Let's have a little post about respect...

I think there's great confusion as to what respect is, and the different levels of it exist in conversation, especially when it comes to belief and religion.

Now, to illustrate this point, I'm going to make analogies that, to some people, may be offensive, but its to illuminate a point. If you wish to complain, well, that's what the reply button is for, so fire away!

Respect can be too often used as a weasel word of sorts, basically meaning that someone accords a belief or argument to be as valid as their own and yet not agree with it. The problem, of course, is when people can't regard that belief or argument to be valid at all.

There's also a difference in respect in this regard, I can respect a person, but not the beliefs they hold, but ONLY if those beliefs don't jeopardize the respect I have for them AS a person. I can respect someone who believes in a God, and is otherwise a decent human being, I can't respect someone who believe interracial marriage is wrong, its simply not possible.

That is about people, and frankly this is something too many miss, respect has to be earned, not given. I meet a stranger, that stranger may earn my respect or not, depends on their attitude, how nice they are, etc. I've lost plenty of potential friends when I found out about their racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc.

Now, as far as respecting beliefs, this is done in a way similar to how we judge people, and everyone judges, don't fool yourselves, we also judge beliefs, sometimes combined with how we judge individuals, but also on their own as well.

If someone came up to you and had said they had an epiphany that God is talking to them, and tells them the secrets of the universe, and that he needs to spread the word, what would you think? Be honest here, even most religious people will think the guy is crazy, and will accord his belief absolutely no respect. Now the guy in question may be the nicest guy in the world, but it doesn't matter, our opinion of him and/or his belief may be that he is insane. As long as he's not an immediate danger to those around him, we may respect his right to be crazy, but it doesn't change the fact that he is crazy.

Now, extend this to other beliefs, removed from the conduct of the person in question. Think about this honestly, would you respect the belief that the Earth is hollow, or that the Earth is 6,000 years old? How about the belief that the moon landings were faked? Or even better, that Atlantis existed?

Now many people will say that such beliefs are harmless, and they would, more or less, be right, except for the indirect harm caused by spreading misinformation in abstract or theoretical grounds. This doesn't mean we should accord those beliefs with any respectability, indeed they should be derided as being stupid, because they are either assertions without evidence, or assertions made in spite of contrary evidence. The idea that "both sides have good points" or "both sides are valid" is stupid, harmful, and untrue when it comes to claims made that are unsupported by the evidence or run contrary to the facts.

Let's up the stakes a little bit, what about the false link between MMR vaccine and autism? Should we respect the beliefs of parents who refuse to vaccinate their children? Even when it could kill, and has killed, other people's children? What about the priest in Africa who says that condoms fail to prevent the spread of the HIV virus? Should we accord that belief with respect? Even when more people become infected everyday because of this misinformation? Hell, what about those who say there is no link between HIV and AIDS, refusing treatments for themselves, and trying to convince others to not take treatments, should their beliefs be accorded respect?

Now, notice, I said nothing about respecting the individuals who hold these beliefs, they may be the nicest people in the world, however, some of their beliefs can cause unbelievable damage to the world. Hell, there are measles and mumps outbreaks in Europe, people have died of measles, for the first time in a generation, over that false belief alone. Only time will tell how many, possibly millions, will die of AIDS in Africa over the beliefs I mentioned above as well.

Yet even here, I made a distinction that isn't really there, between harmless and harmful beliefs, beliefs that have a commonality, that they are assertions with either no factual basis, or who run counter to the evidence. The problem is that having beliefs that have no basis in evidence or reason are dangerous all on their own. Some could be considered less harmful than others, but all, in the end, can and do cause harm.

The most important thing is this, it doesn't matter WHERE the belief comes from, it should be weighed and judged on by the evidence either for it or against it. If someone says a belief comes from the Bible, and you find it there, then why can't you judge the Bible on its own merits and assertions? Same can be said for any holy book or creed of any religion. Why should they be accorded automatic respectability?

Its the assurance that you are right without evidence to back it up that is the true problem, because it can lead to absolutism and doubt in the veracity of evidence, science, and reason. Oh, and before anyone accuses me of this, I don't sell assurance, I sell doubt, for I never claimed to have all the answers, indeed, there is quite a bit I don't know, at least I'm smart enough to know NOT to make statements of beliefs I know I can't prove.

...and now some will say they've read it and/or feel compelled to!

The rec's are in appreciation of a sizable post calling for belief tolerance, which i got in the first sentence.

...but were you one of those people who didn't read it because it was too long, and thus just stopped at that first sentence and leaped to a conclusion about what the rest said?

The post was not about "belief tolerance". It was about innapropriate expectiations for beliefs to be respected in ways they haven't earned, or innapropriate expectations that people be afforded respect in a manner divorced from the existence of beliefs they hold that should rule out respecting them.

Unfortunately, the people that most need to understand this reasoning cannot and will not even try.

Unfortunately the OP omits the most fundamental aspects of respect…the basic manners to actually listen (read) hear and understand what the other is saying prior to any notion of agreement/ disagreement.
The hallmarks of disrespect most frequently encountered hereabouts are-
Straw man responses that bare no relation to anything being responded to…or worse, blatant misrepresentation, forgery, lie.
The refusal to answer pertinent questions even when those questions seek understanding/clarification of the others pov.
The preparedness to make assertions/allegations re what the other has supposedly said followed by the steadfast refusal to substantiate/justify.

When these standard operating procedures are in play respect/disrespect for the others beliefs is irrelevant because those beliefs are all too often the straw man fabrication and projection of the respondent.

As one participant explained not so long ago…when certain key words are invoked (ie ‘religion’) a “little J Falwell bobble doll” goes off in their head….and that is what they are responding to.

“The most important thing is this, it doesn't matter WHERE the belief comes from, it should be weighed and judged on by the evidence either for it or against it. …….Why should they be accorded automatic respectability?”

Agreed.
Problem is there are legitimate beliefs/conclusions/theories/possibilities that never even reach the point of respect of “judged by the evidence” because they are either steadfastly ignored or contemptuously rejected prior to any consideration whatsoever. ie The concept/theory of Progressive Revelation (Evolution of Religion) is well established and well known within academic and comparative religion circles. This concept has been raised on this board at least a dozen times in the last four years and yet (presumably because it does not fit within the bash the fundie Christian paradigm) the only ‘respectful’ consideration/response has been- “What’s this shit your throwing at me”.

The problem is, all too often, not the expectation of “automatic respect” for a stated belief but rather automatic assumption of belief, automatic projection of belief, automatic falsification of belief and automatic shitting on assumed belief prior to any presentation of evidence that could be judged.

and a few key names and you have something that you and several others in R/T should read very carefully, too.

for the non-believers. I didn't think it was that confusing.

You have asked me for substantiation of a claim…I have provided it.

I am now asking you for explanation/clarification of your allusion.
If you believe I have failed to display due respect to atheists then cite and substantiate.

Don’t refer to it, don’t allude or suggest it, put it on the table for all to see.

but I'm afraid you're howling in the wind. The last time I tried to make a point like this in an OP, many of those who disagreed simply got nasty about it and we basically got nowhere. See for yourself: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/darkstar3/1

From the linked 'Respect' thread
270. A cursory summary of ‘Respect’ displays thus far
shows the atheist brethren managing to induce the following responses-

“I give up. I don't even care anymore. be happy in your certainty that you know it all. I give up caring about this anymore”

“Strawmen upon strawmen they are not helpfull and too much of them to get into details.”

“You make false assumptions about my opinions and present them as facts. If you want to know my opinions, ask, don't presume “

“Why such hostility? Why do you act like I belong to some enemy camp? What's the war about?”


It’s a good thing we’re in the ‘Respect’ thread and not the Game On thread.

From #26
I repeat the point and question-

How can there be respect for the others pov if you are inventing/manufacturing it for them?
If your not actively listening/reading, not checking for the others meaning and intent but continually assuming and projecting your own…how can there be respect?
.................................................................................

That "many of those who disagreed simply got nasty about it" would require some...one...any... substantiation examples.

Respect is demonstrated by ignoring pertinent questions and refusing substantiation?

of the exact problem that my thread and this one were trying to address. Your cursory summary shows that the believers in that thread require special treatment of their religion or else they get testy. And your question is only pertininent as an example of how people purposely mistreat the word "respect" in order to obtain that special treatment of religious beliefs.

Once again, in your attempt to claim that there is no substantiation, you provide that substantiation. You really are bad at this.

“Your cursory summary shows that the believers in that thread require special treatment of their religion or else they get testy.”

The last two “example” quotes come from A SCEPTIC! An declared OPPONENT OF MONOTHEISM!
NO “religion” to get “testy” about!
Religion/belief was assumed and projected upon them in an ongoing hostile manner prompting the objection-
“Why such hostility? Why do you act like I belong to some enemy camp? What's the war about?”

This presumption/projection/invention of enemy theists is constant.
You demonstrate this blatant falsifying disrespect for clearly stated pov in #31-
"he or some other theist"

It doesn’t matter what someone’s stated pov is…if they are not ‘on side’ with the anti religion brigade they are Fair Game.

“And your question is only pertininent as an example of how people purposely mistreat the word "respect" in order to obtain that special treatment of religious beliefs.”

Yea? Here’s the question again…feel free to identify the “purposeful mistreatment of the word "respect" in order to obtain that special treatment of religious beliefs.”


“How can there be respect for the others pov if you are inventing/manufacturing it for them?
If your not actively listening/reading, not checking for the others meaning and intent but continually assuming and projecting your own…how can there be respect?”

Experience tells me ‘respect’ will be demonstrated in the reasonable request being ignored/evaded.

Don't be one of those people for whom this line is applicable:
"Experience tells me ‘respect’ will be demonstrated in the reasonable request being ignored/evaded."

ETA: Post #35 in case you missed it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I made a post asking you to substantiate a claim that you made. You subsequently replied to a post on the same thread telling that person that they would most likely ignore your reasonable request. You made that reply with a rather snarky undertone, imho. I, then, reminded you that in the same way that you were holding people in this thread to a certain standard, that I was expecting the same standard to apply to you. I think that is respect. You have made it very clear what you hold as the standard for substantiating claims. I am asking you to hold yourself to the same standard. You respond to that simple request with venom. I think that speaks miles for the type of person you are and why you are doing the things you are doing. You don't really believe in your standard, you just want to wield it like a weapon to clear the room. If you believed in it, you would reply to my post below with your evidence. You have not and I assume you will not. In which case you lose. If I am involved in discussion/threads with you from this point on, I will make it a point to hold you to your own standard until you admit it is a crappy standard.

I know I'm not your mother. I'm merely asking you to do those things that you ask others to do.

So what’s that about?

“I made a post asking you to substantiate a claim that you made”

Yup, #34, at 10:24AM,
Post concludes “Waiting patiently”
And at 10:58 AM in response to a separate post your already hassling for an answer .

“You subsequently replied to a post on the same thread telling that person that they would most likely ignore your reasonable request.”

And they did, and in the process falsely accuced me of “lying”…But that’s between me, them and possibly the Mods.

What does it have to do with you “Waiting patiently” at 10:24 and hassling for an answer at 10:58?

“I, then, reminded you that in the same way that you were holding people in this thread to a certain standard, that I was expecting the same standard to apply to you.”

