Extreme religious views

[S.A.M.]

It is how atheists think. I used to be puzzled why they could not see beyond a particular point in an argument, now I realise that they simply can't.

 

[Enmos]

It is how atheists think. I used to be puzzled why they could not see beyond a particular point in an argument, now I realise that they simply can't.

And that's wrong. See, it doesn't work..

 

[S.A.M.]

Or maybe, you cant see beyond a particular point in an argument

 

[Enmos]

Or maybe, you cant see beyond a particular point in an argument

Or maybe you can't.
Your argumentation is very short-sighted at this point. You are essentially arguing that if someone doesn't agree with you, or doesn't get your point, that is their fault; that they are in error.

 

[James R]

For instance, you have no clue how it is to be an atheist.

I do, actually. You just stop thinking things through and voila!

The easiest explanation = the right explanation.

This is an extreme religious view, whether it comes from a theist or an atheist. Both would be equally wrong about the other.

 

[S.A.M.]

Or maybe you can't.
Your argumentation is very short-sighted at this point. You are essentially arguing that if someone doesn't agree with you, or doesn't get your point, that is their fault; that they are in error.

No, I am saying that if I flip their arguments and present them with the new package, they cannot recognise them. They will then argue my points for me and still not recognise them. IOW, they can only argue from one position.

 

[S.A.M.]

This is an extreme religious view, whether it comes from a theist or an atheist. Both would be equally wrong about the other.

When I read about the Piraha, I realised that there could be a biological basis for it. Religion and abstract thinking are linked. Atheists could just think in a different way. Hence I have decided it would be unfair to engage them in religious dialogue.

 

[Enmos]

No, I am saying that if I flip their arguments and present them with the new package, they cannot recognise them. They will then argue my points for me and still not recognise them. IOW, they can only argue from one position.

That's not true.
Firstly, you are grossly generalizing.
Secondly, simply parroting their arguments in your favor is not quite the same as arriving at them on your own. Don't you think people recognize when something is off about your 'adopted' arguments ? It's probably what they mean when they call you intellectually dishonest.

 

[S.A.M.]

Don't you think people recognize when something is off about your 'adopted' arguments ?

Yup and if they thought it through, they would recognise why.

 

[Enmos]

Yup and if they thought it through, they would recognise why.

And no doubt a lot of them do, but they may simply not agree with the usage. Hence the response you often get (see previous post)

 

[S.A.M.]

The responses I often get [see your responses here, for instance] are only confirmation of the fact.

Its why you see threads like "what would you do to stay out of hell" by atheists.

 

[Enmos]

The responses I often get [see your responses here, for instance] are only confirmation of the fact.

What's wrong with my responses ?
I'm just interested in your reasons, and ask questions about them.
You are that the one that starts with the insults.

Its why you see threads like "what would you do to stay out of hell" by atheists.

I do not associate with such threads, thank you.

 

[S.A.M.]

You are that the one that starts with the insults.

Why are you insulted by the notion that atheists think differently?

 

[Enmos]

Why are you insulted by the notion that atheists think differently?

This is insulting because it's a gross generalization:

No, it doesn't. For instance, you have no clue how it is to be an atheist.

I do, actually. You just stop thinking things through and voila!

The easiest explanation = the right explanation.

So you're saying no atheist ever thinks things through. I find that insulting. Are you really surprised ?

 

[S.A.M.]

Ah, see the atheist argument is that theists are delusional, they see and believe in things that do not exist.

Same argument, flipped around.

 

[Enmos]

Ah, see the atheist argument is that theists are delusional, they see and believe in things that do not exist.

Same argument, flipped around.

Again, you're generalizing.. The word 'atheist' does not mean 'someone that thinks theists are deluded'.
Besides, you have nothing to base your assumptions on atheist thinking on.
Atheists at least base it on observable reality.

 

[S.A.M.]

Are you saying you have never called theists delusional?

 

[Enmos]

Ah, see the atheist argument is that theists are delusional, they see and believe in things that do not exist.

Same argument, flipped around.

Besides.. it was not MY argument, was it ?

 

[Enmos]

Are you saying you have never called theists delusional?

Yes. But is that really the point ? If I did, does that mean all atheists do ?

 

[S.A.M.]

Find me one that doesn't and we can both laugh about it.

Besides.. it was not MY argument, was it ?

No, but I've never heard you defending the other side have I?

It made 'sense' to you until it was flipped, then you made all my arguments for me.