [you would like him] at least knows enough of what and who I am to make a stab at it.

I think you may be trying to insult me and others. I remain saddened and annoyed. I think your last post I have to give an F.

There is nothing to perceive other than the infantile game of ad hominem commentary which you play and then deny like Clinton denying having had "relations".

Sorry, you are not even amusing any longer. I am not interested in fighting.

Oh I'm so "sorry" to not be amusing. It "saddens" me terribly. "Thanks" so much for your profoundly profane "analysis".