Bulldust. I have never requested substantiation in one post and hassled for it 30minutes later.
That’s a crap “standard” of your own devising and play.
I have however requested substantiation on innumerable occasions and >never< received same…and that is the Standard “standard” for the individual you refer to.

“. I think that is respect”

That one person ought never explain, justify or substantiate and another be expected to do so in 30minutes?
That bizarre double standard is not ‘respect’.

“You have made it very clear what you hold as the standard for substantiating claims. I am asking you to hold yourself to the same standard”

I have done so. #42, 11:50AM. Cited and substantiated the quotes falsely deeming and designating enemy of atheism status- “Anti-atheism bigotry”, “anti-atheist sentiment” and “hatred of atheism”.
You insist the words “enemy of atheism” must be in evidence and ……that’s just bizarre.

“You respond to that simple request with venom”

Ah huh…..And your gonna show me the substantiating examples of my “venom”?...that I can put with the substantiating examples of my “Anti-atheism bigotry”, “anti-atheist sentiment” and “hatred of atheism” ????

Face it….you’ve got nothing so you invent crap allegations to personalise and attack the individual rather than the issue-
“. I think that speaks miles for the type of person you are and why you are doing the things you are doing”

Great ‘debate’ style ;-) Resort to oblique vague reference- “the things” I am supposedly doing so as to demean character-“ the type of person”.

What’s the OP theme again?

“If you believed in it, you would reply to my post below with your evidence. You have not and I assume you will not.”

It’s done. So is your argument and your baseless assumptions. Like a Dinner. To a crisp.
The “evidence” is provided. You turn your tribal blind eye to it and pretend that allegedly expressing “Anti-atheism bigotry”, “anti-atheist sentiment” does not deem one an enemy of atheism.

And you couldn’t care less that such baseless false and unsubstantiated allegations have been going on for years- are employed to demean character and falsify intent- and serve to solidify the tribal bonds by creating enemies that don’t exist.

Again: I am holding you to your same standard.

You claimed you were called an "enemy of atheism." All you have to say is:

"The “evidence” is provided. You turn your tribal blind eye to it and pretend that allegedly expressing “Anti-atheism bigotry”, “anti-atheist sentiment” does not deem one an enemy of atheism."

That is not the same thing. Look at your posts in this thread alone. You wouldn't and didn't accept that from others so why should we accept it from you? You made a claim that you cannot literally defend. Inference is not enough. You didn't let me get away with it so why should I let you get away with it. Here are your options:

1. provide the post with the exact wording,
2. admit you made a baseless claim,
3. admit that your standard is inane and that my expansion/explanation of what trotsky had mentioned is valid and a reasonable example and that the exact wording of "evil vile" or whatever isn't needed to prove the point.

Other than those 3, you will get more of the same from me:
Provide a specific post that called you exactly what you said you were called.

“You claimed you were called an "enemy of atheism." “

No I didn’t. Nor did I ever put the phrase in quotation marks…you did.
And now you insist on falsifying what I said. I never claimed I was “called” an "enemy of atheism."
Second time round so you can cut and ignore it again-
I said (#32) “I was deemed a theist and an enemy of atheists” .

False basless allegations of “Anti-atheism bigotry”, “anti-atheist sentiment” is “not the same thing” as being >deemed< an “enemy of atheists”???
Shit that’s a relief….folk must be lying about what I have said to deem and depict me as friend and supporter……….YA THINK?!

“Look at your posts in this thread alone. You wouldn't and didn't accept that from others so why should we accept it from you?”

I “wouldn't and didn't accept” that anything like ““an evil nasty vile atheist” had been expressed because no evidence was given and that remains the case.

“You made a claim that you cannot literally defend.”

No, I made a reference to being “deemed”/designated and you falsified that to pretend I “claimed” it was something I was “called” and should “literally defend.”
You falsification and pretence of literal quote….you defend it.

“ Here are your options:”-

1/ Demonstrate that I never presented the expression "enemy of atheism." as a quote.
Demonstrate that to be “deemed an enemy of atheists” does not suggest, require or necessitate providing “post with the exact wording”
Demonstrate that you have falsified and misrepresented what I said >as if< I had presented a quote that requires defence.

Option taken.
Job done.

since you post was deleted. FWIW, I didn't alert because I rather like having your rantings out there for everyone to see.

Even and especially those you have raised and now hasten to abandon ;-)

......................................
“You claimed you were called an "enemy of atheism." “

No I didn’t. Nor did I ever put the phrase in quotation marks…you did.
And now you insist on falsifying what I said. I never claimed I was “called” an "enemy of atheism."
Second time round so you can cut and ignore it again-
I said (#32) “I was deemed a theist and an enemy of atheists” .

False basless allegations of “Anti-atheism bigotry”, “anti-atheist sentiment” is “not the same thing” as being >deemed< an “enemy of atheists”???
Shit that’s a relief….folk must be lying about what I have said to deem and depict me as friend and supporter……….YA THINK?!

“Look at your posts in this thread alone. You wouldn't and didn't accept that from others so why should we accept it from you?”

I “wouldn't and didn't accept” that anything like ““an evil nasty vile atheist” had been expressed because no evidence was given and that remains the case.

“You made a claim that you cannot literally defend.”

No, I made a reference to being “deemed”/designated and you falsified that to pretend I “claimed” it was something I was “called” and should “literally defend.”
You falsification and pretence of literal quote….you defend it.

“ Here are your options:”-

1/ Demonstrate that I never presented the expression "enemy of atheism." as a quote.
Demonstrate that to be “deemed an enemy of atheists” does not suggest, require or necessitate providing “post with the exact wording”
Demonstrate that you have falsified and misrepresented what I said >as if< I had presented a quote that requires defence.

Option taken.
Job done.

that's one of the most laughable posts you've made yet. Why? The incredible blindness and hypocrisy. To wit:This is followed closely by:Now, please explain the difference between being called an enemy of atheism and being deemed an enemy of atheists. I'm really curious how you're trying to split this hair.

The funny part, though, comes later in the post when you try and argue Goblinmonger's point that you've been caught applying a double-standard. That double standard is obvious and repeated here in your very own post. You allow yourself to make oblique references and broad brush attacks, but you require that everyone else provide exact quotes for everything they refer to. No one but you is allowed to employ the tools of inference, summary, or paraphrase.

The logical twists and backflips, the glaring hypocrisy, and the obvious hate that infuse your entire posting history have made you a laughingstock. I relish the fact that no one here seems to be taking you seriously.

Thereby, with false, baseless accusation the target of such slander is deemed an enemy of atheism.

Unless you would like to pretend the recipient is being deemed or designated as friend of atheism?

Having puffed such smoke the next step is to assert that the “anti atheist bigot” has chosen his anti atheist “side” and suggest this is confirmed by “ every post in this forum is in support of one specific position,”.

The trick is clearly to rely on generating enough innuendo slander smoke without ever once providing substantiating evidence/example of fire.
So far your doing pretty well....at least...you've got yourself convinced ;-)

You've been caught in a double standard and you are loathe to admit it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

First, read #39. That will be my only answer to your complaint.

Second, that's not one question but instead actually two. It doesn't matter, though, because they both boil down to your favorite red herring. I and others have had the same problem over and over again in past debates with you: When someone quotes you directly or paraphrases something you've said, and then turns that quote or paraphrase against you because you did indeed say something incorrect, offensive, or blatantly stupid (whichever the case may be), you IMMEDIATELY scream that your POV is being twisted, manufactured, or projected. You'll go so far as to contradict yourself, abuse the English language, and attack everyone who ever wronged you for every little thing they've ever said just to put up enough smoke so that you can't possibly look like a fool. There's only one problem with that tactic: The more smoke you blow, the more foolish you look.

Now that I've gotten that off my chest, let's talk about why your question is purposeful mistreatment of the word respect. First, it is a straw man, because no one here has manufactured your point of view or projected one onto you, no matter how many times you'll try to repeat that lie. Second, and probably more importantly, this phrase:ignores completely the point of both my thread and this one by assuming that points of view are automatically deserving of respect. Perhaps if you read more closely, you would understand that this is the exact misconception that is being fought. Points of view are no more deserving of respect than the inane ramblings of insane asylum tenants. It is people to whom respect is and should be given, but that does not extend to a point of view. When you learn to separate your own self from your ideologies, you will have made a step in the right direction.

I would say that I await your response, but frankly I can't guarantee that I won't get bored with your inane misdirection and faux victimhood.

And refusing to have someone demonstrate the most profound disrespect of inventing, falsifying, forging and misrepresenting what I have said?

Nah.

“First, read #39. That will be my only answer to your complaint.”

I read #39. It is the baseless pretense that you are entitled to determine what I actually believe on the flimsiest vague allusion to “support of one specific position,”.

Your inability to specify or provide example renders #39 a non answer and a non starter.

As to the rest.

“ When someone quotes you directly or paraphrases something you've said, and then turns that quote or paraphrase against you because you did indeed say something incorrect, offensive, or blatantly stupid (whichever the case may be), you IMMEDIATELY scream that your POV is being twisted, manufactured, or projected.”

And this is to be ‘taken on faith’ because you claim it is so?....Or you are going to demonstrate respect by providing a single substantiating example?

Perhaps this “quotes you directly or paraphrases” refers to my alleged “Anti-atheism bigotry”, “anti-atheist sentiment” and “hatred of atheism” ????.....................because >nobody< has >ever< done the courtesy of providing quote or origin.
Just like your alleged “support of one specific position,”………baseless, unsubstantiated, phatoms.

“First, it is a straw man, because no one here has manufactured your point of view or projected one onto you, no matter how many times you'll try to repeat that lie.”

Then it should be simple to prove I’m lying.
Show me my expressions of “Anti-atheism bigotry”, “anti-atheist sentiment” and “hatred of atheism”.

If “no one here has manufactured point of view or projected one onto “ and if my “chosen side” anti atheism is explicit in my “support of one specific position,” in “every post make in this forum”…..then abundant examples ought be dead easy to find and put up for all to see.

With ‘respect’….why have you and all others making like allegations consistently and invariably failed to do so?

And you should finish your debate with Goblinmonger regarding your incredible hypocrisy before you continue demanding that people provide you with verbatim quotes.

Not for self, not for other. Not for principle, not for truth.

You have made the allegation/s…why can’t you/wont you defend/justify them?

The question you flee from-

“First, it is a straw man, because no one here has manufactured your point of view or projected one onto you, no matter how many times you'll try to repeat that lie.”

Then it should be simple to prove I’m lying.
Show me my expressions of “Anti-atheism bigotry”, “anti-atheist sentiment” and “hatred of atheism”.

If “no one here has manufactured point of view or projected one onto “ and if my “chosen side” anti atheism is explicit in my “support of one specific position,” in “every post make in this forum”…..then abundant examples ought be dead easy to find and put up for all to see.

With ‘respect’….why have you and all others making like allegations consistently and invariably failed to do so?

Oh, and note the quote marks. That's part of that whole reading comprehension thing.

"The most important thing is this, it doesn't matter WHERE the belief comes from, it should be weighed and judged on by the evidence either for it or against it."

"Its the assurance that you are right without evidence to back it up that is the true problem, because it can lead to absolutism and doubt in the veracity of evidence, science, and reason."

