You might be a FUNDY ATHEIST [Archive]

9th March 2003, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by hammegk
Thanks, Whodini.

Question: Did Anus bring something to the discussion, or complain about something?

WHO?

I didn't see anybody.

;)

Yeah, looking at you-know-who's post counts and who he's posted to, and the content of his posts makes his motives pretty transparent. But no, he's not a troll, no sirreeee, because he's Mr. Policeman!

:D

Peskanov

9th March 2003, 03:14 PM

From Whodini's link:
----
You spend hours arguing that a-theism actually means "without a belief in God " and not just " belief that there is no god" as if this is a meaningful distinction in real life.
----

I am really surprised about this. Everybody I know feels the distinction is important; especially christians.
Most christians can deal with indifference about god, but get really hurt or molested by negation of god.
This list seems made by christian fundamentalist...Certainly those arguments are too radical for the average catholic.

muscleman

9th March 2003, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Peskanov
From Whodini's link:
----
You spend hours arguing that a-theism actually means "without a belief in God " and not just " belief that there is no god" as if this is a meaningful distinction in real life.
----

I am really surprised about this. Everybody I know feels the distinction is important; especially christians.
Most christians can deal with indifference about god, but get really hurt or molested by negation of god.
This list seems made by christian fundamentalist...Certainly those arguments are too radical for the average catholic.

Since you are aware that your cult is about to perish, YOU CERTAINLY ATTEMPT TO TURN US AGAINST EACH OTHER, LIKE THE ATHEISTS THAT YOU ARE, THEN CLAIM TO BE "MORALLY GOOD"...:) But that wont work this time, especially dealing with the educated...

Christians means disciples of Christ, and we are all called to love one another regardless of belief, race, cultures, even enemies.

the body is the temple of God, each individual is their own church, their own religion. Who have their "own" philosophies and beliefs, and may not share that with the rest of the members of the same "Organized religion""..

Even if we share different beliefs (I prefer blue, while you prefer red. Jesus was 33 yrs old, Jesus was 32 yrs old..etc.) Regardless of our misconceptions, the fact is, whats important is our virtues.... Kapeesh.......

Unas

9th March 2003, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by Whodini
Yeah, looking at you-know-who's post counts and who he's posted to, and the content of his posts makes his motives pretty transparent.Whodini posts another argumentum ad hominem (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm) -- content-free, as usual.

Unas

9th March 2003, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by muscleman
Since you are aware that your cult is about to perish, YOU CERTAINLY ATTEMPT TO TURN US AGAINST EACH OTHER, LIKE THE ATHEISTS THAT YOU ARE, THEN CLAIM TO BE "MORALLY GOOD"...Muscleman is employing the straw man fallacy (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/straw.htm), by attacking an argument that Peskanov did not make.

9th March 2003, 04:24 PM

Unas is appealing to authority (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm) by constantly referring to that webpage like it proves her points or something.

Unas committed the fallacy of changing the subject (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/subject.htm) by completely diverting the topic of the original post in this thread.

Unas committed a semi-ad hom (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm) , by stating: "One wonders what makes it worthy of Whodini's attention..."

Unas is committing the fallacy of style over substance (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/style.htm) by arguing that the presentation of the 'You Might be a Fundy Atheist' page somehow affect its contents.

Hey, this is fun Unas. I can keep this up too. Glad I took you off ignore temporarily.

Thanks for the site!

:D

muscleman

9th March 2003, 04:27 PM

hahahahahaha, thanks for the site too brainwashed cult Una! Ill use that for sometime later..

Tricky

9th March 2003, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by Whodini
This deserves a post every once in a while. Some of them really hit home (some do not though):

http://www.tektonics.org/fundyath.html
It contained some funny bits, though a bit mean-spirited. it was unlike the Jeff Foxorthy "You might be a redneck..." routines that is modelled after in that it is obvious to all that Foxworth really likes rednecks. I did not get the impression that the author(s) of this list thought that atheists are basically good people with some funny quirks.

But even so, it is always good to be able to laugh at yourself.

Unas

9th March 2003, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by Whodini
Unas is appealing to authority (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm) by constantly referring to that webpage like it proves her points or something.False. I merely provide a handy reference to the definitions of the fallacies I refer to.
Originally posted by Whodini
Unas committed the fallacy of changing the subject (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/subject.htm) by completely diverting the original post in this thread.The "original post in this thread" is exactly as Whodini posted it, and has not been changed or "diverted" in any way. If Whodini does not wish his posts to be commented upon, he can simply cease posting.
Originally posted by Whodini
Unas committed a semi-ad hom (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm) , by stating: "One wonders what makes it worthy of Whodini's attention..."Possibly. I shall be more careful in the future.
Originally posted by Whodini
Unas is committing the fallacy of style over substance (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/style.htm) by arguing that the presentation of the 'You Might be a Fundy Atheist' page somehow affect its contents.False. I made no comment whatsoever upon the presentation of the page in question.

muscleman

9th March 2003, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by Unas
False. I merely provide a handy reference to the definitions of the fallacies I refer to.