However there are so many many posts here that start off broadbrushing/generalizing whole groups of people or telling other people what that person REALLY believes that it makes hard to respect the person behind those statements. I recently posted what I thought was a pretty respectful logical OP about stereotyping and had it not only immediately misinterpreted but when *I* attempted to clarify what I said, was told that *I* wasn't really saying that. Its hard to hold rational respectful debates with this kind of thing.
In other words in people would stop broad brushing groups and jumping to conclusions based on reading miscomprehension maybe this would be a better place....

Here's just a few:
1) Abortion is murder
2) Homosexuality is wrong
3) Cutting taxes for the rich benefits us all
4) The healthcare reform bill is good start
5) Obama is a great president

Not only are they bashed, they are bashed mercilessly. Lots of flamewars. And people move on. But once you criticize a religious belief, even slightly, you're an evil nasty vile atheist who wants to forcibly de-convert believers at gunpoint.

A lot of us atheists just want to see religious beliefs open to the same kind of criticism that all other beliefs are. I happen to think a whole lot of problems in our society stem from this special protection that religious beliefs get.

“once you criticize a religious belief, even slightly, you're an evil nasty vile atheist who wants to forcibly de-convert believers at gunpoint.”

Ahhhhh huh.

And this incident happened on…?
And evidence of it can be seen at…?
And substantiation is provided through….?

“A lot of us atheists just want to see religious beliefs open to the same kind of criticism that all other beliefs are”

Yea…Dam straight…like beliefs/claims about “evil nasty vile atheist” and de conversion at “gunpoint”.

Was the offender riding a Unicorn?

that for all the time you have spent in R/T that you have NEVER read the "fundie atheists," "militant atheists" memes? Really? Perhaps you are new enough here that you missed the "atheists need to shut up or get out of the party" funfest that came after the RawStory editorial which was fanned here by WillPitt (RIP)? You have missed the "atheism is a belief/religion" and you are just trying to get everyone to switch to your side?

When you act like things that have clearly happened never happened, I think it just makes you look a little silly.

considering that such denial is his MO. If you paraphrase, if you miss one word in a quote, if you so much as attempt to debate one thing he or some other theist says, he denies they ever said it. It would be funny to watch if it didn't make me so frustrated at the current state of education, debate, and general intellectual honesty in this world...

My question was crystal clear precise-
Should there be respect for the ‘belief’ that someone has been called “an evil nasty vile atheist”?

You ignore that and forge/project a supposed “claim” re “NEVER read the "fundie atheists," "militant atheists" memes?

Thank you for demonstrating the ‘respect’ of ignoring entirely what I had asked and supplanting it with your own projected “claim”.


“trying to get everyone to switch to your side?”

I came here 4-5 years ago, an agnostic, WITHOUT A SIDE or any conception that a ‘side’ was necessary. I was designated a side by the atheist contingent, I was deemed a theist and an enemy of atheists, I was not the first or the last to have such an experience.

“When you act like things that have clearly happened never happened, I think it just makes you look a little silly.”

Like suggesting someone is "trying to claim" some straw man bullshit when "that clearly happened never happened" ?

Please....demonstrate more respect by ignoring my question, projecting pov claims upon me and suggesting I'm "silly" because of your claims.

Really? You won't admit that the claims of fundie atheists and militant atheists are what trotske was claiming when he talked about evil nasty vile atheist? You think he meant that word for word.

You REALLY want to be held to that standard in your argumentation? Because I debated 4 years of college debate and coached college debate for 8 years and one of my specialties was topicality so I'd be happy to hold you to the definition of each word that you used but it seems kind of silly, but, hey, it's the way you want to play so I'll put that in the old memory banks.

So exactly who said that you were an "enemy of atheists"? Can I have a link to that post please? You know, the old "back up your belief" thing. Just applying it to you. Until you prove it, I will assume it is just crap since that is your standard. And make sure that the post you refer to says "enemy of athesits" word for word, please. Thanks.

Waiting patiently,
Goblinmonger.

“You won't admit that the claims of fundie atheists and militant atheists are what trotske was claiming when he talked about evil nasty vile atheist”

So your speaking on behalf of Trotsky and asserting that being deemed a “evil nasty vile atheist who wants to forcibly de-convert believers at gunpoint.” is a clear referance to the “fundie and militant atheist” tags? And further…that >I< knew this psychic insight of yours all along and that I’m “playing a game”

;-)

1/Get off the grass.
2/ This is the ‘respect’ thread…at least >try< a little bit.

3/ If I am supposed to ignore your straw man projection of what I’m supposed to know/admit and accept your psychic insight into anothers meaning and intent………How come the “evil nasty vile atheist” designation is prefaced by reference to “ criticize a religious belief, even slightly”?
A “slight” criticism of religion does not indicate that a “fundie and militant atheist” is at play.
So what is the basis of your presumption to know both Trotsky’s mind and mine?

“You think he meant that word for word.”

He made the claim-
“once you criticize a religious belief, even slightly, you're an evil nasty vile atheist who wants to forcibly de-convert believers at gunpoint.”

I asked the pertinent question-
Should there be respect for the ‘belief’ that someone has been called “an evil nasty vile atheist”?

Now you are expecting me to “admit” that I shared your psychic insight into Trotskys true/symbolic intent (though he never mentioned “fundie and militant atheist” tags) and that his reference to “evil nasty vile atheist” shouldn’t be taken “word for word”/literally but is a symbolic reference that I am “game playing” avoiding?

What’s the OP theme again?

“Because I debated 4 years of college debate….”

Did you ever win or demonstrate/gain ‘respect’ by psychic assumption and straw man projection of anothers pov?
Cos it aint working here.

“So exactly who said that you were an "enemy of atheists"? Can I have a link to that post please? You know, the old "back up your belief" thing.”

Substantiation thing? Sure…here ya go-

From the ‘Anyone who uses the term "Fundamentalist Atheist" ‘ thread-

“Anti-atheism bigotry is his religion and this is his church.”

“He doubts that we ever experience anti-atheist sentiment.”

“the person who endorses this fundamentalist atheist terminology”

When invited to backup, substantiate, justify or explain these “Anti-atheism bigotry” claims each and every one declined/refused. So did those falsely alledging “hatred of atheism”…no evidence/substantiation ever.

“I will assume it is just crap since that is your standard”

Your lame ad hom falls flat in the face of the provision of evidence requested. Had you not displayed such blatant misplaced disrespect I would have taken the time to link directly to the thread. Go find it yourself ;-)

“…make sure that the post you refer to says "enemy of athesits" word for word,”

Nope, your demand is unnecessary and unreasonable. If “Anti-atheism bigotry”, “anti-atheist sentiment” and ““hatred of atheism” is not expressive of “enemy of athesits" then cry tough literalist atheists.
It’s a dam sight more indicative than “evil nasty vile atheist” is of the “fundie and militant atheist” tags.

You said in post 32 that you were called an "enemy of atheists." That was your phrase. The fact that you can't point to that exact phrase being said is, by your standards, not acceptable. I assume you will admit that you have lied.

Back up your claim with evidence just as you want others to. I'm waiting.

And I'm not speaking for trotsky. I felt I had a pretty good handle on what he was trying to say. It's called reading comprehension. He is more than able to speak for himself. And if I was wrong, I'm sure he will tell me and I won't have a little hissy fit if he does.

But again, until you show me the post with someone calling you an "enemy of atheists" in it, I will assume that you are just manipulating what others have said. It's a bitch when you are held to the standards you set for others, isn't it?

False/baseless accusations of “Anti-atheism bigotry”, “anti-atheist sentiment” and ““hatred of atheism” is >not< expressive of supposedly holding an “enemy of athesits" pov????????????

BUT (according to you)-

“evil nasty vile atheist who wants to forcibly de-convert believers at gunpoint.” Is a clear and unequivocal symbolic reference to “fundie and militant atheist” tags that no one ever mentioned???!!!

This is the freaking Twilight Zone of the bizarre torture of language and logic!

“And I'm not speaking for Trotsky”

The hell you aint. Your not only putting forward what you insist he meant your accusing me of “game playing” and refusing to “admit” that I somehow shared >your< insight into >his< intent.

“It's called reading comprehension”

LOL! Your “reading comprehension” does not permit “Anti-atheism bigotry”, “anti-atheist sentiment” and ““hatred of atheism” to be indicative of an “enemy of athesits" pov…..but you can comprehend “slight criticism” indicates “fundie and militant atheist”.

“… until you show me the post with someone calling you an "enemy of atheists" in it, I will assume that you are just manipulating what others have said.


I said (#32) “I was deemed a theist and an enemy of atheists” .
Blatantly false allegations of “Anti-atheism bigotry”, “anti-atheist sentiment” and ““hatred of atheism” are the specific manner in which I was so ‘deemed’.
I never claimed or quoted "enemy of atheists" as a phrase but put it forward as a clear and unequivocal designation.

Go right ahead…run a semantic filibuster for the folks at home that will demonstrate that an allegation of “Anti-atheism bigotry” does not deem/designate one as “an enemy of atheists”

You said “I was deemed a theist and an enemy of atheists.”

I asked for the post where you were called "an enemy of atheists." You have replied with:

"Blatantly false allegations of 'Anti-atheism bigotry', 'anti-atheist sentiment' and 'hatred of atheism' are the specific manner in which I was so ‘deemed’.
I never claimed or quoted "enemy of atheists" as a phrase but put it forward as a clear and unequivocal designation."

That's not good enough. Remember above when I said that trotsky meant the times one thing was said to reflect the point he was making and you went apeshit telling me that it had to be the exact wording in order for it to be true? That that was the evidence that needed to be provided? Remember that? In case you forgot, you just said basically the same thing again:

"“evil nasty vile atheist who wants to forcibly de-convert believers at gunpoint.” Is a clear and unequivocal symbolic reference to “fundie and militant atheist” tags that no one ever mentioned???!!!"

So in one post you go from a standard (applied to others) of "You must provide evidence of the exact wording you claim" to a standard (applied to yourself) of "As long as it is close and kind of leads to the same meaning."

In case this has been somewhat unclear to you: I AM HOLDING YOU TO THE SAME STANDARD YOU HOLD OTHERS TO IN YOUR "DEBATE" TACTIC. Provide me with the specific instance where someone called you "an enemy of atheists." Otherwise, admit it was a baseless claim.

“That's not good enough.”

What. “not good enough” for someone who does not comprehend the distinction between ‘deem/designate’ and a “literally/called/quote”?
I put forward the former and you falsify (quotation marks and all) the latter.
Now endless semantic obfuscation because your reading/English/comprehension skills are “not good enough.”?

“Remember above when I said that trotsky meant the times one thing was said to reflect the point he was making and you went apeshit telling me that it had to be the exact wording in order for it to be true?”

Nope…there is no point at which I told you “it had to be the exact wording in order for it to be true”.
But go “ape shit” with that hysterical historical revisionism and falsification.

“In case you forgot, you just said basically the same thing again:”

"“evil nasty vile atheist who wants to forcibly de-convert believers at gunpoint.” Is a clear and unequivocal symbolic reference to “fundie and militant atheist” tags that no one ever mentioned???!!!"

What on earth are you on about?
How the hell do you (logically) get from “symbolic reference to “fundie and militant atheist” tags that no one ever mentioned” to the bizarre conclusion/claim that I said ANYTHING LIKE- ““it had to be the exact wording in order for it to be true”.
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Too weird for words.

“So in one post you go from a standard (applied to others) of "You must provide evidence of the exact wording you claim"….

Well…Perhaps the Mods will have to take this Fbomb incredulity as ‘hostility’ as well…because-
WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU GET OFF REPEATEDLY FABRICATING AND FORGING WHAT I HAVE SAID AND PUTTING IT IN QUOTATION MARKS??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I never said- “You must provide evidence of the exact wording you claim"….that’s your bullshit forgery.

I never said anyone “called” me an “enemy of atheism” or presented it as ANYTHING LIKE a “literal” quote… that’s your bullshit forgery.

Which takes us straight back to what I asserted in #3-
……………………

Unfortunately the OP omits the most fundamental aspects of respect…the basic manners to actually listen (read) hear and understand what the other is saying prior to any notion of agreement/ disagreement.
The hallmarks of disrespect most frequently encountered hereabouts are-
Straw man responses that bare no relation to anything being responded to…or worse, blatant misrepresentation, forgery, lie.
The refusal to answer pertinent questions even when those questions seek understanding/clarification of the others pov.
The preparedness to make assertions/allegations re what the other has supposedly said followed by the steadfast refusal to substantiate/justify.
……………………………..

And I thank you kindly for the perfect example and proof positive of what I was referring to-
“Straw man responses that bare no relation to anything being responded to…or worse, blatant misrepresentation, forgery, lie.”

1. Standard of proof ironbark wants others to be held to:

A. Trotsky originally said the following:

Notice that there are no quotation marks in the original around "evil nasty vile atheist." Trotsky was indicating an attitude not a specific wording.

B. You then said that what trotsky was indicating never happened:

You are the one here making the phrase "evil nasty vile atheist" an exact quotation; that was not trotsky's intent.

C. I pointed that out to you and indicated the times when that was the case through other phrases.:

(subnote: trotske has since indicated clearly that what I said was a very good and accurate restatement of what his intent was, so you can stop with the "mindreading" crap. I was right. Move along.)

D. You then say that those phrases are not enough and that you were asking for the specific phrase:


E. You hold others to the standard that they must produce the exact phrase even when it was not their claim that the exact phrase was made.

F. You are now going to claim, as you did above, that you never used the phrase "You must provide evidence of the exact wording you claim." Doing so only reinforces the fact that this is the standard that you hold others to.

2. Standard of proof ironbark wants himself to be held to:

A. You said the following


B. Like trotske in the example above, you do not use it in quotation marks. You use the word "deem," but trotske uses the verb "are." Neither indicates an exact quotation, but your standard in 1. above indicates that you want exact wording examples so I ask for that:


C. You then provide "evidence" which doesn't use the exact wording much like I did in 1. sub C. above


D. I point out that this isn't enough and remind you of the claim you need to prove


E. You then argue that the evidence you provide is enough to prove your claim even though it does not contain the exact wording (and toss in an ad hom at me in the process):


F. You hold yourself to the standard that exact wording is not important and the "gist" of the claim is enough.

You believe that by "evil nasty vile atheist." Trotsky meant equating to terms “Fundamentalist Atheist and Militant atheist”. And you insist I share your insight otherwise I’m game playing.

1/ We don’t know what Trotsky had in mind…he has not said, elaborated nor provided example.

2/ Even if you are correct in your reading you will be very hard pressed to convince me/many others that the terms “Fundamentalist Atheist and Militant atheist” equate with "evil nasty vile atheist."
Especial given that many atheists self identify as MA and atheists themselves have (President American Atheists Assoc?) have used the term FA. If you can put forward an argument that makes clear equation/bridge between these terms FA,MA atheists= evil nasty vile atheist…or that is the "gist"... then go for it.

3/ At the same time that you have been attempting to confirm that equation/gist you have steadfastly rejected the proposition that the clear, confirmed, substantiated statements - “Anti-atheism bigotry is his religion and this is his church.” and “Hatred of atheism” do not in your eyes indicate that someone has been deemed/designated as an enemy/opponent of Atheism.
Apparently no "gist" is apparent to you.


4/ My call (#8), in the context of the OP, was for some/any kind of example/substantiation. NONE has
been put forward.
Your call (#35) was that I substantiate and I did so…you reject the substantiation because
“Anti-atheism bigotry is his religion and this is his church.” Does not literally or by gist
translate as being deemed an enemy of atheism in your eyes.

And while the Ironbark has chosen the anti atheist "side" attack continues you are quite prepared to participate and ride shotgun for it....and not one of the athiests participating in this smear campaign is prepared to offer a singe example, quote, cite or substantiation.

Have any of you read the OP?

1. Yes he has. He said I was correct.
2. So gays don't see queer/fag as an insult since they use it?
3. You miss my point. I'm fine with the implication. I'm just pointing out that you won't let others get away with it but you feel free to do it yourself.

My 1/-We don’t know what Trotsky had in mind…he has not said, elaborated nor provided example.

Your evasion/falsification- “1/Yes he has. He said I was correct.”

No he said “you did a fine job” with emphasis on trying to make someone “look like an ass”
No elaboration, confirmation, quote or example LITERAL or GIST has been put forward to validate-
“…once you criticize a religious belief, even slightly, you're an evil nasty vile atheist who wants to forcibly de-convert believers at gunpoint.”

From my 3/ “ If you can put forward an argument that makes clear equation/bridge between these terms FA,MA atheists= evil nasty vile atheist…or that is the "gist"... then go for it.”

Yours-
“3/ gays don't see queer/fag as an insult since they use it see queer/fag as an insult since they use it”

So the fact that gays use queer/fag as a non insult means that “Militant Atheist” equates with
“evil nasty vile atheist who wants to forcibly de-convert believers at gunpoint.”

???????????????????

“3. You miss my point. I'm fine with the implication.”

YEA?????!!!!!
FIRST F&^%ing time you have said so in a post after post sea of cut, ignore, denial and rejection!
“Anti-atheism bigotry is his religion and this is his church.” and “Hatred of atheism” are clear cut unequivocal indicators that the person is being portrayed as an opponent/enemy of atheism.

And after a dozen semantic filibustering posts you are reduced to the mighty concession- “I'm fine with the implication.”

Thanks for the honesty………I get the ‘gist’ of the game.

“I'm just pointing out that you won't let others get away with it but you feel free to do it yourself.”

Bullshit.
I asked for some substantiation/example of “evil nasty vile atheist who wants to forcibly de-convert believers at gunpoint.”….I didn’t demand word for word, I’d settle for something along those lines or of that gist. But >nothing< has been put up by the author and nothing that comes even close has been put up by anyone else.

You demanded substantiation from me and had it within the hour, then spent post after post ignoring or rejecting “Anti-atheism bigotry is his religion and this is his church” as being reflective of being deemed an enemy of atheism.

Now your “fine with the implication” …..what a hero and shining exemplar of the OP.

ETA: He said I was correct and then put a period after that sentence, and then he went on to discuss making someone "look like an ass." So are you ready yet to admit the double standard you impose? Or are you going to continue with the "it wasn't an exact quotation so you are evading/falsifying" bullshit?

So it is clear: I have always been fine with the implication of what is said. You are the one that is now when you are demanding from others (as immediately above). I was just trying to hold you to your own standard. I can understand why that might be unclear because I probably only said it a hundred times. (For the record, this is hyperbole. I do not, in any sense, believe that I said the phrase "hold you to your own standard" 100 times. Nor do I know for sure that I even said the exact phrase "hold you to your own standard." But I do know that there were many times, maybe even more than a handful of times, that I implied that in this thread. Just don't want "someone" to have a stroke demanding I provide proof of the hundred times I said it--though this kind of sucks the fun out of various writing techniques.)

And why do you keep putting gist in quotation marks? Do you think that I used the word incorrectly? Because I didn't.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

“You have been given every opportunity in this free and open forum to express your own ideas and points of view,”

Yes. Have done so. I’m an agnostic who has no “side” in any war between atheism and theism.
You repeatedly insist that I am a theist who has chosen a side against atheism.
You offer no evidence/example of your assertions whatsoever….and you never have.

“you continue choosing to lie about how your POV has been manufactured by others or projected onto you.”

This “manufactured projection”?-
“Anti-atheism bigotry is his religion and this is his church.”

Or this one?- “Hatred of Atheism”

Or this one?- “You have chosen your side” Darkstar.

“You have lied repeatedly about the POV of others, one example being your continued claims that I think the Fire Brigade should be called in cases of child abuse.”

You repeatedly rejected the proposition that Church Schools (through Mandatory Reporting) played a front line role in child protection then went on to nominate “the Police, Fire Brigade and Ambulance” as the real front line against child abuse. I’m happy to put up the link for the tenth time.

“You have lied repeatedly about the presence and effectiveness of secular charities,”

Go right ahead Darkstar…..put up the evidence of what you claim.

“.. claiming that atheists can't take any credit for those because they weren't setup specifically for atheist causes, as if there were such a thing as an atheist cause.”

Bizarre bullshit. Never ever said anything like that.

“You have lied repeatedly about your agenda shown by your posting history.”

So you keep saying but never ever providing a single link, cite, quote, substantiation.

“You have unwaveringly supported faith traditions, with Christianity and Islam being your major focus”

Frogshit. I have openly and repeatedly opposed the failures of the Christian churches to deal with child abuse issues, likewise Islam and FGM, and posted on issues relating to Church/State/Military separation.

“…while at the same time unwaveringly attacked those who completely lack faith in all gods”

I have never, ever, attacked anyone on this or any other board in relation to their belief or disbelief….>BEHAVIOUR< yes……belief….no.

If you think that’s false then ONCE….just ONCE…back your allegation with a cite, quote, link example.

“If you intend to dispute this, then I want you to show me one post where you are actually defending an atheist or an atheist position,..”

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAT! PROVE MYSELF INOCENT AGAINST YOUR BASELESS ALLEGATIONS BY PROVIDING EVIDENCE OF “defending an atheist or an atheist position,..” !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DEFENDING THEM FROM WHAT!!!!!!!!!???????????????????
My “Anti-atheism bigotry”? My “Hatred of Atheism”? any of the other myriad attacks and offences you report but can never substantiate.

This is insane.

I have nothing further to say to someone for whom I have zero respect. Goodbye, barky.

And Ok....I'll take into consideration your 4th? 5th? killfile and look forward to your next declaration of "zero respect" in a 'respect' thread ;-)

For you it's clearly personal and about attacking/insulting the person.

For me it's all about the principles advocated in the OP-
“The most important thing is this, it doesn't matter WHERE the belief comes from, it should be weighed and judged on by the evidence either for it or against it…..
Its the assurance that you are right without evidence to back it up that is the true problem, because it can lead to absolutism and doubt in the veracity of evidence, science, and reason.”

And it's about challenging the >behaviour< of those who hold those principles in contempt.

See ya.

They will get no replies from me. Must have been someone incapable of any kind of discussion to be on it. Good luck with whoever it is!

when I figured I was just using basic reading comprehension. Hope you don't mind. I may have made you look like an ass but that was just me coming through :evilgrin:

You are being rude, inappropriately familiar, and identifying the wrong gender for both trotske and I.

But while you did indeed make someone look like an ass in the exchange, I doesn't appear it was me. :)

See #31.
Prime example.
You don't get to pick a side.
You just get designated.