Giving reference to a website doesnt necessarily mean the website is a dogma and something we can lay all our trust to..

Originally posted by Unas

The "original post in this thread" is exactly as Whodini posted it, and has not been changed or "diverted" in any way.

Of course you tried to changed it, you started talking about "Ad hominem" instead of showing the fallacy of the topic...

Originally posted by Unas

If Whodini does not wish his posts to be commented upon, he can simply cease posting.
Possibly. I shall be more careful in the future.
False. I made no comment whatsoever upon the presentation of the page in question.

You made no comment on the question? Are you on crack? See above, you typed it yourself...

THATS HOW THE ATHEISTS RESPONDS, LIKE A MORON, THEN ACCUSES US OF BEING A MORON....... POINTLESS COMMENTS...

9th March 2003, 04:48 PM

Unas committed the fallacy of appealing to popularity (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm) yet again by referencing his "handy reference" page for the nth time.

Unas also is knowingly and consciously arguing based on falsehoods, by stating

"The "original post in this thread" is exactly as Whodini posted it, and has not been changed or "diverted" in any way."
03-10-2003 12:30 AM

when I in fact said:
(emphasis mine)

"Unas committed the fallacy of changing the subject by completely diverting the topic of the original post in this thread."
03-10-2003 12:24 AM

I await further use of that handy reference page.

Unas

9th March 2003, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by muscleman
Giving reference to a website doesnt necessarily mean the website is a dogma and something we can lay all our trust to.I have not claimed that the Logical Fallacies website is 'dogma'. Muscleman again employs a straw man, by attacking an argument that I did not make.
Originally posted by muscleman
Of course you tried to changed it, you started talking about "Ad hominem" instead of showing the fallacy of the topic.Incorrect. I pointed out that the page in question was, in fact, full of fallacies -- including several hominems.
Originally posted by muscleman
You made no comment on the question? As I stated, I made no comment on the presentation of the website that Whodini referred to. Muscleman dishonestly twists this to another meaning -- a classic straw man fallacy.
Originally posted by muscleman
Are you on crack? Ad hominem. Dismissed for lack of content.
Originally posted by muscleman
See above, you typed it yourself...The statement "If Whodini does not wish his posts to be commented upon, he can simply cease posting" clearly refers to Whodini's own posts, not the website Whodini referred to. Muscelman's dishonest practice of ignoring the context of the posts he answers is noted.
Originally posted by muscleman
THATS HOW THE ATHEISTS RESPONDS, LIKE A MORON, THEN ACCUSES US OF BEING A MORON.I have not referred to Muscelman as a "moron". He again employs the straw man fallacy.

TheERK

9th March 2003, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by Whodini
This deserves a post every once in a while. Some of them really hit home (some do not though):

http://www.tektonics.org/fundyath.html

Why does this deserve another posting? You could have just replied to the old thread if you wanted to bump it.

Unas

9th March 2003, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by Whodini
Unas committed the fallacy of appealing to popularity (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm) yet again by referencing his "handy reference" page for the nth time.False. I have made no reference to the popularity of the page.

Whodini should simply stop lying about what others have said and done.

9th March 2003, 04:54 PM

Unas's dishonesty, as discussed above, is noted.

Unas

9th March 2003, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by Whodini
Unas also is knowingly and consciously arguing based on falsehoods, by stating

"The "original post in this thread" is exactly as Whodini posted it, and has not been changed or "diverted" in any way."
03-10-2003 12:30 AMWhere is the falsehood in that statement? Whodini has yet to point it out.

9th March 2003, 04:58 PM

Unas is again caught using incomplete quoted material.

I said that Unas is committing the fallacy of . changing the subject (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/subject.htm) by diverting the topic of the original post, not changing the original post itself, as Unas claims.

Unas again fails to admit his dishonesty.

Tricky

9th March 2003, 05:04 PM

Don't let it bug you, Unas. It was meant as a joke. I agree it is not the most hilarious humor in the world, but if you find it offensive, then I must enjoin you never to make any jokes that start out with, "A minister a priest and a rabbi..."

From your picture, it looks like you ought to have fairly thick skin.;)

9th March 2003, 05:04 PM

As pointed out earlier, Unas committed a semi-ad hom (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm) , by stating: "One wonders what makes it worthy of Whodini's attention...", and he admitted it.