"he or some other theist"

that you come across as a theist. I don't say that as an insult. If I were taking the ACT and it asked your view on theology, I would say believer. Why are you insulted by that? It's kind of like my 14-year-old son getting upset when someone says that wrestling is gay (he's a very good national caliber wrestler). I just ask him why saying something is gay is an insult. And this is nothing like that at all.

You made the choice, not me. When every post you make in this forum is in support of one specific position, then it doesn't matter what you call yourself because you have indeed chosen a 'side'. At that point, you have no right to get up on your Huffy bike just because those you debate with treat you as a member of the 'side' you're arguing for.

Aside from that, I'd be more likely to believe in Yetis, UFOs, ghosts, goblins, and zombies at the same time than to believe that you in fact are what you choose to claim. That's just how reading comprehension works.

Nor ever the basic respect of allowing me to chose my one pov- agnostic.

“When every post you make in this forum is in support of one specific position,”

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Come on then…>SPECIFY<…what that “one specific position” is supposed to be!

If your going to build the accusation and the argument that I have “chosen a 'side'.” Then put up some quote, cite, examples that support your case.

The side I have been designated is that expressing “Anti-atheism bigotry”, “anti-atheist sentiment” and “hatred of atheism”…..but NO ONE has >EVER< provided a single example.

So here’s your chance to demonstrate ‘respect’ (at least for the rules of evidence) and show all the-
“support of one specific position,”.

You claim to know better than I what I actually believe….prove it….specify the “one specific position” I “support”.

Scroll up. In the upper right hand corner, type "ironbark" into the search bar. Pick any post where you're actually expounding on your own point of view instead of sniping at someone. Don't fucking pretend like you don't know you're own history...

A comprehensive review of your history provided by the search function will speak volumes to anyone who reads it, including yourself if you have the stones to do it and the intellectual honesty of a high-schooler.

“A comprehensive review of your history provided by the search function will speak volumes to anyone who reads it”

Sounds a lot like those Fundamentalist Christians who reject the very notion of provision of evidence and expect that a “comprehensive review of human history” will provide all the proof required “to anyone who reads it” ;-)

Folk will just have to take it on faith that your inability to provide a single example does not indicate your lying through your teeth.

And so could you, for that matter. I don't have the time or the inclination to post a laundry list of it, so the search function is quite sufficient.

Are you serious? You have to just be coming in here to mess with people because I cannot seriously believe that you are asking for a specific instances that say the exact wording you want and then with me you are all about intent and nuance. I don't even know how someone can hold those mutually exclusive positions in their head at the same time.

It blows my mind to see that there are still people who believe they can "talk out both sides of their mouths" and get away with it on a message board where everything is kept in writing...

Sometimes, people type something so outrageous that they know it will get deleted.

Perhaps you have the psychic insight to reveal the hidden mystery?

Go right ahead…it’s supposed to be in my “every post”

“When every post you make in this forum is in support of one specific position,”

What is the “support of one specific position” being referred to?

The author of the assertion (out of respect) can’t say what it is.

Your riding shotgun with gobsmacked incredulity-

“Holy crap, dude. "SPECIFY" Are you serious?”

YEA!....hit me with your best shot-
Come on guys…>SPECIFY<…what that “one specific position” is supposed to be ????!

“I cannot seriously believe that you are asking for a specific instances that say the exact wording you want…”

That’s good…because I’m not asking for any “exact wording” or any such bulldust.

I’m asking for >a single example< of what the author alleges regarding “support of one specific position”.

Holy crap, dude Why can’t the author "SPECIFY"? and if your so incredulous why can’t you either?

Falsifying Goblinmonger's position.

Your riding shotgun with gobsmacked incredulity

Show me ONE POST where he called shotgun. JUST.ONE.POST.

Or you can go on with your game of making up other people's positions and never providing a quote, cite, example, substantiation.

"I call shotgun" is all it would take.

JUST.ONE.POST

Your doing it well.

“Show me ONE POST where he called shotgun. JUST.ONE.POST.”

Fact is I never said or suggested anyone “called shotgun” ….but that’s not the point is it.

Point is your absurd interjection rides shotgun support for another and serves to (attempt) to distract from the point/issue-

………………………
YEA!....hit me with your best shot-
Come on guys…>SPECIFY<…what that “one specific position” is supposed to be ????!

“I cannot seriously believe that you are asking for a specific instances that say the exact wording you want…”

That’s good…because I’m not asking for any “exact wording” or any such bulldust.

I’m asking for >a single example< of what the author alleges regarding “support of one specific position”.

Holy crap, dude Why can’t the author "SPECIFY"? and if your so incredulous why can’t you either?

………………………..

But we both/all know by this stage that no one is going to …>SPECIFY<…what that “one specific position” is supposed to be….no one is going to provide example or substantiate.

Because the objective is to slander and malign with innuendo, false allegation and lie flying under the ROC radar.

The absurdity of calling for substantiation of “where he called shotgun” when no one said he did…is riding shotgun….and falling under the wagon wheels.

I used his handle in my post because he is the one you were arguing with directly upthread.

protecting the person/pov regardless of the facts.

Your doing it well.

All I did was parody your posting style. My post didn't have anything to do with whether he was right, nor anything to do with coming to his aid. I didn't make any kind of an argument. I just took a jab at the way you argue.

The idea that I'm on his side comes from my posting history, which I think you'll agree is pretty unequivocal. More on that in a moment.

Fact is I never said or suggested anyone “called shotgun” ….but that’s not the point is it.

Very astute--that's not the point. The point is that you're being ridiculous--I would say almost as ridiculous as the whole shotgun canard.

Come on guys…>SPECIFY<…what that “one specific position” is supposed to be ????!

I don't know about "one specific position," but it's already been pointed out that you always seem to support theists and attack or criticize atheists. You are frequently involved in long arguments with the same group of posters, who (as far I have observed) are all atheists. It does indeed seem that you have picked a side.

It looks like you assumed I was on one side of the argument in this thread based on the fact that I frequently agree with the other atheists in this forum. That's totally fair. But at the same time, you can't be upset when people identify you with one camp in this forum rather than the other. Because yes, there are two camps here, and you have frequently agreed with one camp and disagreed with the other.

The absurdity of calling for substantiation of “where he called shotgun” when no one said he did…is riding shotgun….and falling under the wagon wheels.

Like I said, it has nothing to do with supporting Goblinmonger. It's a send up of your posts, and nothing more.

Dishonesty-

“There you go again Falsifying Goblinmonger's position.” uberllama42 #91
“My post has nothing to do with Goblinmonger's position” uberllama42 #109

One of these things is not like the other.

“My post didn't have anything to do with whether he was right”

Oh hell no…you just opened with the false accusation that I was “Falsifying Goblinmonger's position”
and proceeded to back that up with………………nothing.

“…, nor anything to do with coming to his aid.”

Oh hell no…your post was completely Goblinmonger neutral…or was it anti?...it’s getting hard to tell here in the Twilight Zone.

“ I didn't make any kind of an argument.”

You got that right…all you made was an unfounded accusation….argument requires evidence and substantiation.

“I just took a jab at the way you argue.”

That would require your “parody” exposing >me< as having called for the substantiation of an absurd statement…instead >you< manufactured the absurdity and called for its substantiation.
“Jab”?.........round house swing that went well wide.

“The idea that I'm on his side comes from my posting history…”
Funny, you just rejected any notion of “coming to his aid”….now there is a “history” that explains it?

“…posting history, which I think you'll agree is pretty unequivocal.”

???????????
“There you go again Falsifying Goblinmonger's position.” uberllama42 #91
“My post has nothing to do with Goblinmonger's position” uberllama42 #109

That sure looks to me like “equivocating” ;-)

Ahhhhh….now we get down to the nearest thing we will ever get to the bones of the argument….the ‘opinion/belief’….supported by?............Fuckallzerozipnothing-

“I don't know about "one specific position," but it's already been pointed out that you always seem to support theists and attack or criticize atheists.”

That’s great uberllama…and you’re going to be the >FIRST ONE< who is going to show me how I “attack or criticize atheists” on the basis of their atheism?
For being atheists? For being atheists who oppose theists? For being loud, strong, militant atheists?

Which one or all of the myriad anti atheist allegations that have been thrown up will you provide example of?

Come on uberllama….establish an absolute precedent for the first time in four years…give me a single example of how I “attack or criticize atheists” FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN MACKING SUCH AN ALLEGATION AN REFUSING TO SUBSTANTIATE IT.

Play hard ball, mock, jab. parody, throw insults….I couldn’t care less and wont ‘alert’… circle the wagons, gather the troops and ride shot gun……fine by me….

BUT ONCE……..JUST ONCE…..Somebody muster the intellectual and ethical ability to provide evidence/ substantiation of the “attack or criticize atheists” allegation.

“It does indeed seem that you have picked a side.”

Sure have. I’ve picked the side of opposition to all those who allege “attack or criticize atheists”, “anti atheist bigotry is his church”, “hatred of atheists”……..and have never once provided a single substantiating example.
My ‘side’ is opposition to such unethical behaviour.

“the fact that I frequently agree with the other atheists in this forum. That's totally fair.”

I appreciate the concession to reality.


This is even better….at last….down to tin tacks-

“. But at the same time, you can't be upset when people identify you with one camp in this forum rather than the other. Because yes, there are two camps here,….”

Mind if I shout for emphasis?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

I REJECT UTTERLY AND ENTIRELY YOUR (ANYBODYS) >TWO CAMP< COSMOLOGY AND I DEEPLY FUCKING RESENT ANYONE PROJECTING AND IMPOSING IT AND A ‘CAMP’ UPON ME!

You perceive “two camps here”?...good for you…that’s >your< pov, >your< belief, >your< outlook and >your< cosmology…………………..and you don’t get to impose/project >your< belief in a “camp” on me and make me a member without >EVIDENCE< and without my loud sustained objection.

“…and you have frequently agreed with one camp and disagreed with the other.”

Crap. Unadulterated bullshit.
If I have “agreed with one camp” (theism) it has been with the possibility/probability of there being a god.
“disagreed with the other.”? (atheism)….for the hundredth time- SHOW ME MY DISAGREEMENT WITH ATHIESM!....Atheism as a stand, atheism as a position, being an atheist, atheism on principal….SHOW ME MY ATTACK, CRITICISM, OPPOSITION, ANTI ATHIEST STAND!...............EVIDENCE!

My “disagreement” with atheists here has one central feature…>not their atheism<….but their insistence that I have said things for which no one can present any evidence.
Break the mould, establish the precedent….expose with evidence how my posts deserve send up/parody jab….show me how I “attack or criticize atheists” for being atheists.

"Very astute" was premature. I thought you understood that my post #91 was a joke, but apparently that was a false impression.

One of these things is not like the other.

Of course not. #91 was a joke, and #109 was my attempt to explain the joke, which involved saying something that I didn't actually believe. I guess I failed.

you just opened with the false accusation

I'll say it again, just to make sure your grasp this fact: I was making a joke, rather than a real accusation. I was busting on you, and apparently it went over your head.

Oh hell no…your post was completely Goblinmonger neutral…or was it anti?

It was anti-you. That's all.

argument requires evidence and substantiation.

Jokes, however, can be successful without evidence or substantiation, since they're not meant to be taken literally.

That would require your “parody” exposing >me< as having called for the substantiation of an absurd statement…instead >you< manufactured the absurdity and called for its substantiation.
“Jab”?.........round house swing that went well wide.

I think I did a fine job of parodying the way you argue, and stand by it.

Funny, you just rejected any notion of “coming to his aid”….now there is a “history” that explains it?

Based on my history here, it is fair to guess that I agree with Goblinmonger on any given question. I can recall only one argument between him and myself, and both of us have been posting here for years. But my post #91 was clearly not about the issue you and Goblinmonger were arguing about. It made no reference to it. A newcomer to DU who read only this thread would have to conclude that I was making a joke about you. Only the knowledge that I have a history of agreeing with Goblinmonger makes it reasonable to assume that I agree with him on the issues being argued over in this thread. For the record, that's not necessarily the case. But it wouldn't be an unreasonable assumption for someone to make after knowing that I have a tendency to agree with Goblinmonger. Until now I have made no serious expression one way or the other.

If a reader perceives that I am on Goblinmonger's side, it could be justified by reading my previous posts in other threads, but not be anything specific I have written in this thread. That is where my history comes into it.

That sure looks to me like “equivocating” ;-)

That's not what the word "equivocate" means. You're trying to say I'm contradicting myself, which is different from equivocation. Furthermore, my post #109 is not tantamount to my entire posting history on this site. But nice try.

If you seriously want to argue that I vacillate between agreeing with one of the camps in R/T and agreeing with the other, be my guest. That would be an actual challenge to my description of myself as unequivocal.

show me how I “attack or criticize atheists” on the basis of their atheism?

"on the basis of their atheism" is your addition, which I have no obligation to defend. My claim was this:

You are frequently involved in long arguments with the same group of posters, who (as far I have observed) are all atheists. It does indeed seem that you have picked a side. ... you have frequently agreed with one camp and disagreed with the other. --post #109 in this thread

You put up this specious little nugget:

Which one or all of the myriad anti atheist allegations that have been thrown up will you provide example of?

I'm going to defend the one I actually made, which as you've frequently pointed out, is the extent of my responsibility.

These are the first seven threads that come up when I put your username in the search bar, of course excluding this thread.

1. “On atheism and charity.”
   
   http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=243764&mesg_id=243764
   
   This thread has you arguing in two subthreads with HuckleB, who may be a non-believer, or may not be. I don’t know him well enough. But he was arguing that the large number of secular charities in the United States means that secular groups measure up to the Salvation Army in terms of the amount of work the Salvos do.
   
   One subthread starts at #31 and another starts at #25.
   
   
2. “How to believe in God (Stephen Clark | The Guardrian)”
   
   http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=247081&mesg_id=247081
   
   In this thread, you argue with three atheist posters. The first subthread, ironically, starts with you talking about the fact that jokes are not to be taken literally, much like sarcasm or any given passage of scripture. This one starts at #26. The ensuing argument is with darkstar3.
   
   You subsequently had an exchange with laconicsax and one with Silent3, both of whom I know to be non-believers. One of these exchanges starts at #30 and the other at #39.
   
   Another irony presents itself here: another poster was asked to define his terms, and you provided your own definition in his stead. This is not far from what you complained about upthread (on this OP), when Goblinmonger took the liberty of explaining what trotsky meant when he used a particular term. The more I read your stuff, the more I am astounded by your prolific self-contradiction and hypocrisy.
   
   
3. “Defending Free Speech Against Fundamentalist Islam?”
   
   http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=247478&mesg_id=247478
   
   Here is a pair of arguments with darkstar3, starting at #4 and #29.
   
   Not to weigh this down with criticisms of your various failures, but in the first subthread you take issue with darkstar3’s use of fish metaphors, which is funny, because I find your own (frequently miscegenated) metaphors annoying.
   
   In the other subthread, you point out that non-believers “circle the wagons,” using trotsky’s wording. This is clear proof that you acknowledge at least one of the two camps in this forum. Non-believers have a tendency to agree with each other, and to back each other up. You've made that observation yourself. You can express your grave offense at the notion now, but you’re on record not just admitting the fact, but pointing it out to someone else.
   
   You also have a short exchange with ChadwickHenryWard starting at #28. Since I know CHW in person, I know that during that exchange he wasn’t sure whether you were seriously agreeing with him or whether you were being sarcastic. I suppose it’s up to the two of you to decide whether that exchange could be called an argument.
   
   
4. "One million kids under 5 years old die of malaria every year! 3000 a day!"
   
   http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=245450&mesg_id=245450
   
   In this thread you argue with skepticscott starting at #4 and with ZombieHorde starting at #8.
   
   
5. "Priests abuse children at same rate as everyone else."
   
   http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=244610&mesg_id=244610
   
   Here you argue with a series of non-believers, starting with your post #7 in which you deride them collectively as “the heckle brigade.” This leads to a short exchange with ZombieHorde and another short exchange with HiFructosePronSyrup.
   
   Later you have a longer argument with skepticscott following #43 and one with gcomeau starting at #51. Then you argue with darkstar3 starting at #91. There are short exchanges with muriel_volestrangler after #105, and TZ after #61.
   
   
6. "Conservative magazine asks 'Will He ever return?'"
   
   http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=241937&mesg_id=241937
   
   Here you have a protracted exchange with tama, whom I don’t know well. I wouldn’t characterize that poster as a non-believer, though that could be wrong, since my experience is limited. But suffice it to say that, out of the first six threads that come up when you type “ironbark” in the search bar, this is the only one that doesn’t have you arguing with a non-believer.
   
   The exchange starts at #19.
   
   
7. "Chris Hedges' Hangup on Religion."
   
   http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=247289&mesg_id=247289
   
   The next thread that comes up is the last time you and I danced, early last month. Our exchange starts at #39. I’d like to point out that I provided numerous examples to substantiate my claims about you in post #62, but you disavowed all of them. I can only do so much.
   
   

It's obvious from these examples that you have a tendency to argue with a particular group of posters. These posters tend to be non-religious, most identifying as atheists or agnostics. I'll make a tentative list: Goblinmonger, laconicsax, darkstar3, Silent3, TZ, ZombieHorde, trotsky, ChadwickHenryWard, and skepticscott. If any of those posters object to being included, they have every right to call me out.

But I submit that there is an obvious trend in this forum: all the posters I just listed tend to be critical of religious beliefs and organizations. Those posters tend to agree with each other in the same way that I agree with Goblinmonger. None of us are obligated to agree with any of the others, nor to defend each others' positions. But the fact is that we frequently have done so in the past. This is the boundary, loose as it may be, that I would draw to define the first camp in this forum.

The second camp is made up of some believers and some non-believers. The two defining aspects of camp number 2 is that they tend to object to criticisms of religious beliefs or institutions at least a substantial part of the time, and that there is long-running mutual sniping between them and the first camp. I've posted five different threads in which you had lengthy arguments with members of group 1 other than myself. Not all of these started out being about the substantiation issue. The exchange with HuckleB in (1) started off on the issue of secular versus religious charities, wherein you were very aggressive about the OP's criterion of a secular charity with major similarities to the Salvation Army. In thread (2) you begin by following through with a frequent line from members of group 2, to wit the accusation that atheists are overly hung up on reading the bible and other texts literally. I've already pointed out your own camp mentality in (3) post #29. And so on.

Mind if I shout for emphasis?

I sincerely do, but that ship has sailed.

You've criticized (yes, criticized) members of this camp for things other than the lack-of-substantiation thing. There was the "fishing fetish" remark, your pointless name-calling (i.e. “Sherlock”), and your gibe about the heckle brigade, which as far as I can tell means roughly members of group 1.

My ‘side’ is opposition to such unethical behaviour.

Your history shows that you have other priorities than that. I do not mean to define your beliefs, and I do not mean to put words in your mouth. But I have given ample demonstration that you tend to line up with one group rather than the other. Your behavior puts you in group 2. And that was my claim in post #109 above.

and you don’t get to impose/project >your< belief in a “camp” on me and make me a member without >EVIDENCE<

I am satisfied that that burden has been met with this post.

and without my loud sustained objection.

I think that goes without saying. I have no doubt in my mind that you will continue to shout at me and tell me why I'm being horrendously unfair to you.

SHOW ME MY DISAGREEMENT WITH ATHIESM!

I've already explained at length the substance of my claim and laid out my evidence.

I am sincerely grateful that you have taken the time and effort to substantiate your pov.
Strangely the fact that you are the very first and only (over a 4+ year period) to attempt to do so amplifies the effort.

“I'm going to defend the one I actually made, which as you've frequently pointed out, is the extent of my responsibility.”

Yup, fine by me, and I’m going to suggest that what you are defending has two components-
1/ An allegation/accusation that I take seriously-That I “attack or criticize atheists”
2/ The assertion/opinion that I have taken a side/ chosen a camp… that one I’m not really fussed about.

1 could be confirmed with the provision of substantiating evidence…the absence of evidence negates the charge.
2 is an opinion that can be neither proven nor disproven…it might never change.

1/ concerns me because it comes in a string of such accusations- “anti-atheist bigotry”, “hatred of atheists”, “attack or criticize atheists”. I find it as false and offensive as I would accusations of “anti Gay bigotry”, “hatred of Jews” or “attack or criticize blacks”. Any such false allegation would offend me (even from behind the anonymity of handle) and I suspect such allegations would be equally offensive to you.
The offence is quadrupled in my eyes when substantiation/justification is requested and ignored refused.

You have gone to the effort of going through seven threads (dozens of post) and in the “attack or criticize atheists” search you came up with-

“You've criticized (yes, criticized) members of this camp for things other than the lack-of-substantiation thing. There was the "fishing fetish" remark, your pointless name-calling (i.e. “Sherlock”), and your gibe about the heckle brigade, which as far as I can tell means roughly members of group 1.”


While you are sincere in your efforts…are you serious about your evidence of “attack or criticize atheists” ???

“fish fetish”…………..”Good one Sherlock”………..and…. ”heckle brigade”…..?

This is my “attack on atheists”…..this is my “criticism of atheists”….????

You went through seven threads and dozens of posts…straight passed a dozen bullshit allegations of “Hatred of atheists” and calling atheists “icky” and “anti atheist bigotry”…..and you came up with-

“fish fetish”, ”Good one Sherlock” and “heckle brigade”…..?

Shit….I really lost my temper and let those atheists have it didn’t I?
Each and every “criticism” a direct “attack” on their atheism and or the very fact that they are atheists?

uberllama…..I’m sorry….I do appreciate your effort…but if your serious about this being evidence of “attacking and criticising atheists” and that “heckle brigade” is somehow in the same league of attack/insult/allegation as “hatred” of a group or “bigotry” towards a group….I can’t help you.

I’m not in any way holding you accountable/responsible for allegations of “hatred/bigotry”….but I honestly cant see how you can ignore such allegations and hold me to account for “fish fetish” + “Good one Sherlock” .

“heckle brigade”?....hell uberllama…..I’ll grant ya that one….I’m a savage bastard when I’m in “attack” mode.

Get back to me if you want me to deal with the opinion/impression expressed in 2/. Re ‘camps’

But frankly, at this point, if you are serious about my criticisms and attacks, I can’t see the point.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I've heard about that article in a few places, but I haven't gotten around to reading it. I'll have to make the time. Thanks for sharing it.

but you could work on organizing your posts a little bit. They are kind of a mess to read--and I'm not talking about the content in this instance, just the flow is way off.

...by posting just what it is you believe, what you don't believe, what your own positions are on matters of religion and theology. Even very briefly, just a few basics. But you won't do that.

You apparently enjoy the game of pretending you've never stated any position or any particular religious beliefs, so that no matter what anyone says you can trot out the claims of "misrepresentation!" and "straw man!".

Further, even when what someone says is a general statement about positions people take out there in the world at large (there are certainly people who react to atheists, particular atheists who dare speak out, as "evil vile atheists!"), you'll make a game of claiming YOU in particular have never said that, and/or insisting on a quote showing the same exact wording.

I don't expect you to actually do as I suggest, clearing stating a position, however, so you should simply expect to continue to be misunderstood -- if the claim of being misunderstood is even true, which I doubt. No one is under any obligation to treat you as some sort of neutral, unbiased observer when there's plenty of circumstantial evidence to the contrary and when the opportunity to clear up any confusion is always available, but you never take advantage of that opportunity.

Knowing you, you'd probably insist that everyone has to be really, really nice to you first, create a warm inviting atmosphere, practically roll out the red carpet for you first, set this perfect stage for you to present your beliefs... then, and only then, will they have earned the privilege of your exalted disclosure.

Could I be wrong about the above paragraph? Well, there are at least two ways to handle that: (1) Tell us what is true, or (2) Squeal loudly about being misrepresented.

We all know what your typical favorite choice is. Maybe you can surprise us.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm dying to know what reply to my post got wiped out. Can someone PM me if they saw it?

I hit alert to notify the Mods that I was calling out the following baseless, unsubstantiated falsehood-

“(there are certainly people who react to atheists, particular atheists who dare speak out, as "evil vile atheists!"), you'll make a game of claiming YOU in particular have never said that, and/or insisting on a quote showing the same exact wording.”

My self 'alert' was to notify that alleging I have at any stage said or suggested anything like "evil vile atheists!" is clearly part of a sustained slander/character attack that has been going on for some time.

“Anti-atheism bigotry is his religion and this is his church.”

“He doubts that we ever experience anti-atheist sentiment.”

“the person who endorses this fundamentalist atheist terminology”

“Hatred of atheism”

And no one has ever put up a single shred of evidence or example.

But expecting people to substantiate or provide example is just part of my dishonest "game"

(Oh….after being hounded for several posts with the insistence that an agnostic must be an atheist I did declare that I would rather be dead than have a my beliefs chosen for me or imposed upon me….does that count as anti atheist?)

You reliably picked option 2. Thanks for playing!

and rejected by those who know better than I what I actually believe.

From previous post-
................
I have repeatedly preformed that clearing up

I am an agnostic, some times prone to believe god is probable, sometimes not, interested in religion/history, grateful for the fruits thereof, aware of and opposed to the abuses. All of which I have stated here, none of which is good enough…others know better, cannot tolerate such “fence sitting”, insist I am a closet theist and anti atheist and steadfastly refuse to put forward a single substantiating example.
See #33, #54, #41, #58 and onwards from each.

“Even very briefly, just a few basics. But you won't do that.”

Patently false. I have done so on several occasions including protracted discussions with respondents in posts listed above. It makes no difference, they know better than my stated pov and they know which “side” I am obliged to be on…even if I reject their notion of sides.
.....................

Being "misrepresented" is when someone takes something you have said and gets it wrong.

Being lied about is when someone reports, suggests, accuses eventents that never transpired-

Your accusation fits the latter catagory-
"...particular atheists who dare speak out, as "evil vile atheists!"), you'll make a game of claiming YOU in particular have never said that, and/or insisting on a quote showing the same exact wording."

You can not and will not present anything to support the claim that I have said anything like "evil vile atheists!").

But boy, did you read this wrong!


I didn't make the accusation that you said, "evil vile atheists!"

I said that you'd respond AS IF other people, or myself, had made that accusation, and having responded AS IF that accusation had been made, stomp your feet demanding evidence for the accusation that exists only in your mind.

What I will say about your posting history is this: you will, almost without fail, leap into the fray the moment any atheist says nearly anything at all negative about religion. If there are atheists you like, or at least can stomach, for all anyone can tell here it's the ones who are so quiet about their views you'd never know they were atheists. Maybe an atheist could get away with a simple statement that he or she was an atheist if they dropped the matter right there, but I'd have to wonder if, even at that, some sort of accompanying disclaimer might not also be expected from said atheist about how much respect they hold for religious people, just to offset any possible harm to the delicate psyches of believers that a confrontation with the mere existence of atheism might cause.

You certainly act and post as if few things offend you more than an outspoken atheist. If you care to deny that, I'd be most curious as to what counts as "outspoken" in your mind. I have yet to see you defend an atheist or an atheist point of view from attack, I've seen only defense of belief and scathing words for atheists who cross whatever line you think they shouldn't cross. It's hard for atheists in this forum to see, wherever that line of yours is, that it is situated very far from merely reminding people that atheists exist.

As for the bit you quoted where you state your positions: thank you for that. But where did that come from? Not from this thread. Given the impression you make with constantly defending religion from perceived attack, and, at least not to my knowledge, showing any sort of balance in word count or enthusiasm for the defense of atheism, you shouldn't be surprised if people have a hard time either remembering or believing denials of theism on your part.

Given that it's very easy to state and restate one's positions (I do so for clarity all of the time), it's a tiresome game, and annoyingly coy, to so often play the game of acing like not only should everyone recheck an entire thread, but search your posting history, when a few words as needed would clear things up. You'd rather string things along spending much more time talking about what you didn't say, and demanding proof that you did say what you accuse someone of saying that you've said, than just saying what you'd want to say or mean to say and getting on with it.

Attempting to tie me/my pov to one of anti atheism.
Attempting to assert that I have continually expressed anti atheist sentiment and or defended such-
“…"evil vile atheists!" you'll make a game of claiming YOU in particular have never said that, and/or insisting on a quote showing the same exact wording."

When you call denial of (anyone) having said such a thing “a game” the clear implication is that the claimant is not sinceer, not honest…playing a game of denial in regard what actually happened.
That set up is followed by the bullshit assertion “insisting on a quote showing the same exact wording."

Lets see some real progress…be the first one on the block (in the ‘respect’ thread) to substantiate your assertion…put up an example of my demanding “the same exact wording" as “…"evil vile atheists!".
(or anything similar)

Your not going to do it because it has never happened. I have never demanded “ the same exact wording".
I have rejected “Fundamentalist Athiest/Militant Atheist” = "evil vile atheists!"…
because that is clearly crap.

“But boy, did you read this wrong!”

Nope. The hell I did. It’s one more bullshit attempt to tie me to expression of or defence of “…"evil vile atheists!"/anti atheist pov.
What you and all those who make such unsubstantiated allegations cannot comprehend is that such BEHAVIOUR is “evil and vile.”

To make an assertion/accusation that goes to anothers character and intent and then to refuse to substantiate the accusation- THAT IS EVIL AND VILE >BEHAVIOUR<….and there are a dozen examples of such behaviour in this thread alone.

“I said that you'd respond AS IF other people, or myself, had made that accusation…”

Your accusation is implied in referance to “game” playing and >explicit< in claiming I demand “the same exact wording "“…"evil vile atheists!". ie …I am playing a game falsely denying the notion “evil vile atheists!" has been expressed and defending the notion by demanding literal/word for word verification.
Your “accusation” is as clear as that of others- that I have supposedly expressed or defended an anti atheist pov...it is a false and baseless accusation and one that you continue throughout your post.

“What I will say about your posting history is this: you will, almost without fail, leap into the fray the moment any atheist says nearly anything at all negative about religion.”

Opinions, like Aholes, every one has on and on close examination most smell. Your opinion of my post history is of no merit and means nothing to me unless and until you can provide SOME/ANY substantiating example. The moment you make a bullshit assertion/accusation- “demand the same exact wording "/” leap into the fray the moment any atheist says nearly anything at all negative about religion.”…your opinion stinks as baseless crud.

This thread is dedicated to the proposition of ‘respect’ and the OP said it perfectly-
“The most important thing is this, it doesn't matter WHERE the belief comes from, it should be weighed and judged on by the evidence either for it or against it.”

Your belief regarding my “posting history” is worth nothing UNLESS AND UNTILL IT IS “weighed and judged on by the evidence”. SOME EVIDENCE- ANY EVIDENCE....other than endless stinky opinion.

Not ONE of the respondents in this thread (yourself included) has provided >ANY EVIDENCE<…and clearly expects their BELIEFS & OPINIONS to be accepted/respected in the absence of evidence.
Samples of your baseless belief from the paragraphs that begin- “If there are atheists you like, or at least can stomach…

“few things offend you more than an outspoken atheist”

“Maybe an atheist could get away with a simple statement that he or she was an atheist if they dropped the matter right there”

“a confrontation with the mere existence of atheism might cause.”

“You certainly act and post as if few things offend you more than an outspoken atheist.”

“If you care to deny that…”

Deny it? It’s total and utter baseless anti atheist bullshit.

You begin a post by declaring how I read it wrong about being accused of defending notions of “evil vile atheists” then go straight into how I cannot stomach the evil vile outspoken atheists !!!!!!!!!??????????????

GET THIS STRAIGHT….I have never attacked anyone here on the basis of their atheism. I have never objected to atheism- mild or outspoken. I have no issue with atheists or atheism.

My issue, my complaint, my objection is with those who make accusations and allegations regarding what others have said and then consistently refuse to provide example, justify the assertion or SUBSTANTIATE.

FACT IS >THAT< is what you are doing….and I object to that >behaviour<…and I will continue to object to that behaviour. Your (anyone’s) Atheism is, in this context, completely irrelevant to me.

Make it simple…justify/substantiate/give evidence for JUST ONE of your anti atheist allegations-

“You certainly act and post as if few things offend you more than an outspoken atheist.”

My bet is that all you can come up with is an atheist making a claim/allegation without evidence/substantiation and that my objection is to that >behaviour<- >not< to atheism.

“to so often play the game of acing like not only should everyone recheck an entire thread, but search your posting history,”

If someone is accusing me of having said something I vehemently deny saying the onus of proof is on the person bringing the accusation. I cannot prove I didn’t say it…the responsibility is on them to PROVIDE EVIDENCE AND PROVE I DID.

I have >never< asked or expected anyone to “recheck an entire thread,” or “search posting history,”.

In fact the very obnoxious bullshit “game” that you refer to has only been played by those bringing the same allegation of having ‘chosen a side’ as you do…see #39, #54, #61.

“You'd rather string things along spending much more time talking about what you didn't say, and demanding proof that you did say what you accuse someone of saying that you've said, than just saying what you'd want to say or mean to say and getting on with it.”

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????????????????????????????????????

YOU FILL A POST INSISTING I HAVE SAID THINGS I DIDN’T, REJECT THE PROPISITION THAT EVIDENCE/PROOF SHOULD BE EXPECTED AND GIVEN, AND INVITE ME TO SAY WHAT I WANT TO SAY AND MOVE ON!!!!!!!!!!???????????????????

HELL NO!

From the OP-
“The most important thing is this, it doesn't matter WHERE the belief comes from, it should be weighed and judged on by the evidence either for it or against it.”

If you make a claim/accusation/allegation PUT UP THE EVIDENCE so that it can be “weighed and judged”

For all your beliefs and opinions regarding my pov you offer not a single shred of evidence…nor do any of the other accusers of anti atheism.

Ya'll out there whacking at the theists for lacking evidence of an invisible god…..but none, not one, can put forward evidence of a single quote, cite, post of the anti atheism I’m supposed to have clearly/consistantly expressed.

IT’S THAT 'OPINION RULES'- EVIDENCE DENIED >BEHAVIOUR< I OBJECT TO…..NOT ATHEISM.

...by pointing at it, but the dog keeps looking at your finger instead of where the finger is pointing?

I'm feeling a similar mix of frustration and bemusement right now.

A completely intellectually and ethically vacuous display of incomprehensible cowardice.

Someone deals with your garbage point by point blow by blow issue by issue....

And you've got?.....>nothing<.

Will assuredly be linking back to here the next time someone raises 'respect'-'evidence' for 'belief/opinion' or the next round of baseless anti athiest bullshit.

If you think anything in this thread helps prove anything you want to prove, you'll just be making yourself look bad.

:rofl:
It wouldn't be the first time...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You may be onto something...

Would be posting bullshit allegations that I could not/would not back up-


Make it simple…justify/substantiate/give evidence for JUST ONE of your anti atheist allegations-

“You certainly act and post as if few things offend you more than an outspoken atheist.”

Credability resides with the provision of evidence.....yours is "Looking bad".

that I'm not really a part of, but I really have to object to this:

To make an assertion/accusation that goes to anothers character and intent and then to refuse to substantiate the accusation- THAT IS EVIL AND VILE >BEHAVIOUR<

How dare you describe petty message board bickering as evil and vile when there are girls having their genitals cut off, women being stoned to death for being in love with the wrong man, innocent goat herders being blown off the sides of mountains by Hellfire missiles, gay people being pummeled to death by illiterate cretins, children being molested, etc. etc.

Your sense of persecution is gross and unsightly.

You have identified you believe in “The Two Camps” and your entitled to support yours.

So you object to the statement of principle-
“To make an assertion/accusation that goes to anothers character and intent and then to refuse to substantiate the accusation- THAT IS EVIL AND VILE >BEHAVIOUR<”

?

So let’s get this straight…..It’s ok to accuse another of “hatred” of a group, of “bigotry” towards that group, of being an active opponent, critic and enemy of that group, a defender of the notion that the group is “evil and vile”…all this can be put forward repeatedly without ever once offering evidence… and this behaviour evokes no objection?

“How dare you describe petty message board bickering as evil and vile…”

Because the very culture and practice of accusation without foundation/evidence >the abandonment of the principles of substantiation/evidence< is at the core of ills from forum bullying to false arrest to racial/group targeting to unjust (they have WMDs) war.

Is each level of abandonment of the principle of substantiation more “evil and vile” than the last?
Sure it is.
But just because arresting someone on false charges and no evidence is a greater “evil and vile” act than ongoing baseless slander and character attack….does not negate the abandonment of principle as being “evil and vile”.

Is FGM, stoning, attacks on gays a list of far greater “evil and vile” than lying about someone on the net to discredit them?
Without doubt…but such moral equivalence was never in doubt or question.

But it sure helps distract when members of the ‘camp’ you perceive yourself as belonging to have abandoned the basic ‘substantiation’ principles enunciated in the OP-
“ The most important thing is this, it doesn't matter WHERE the belief comes from, it should be weighed and judged on by the evidence either for it or against it….
Its the assurance that you are right without evidence to back it up that is the true problem, because it can lead to absolutism and doubt in the veracity of evidence, science, and reason.”

And when the “assurance that you are right without evidence” “leads to absolutism and doubt in the veracity of evidence, science, and reason.” you have injustice, “evil and vile”….at all kinds of levels and degrees.

in caps, as if I had described them as two clubs with charters and membership cards and such. You have a lot of fun with your promiscuous quotation marks, don't you?

So let’s get this straight

By now, I don't believe anymore that you're concerned with getting things straight. I've explained to you enough times that I don't think distorting or misrepresenting someone's position is right. I have pointed out that it's very common. This is not the same as saying that it is acceptable.

and this behaviour evokes no objection?

I doubt this will satisfy you, but I will say now that I'm not convinced by most of the claims other posters have made about you in this thread. But the main reason I haven't come to your defense is that I felt you treated me pretty unfairly during our exchange last month. You repeatedly misrepresented my position, the very same offense you complain about all the time. What could I expect other than more abuse from you?

For that matter, why shouldn't other posters wave off your calls for evidence? When I presented numerous examples to support my claims in that thread, you either ignored them or danced around them.

>the abandonment of the principles of substantiation/evidence< is at the core of ills from forum bullying to false arrest to racial/group targeting to unjust (they have WMDs) war.

The selfish impulse that leads one little kid to hog the Lincoln Logs for all of recess is more or less the same as the impulse the motivated the burning and pillaging of the Mongol hordes. Does that mean the little kid is only some number of degrees less "evil and vile" than the Mongols?

It seems to me that trotsky used "evil" and "vile" too broadly for you, and you didn't like that one bit. But now you have defined any immoral act, no matter how trivial, as "evil and vile" and separated from earth-shaking atrocities merely in "levels and degrees."

So "evil and vile" encompasses the behavior of other posters in this forum, but it's also too narrow to be equivalent to "fundamentalist" or "militant" atheist. Is that about right?

“By now, I don't believe anymore that you're concerned with getting things straight. I've explained to you enough times that I don't think distorting or misrepresenting someone's position is right. I have pointed out that it's very common. This is not the same as saying that it is acceptable.”

Uh huh….and as I repeatedly pointed out ‘during our exchange last month” I was not (and am not now) referring to “distorting or misrepresenting someone's position”

From the very outset of our exchange I made it perfectly clear what I was referring to

“The primary method of attacking religious people and agnostics on this board is the falsification, fabrication and blatant lie regarding what they have actually said. It is a game of false accusation and smear that has been going here for ages and has been frequently evedenced”

No sane literate human being can “distort”- “fish fetish” into “Hatred of atheists”

No sane literate human being can “misrepresent”- “Good one Sherlock” as “anti-atheist bigotry”

False accusations such as “Hatred of atheists” and “anti-atheist bigotry” ARE NOT “distorting or misrepresenting someone's position”, they ARE NOT straw men, heat of battle errors or common misreading or mistakes.

They are lies designed to discredit…drawn from nothing…based on nothing…utterly and completely fabricated with the clear intent to slander.

You don’t believe I’m “concerned with getting things straight”? That’s ok.
I trust your sincerity in seeking out my attacks on atheists…seven threads you went through and I’m dammed sure if you came upon any “hatred” of atheism or “bigotry” towards atheist you would put it up quick smart.

To “set things straight” you presented the evidence of “attack” you found- “fish fetish”, “Good one Sherlock” and “heckle brigade”.

Hang me, hang me, take me out the back and hang me.

“You repeatedly misrepresented my position, the very same offense you complain about all the time.”

If I misunderstood or misrepresented your pov I’m more than happy to go back and have a look…but from what I’ve seen your making the same mistake now as then. The “offense” I “complain about all the time” is not one of mere “misrepresentation” of pov but the FABRICATION OF FALSE ACCUSATION.

I couldn’t get that across in the last exchange no matter how forceful the language -
“It’s outright deliberate fucking lying about what the other has said on a sustained and consistent basis”
“I’m not talking about “specious arguments and dumb, unsupportable claims”….I’m talking about blatant malicious lie…total fabrication of another’s pov”

And you still think I’m on about “distorting or misrepresenting someone's position” just like last time-
“People misrepresent each other's positions. Argument gets sloppy in the heat of battle.”

Don’t know what else I can say to get the distinction across.


“For that matter, why shouldn't other posters wave off your calls for evidence? When I presented numerous examples to support my claims in that thread, you either ignored them or danced around them.”

Uberllama….you presented “numerous examples” of “distorting or misrepresenting someone's position”……..not “falsification, fabrication and blatant lie as accusation”…

There’s a world of difference and I can’t get it across.

It looks like we've reached the point where there are several things we're just not going to agree on.

Perhaps you agree that this is a stopping point, or perhaps not.

Have a nice week. I'm going to be out of town for a while.

always should be. The problem is that the atheist viewpoint is resistant to criticism here on DU. Just as many cannot accept the rationale for religious belief, I understand the rationale for not accepting religious belief, but I do not accept, for myself, the atheist POV. For me, it is too narrow in its scope of consideration and lacking in potential. But, hey, that's just my POV. However, it serves to illustrate that other epistemologies do exist, and that they will continue to do so, regardless of how much others approve or disapprove.

...you would get different results?



What is that even supposed to mean? "Too narrow in it's scope of considerations"?

"Lacking in potential"???? For what? The plot to a book you're writing?

All I can do is put it out there. Whether or not you consider anyone's opinion meaningful is totally up to you.

You really don't see the double standard there, do you? Amazing.

Some lay claim to the existence of gods, unicorns, ufos…with no evidence whatsoever.

And others mock them while laying claim to text/events for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

ie.
“evil nasty vile atheist who wants to forcibly de-convert believers at gunpoint.”

Both expect others to believe that just because they have said something it is true.

Both expect their reports to be taken on faith.

Blatant “double standard” hypocrisy.

Yes, that is certainly the absolute limit of your available options.

I mean... what else could there possibly be besides putting a claim "out there"? Explaining it? Defending it? That's crazy talk, you couldn't possibly do something like that.

All Catholics are enabling boy-fucking.

All Christians are selfish prigs who enjoy looking down their nose at people who won't be joining them in Heaven.

Now tell me, do you consider any of these things to be meaningful criticism?

You used to be able to burn people like me at the stake, or crush them on the wheel, or pull them apart on the rack.

However, a few centuries ago the whole of humanity was doing these sorts of things for all kinds of reasons. And conversely to your argument, in the 20th century, millions of religious believers were tortured and killed by you know who. So when you say religion is not open to criticism, all I have to do is to look at the list of threads here on DU, or to check out the latest anti-Christian movie or book or night club act. Truthfully, we are basking in sources of criticism toward religion.

You INSIST you're different than all those other Christians, yet you have an obsessive need to tie all atheists to the particular actions of a communist regime.

Pot, kettle, yada yada.

Let me know when you're ready to get past that bullshit.

hands and feet. That way you'll pop right out when the tension gets to be too much to bear.

And stop whining about "anti-Christian movies" or random threads on an anonymous Internet message board. Talk about not being able to bear any tension. :eyes:

that the persecution complex that SOME Christians have IRL, are reflected on this board. Thats the problem, I think. So many religious people think that ANY critcism of their beliefs is persecution and therefore, do not bother to listen to what the critic is actually saying. Kinda hard to be respectful of people who won't listen to what you have to say...

I don't remember that. When did that happen?

Best response I've read all month. Half laughing; half kicking myself for not thinking the same thing.

BRAVO!

for you inability to see the plank in your own eye yadda yadda yadda.

How about this, put away the Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot canard for one month. Just one month. I dare you. I double dog dare you. I picture you in my head after one week sitting in the corner by your keyboard shaking and just jonesing for one quick typing.

Worst part is, you are just going to deny it with something completely banal in 5...4...3...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8BjeBvzw9w&feature=related


(Wait for the lead break at 2:50, it's killer.)

EXCELLENT!



http://pietyinc.com/">Piety, Inc. - Objective and independent coverage of the Other white-collar crime