Why should anyone take anything Unas says seriously after that demonstration of his irrationality?

Interesting Ian

9th March 2003, 05:06 PM

Interesting Ian

9th March 2003, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Unas
It's an entire web page full of ad hominem attacks, straw men, and other elementary logical fallacies.

One wonders what makes it worthy of Whodini's attention...

Nope, it accurately describes most people in these forums.

9th March 2003, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by TheERK

Why does this deserve another posting? You could have just replied to the old thread if you wanted to bump it.

That would be true IF the list hasn't had additions since then.

Also, the site posted has other articles critical of so called skeptics that are worth inspection.

Tricky

9th March 2003, 05:15 PM

But since you find that site so hilarious, you might also think
these (http://www.squirrelsisland.com/articles%20by%20guests/fundy1.htm)
three (http://www.squirrelsisland.com/articles%20by%20guests/fundy2.htm)
sites (http://www.squirrelsisland.com/articles%20by%20guests/fundy3.htm)
are simply sidesplitting.

Like the fundy atheist site, I found a few mildly amusing things, but mostly just mean-spirited.

Unas

9th March 2003, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by Whodini
I said that Unas is committing the fallacy of changing the subject (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/subject.htm) by diverting the topic of the original post, not changing the original post itself, as Unas claims.Whodini's claim is incorrect. The original topic of this thread was the page that Whodini referenced in the first post. I commented upon that page. There was no topic change.

Unas

9th March 2003, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Nope, it accurately describes most people in these forums. Ian's opinion is noted -- as is the lack of any supporting evidence for his claim.

Unas

9th March 2003, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by Whodini
Why should anyone take anything Unas says seriously after that demonstration of his irrationality? Whodini again attempts to advance his case with an ad hominem attack.

Unas

9th March 2003, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
Don't let it bug you, Unas. It was meant as a joke. I agree it is not the most hilarious humor in the world, but if you find it offensive, then I must enjoin you never to make any jokes that start out with, "A minister a priest and a rabbi..."I never do.
Originally posted by Tricky
From your picture, it looks like you ought to have fairly thick skin.In that, my friend, you are correct.

Lord Kenneth

9th March 2003, 05:43 PM

You might be a FUNDY IDIOT if...

...you laugh at FUNDY (INSERT RELIGION/BELIEF HERE) "jokes".

Lord Kenneth

9th March 2003, 05:45 PM

Unless, of course, it's aimed at rednecks in some shape or form.

9th March 2003, 06:34 PM

Unas shows her dishonesty by saying:

"There was no topic change."

when clearly she committed the fallacy of changing the subject (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/subject.htm) by committing an ad hominem (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm) attack:

"One wonders what makes it worthy of Whodini's attention...

So Unas is clearly lying when she states the she didn't change the topic.

9th March 2003, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by Unas
Whodini again attempts to advance his case with an ad hominem attack.

False.

The blatent ad hominem attack that Unas made was pointed out.

Once again Unas demonstrates her dishonesty.

Checkmite

9th March 2003, 07:27 PM

What does it take for a "semi ad-hom" to metamorphose into a "blatant ad hominem attack"?

Ladewig

9th March 2003, 08:19 PM

I found some funny, some accurate, and some confusing. I am referring to both the posted site and the messages in this thread. I think both also had more than was necessary.

9th March 2003, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by Ladewig
I found some funny, some accurate, and some confusing. I am referring to both the posted site and the messages in this thread. I think both also had more than was necessary.

LOL! Well said! I agree 100% with that astute summary Ladewig!

Alright, she is going back on the "Bethke List".

Let me post the link again though, because quite a few of them were hilarious. I wouldn't want anyone to miss it in all the noise.
(I'll put it in my sig. so the noise can't wash it out also)

[url]http://www.tektonics.org/fundyath.html[/url

PogoPedant

10th March 2003, 01:32 AM

81. You're saving up to move to some more enlightened place, like Sweden.
Hey! What did Sweden ever do to the Christians?

Peskanov

10th March 2003, 01:41 AM

Ian;

---
Only know fundie atheists do you?? Of course there's no difference! LMFAO!!!
---

I wish I only know atheists! :)
No; I live in a catholic country; I would say I know mostly non practicant catholics, a few practicant ones, and a few atheists...
The trend here is to be positive towards the figure of Jesus, and respect religious views.
Arguing against christian faith is bad seen here; soft skepticism is commonly accepted.
Why do you think there is no difference between negating and ignoring the god hypothesis?

fishbob

10th March 2003, 02:03 AM

33. You claim antibiotic-resistant bacteria is proof protozoa evolved into a person. Many of the reasons you might be a Fundy Atheist are similar to this one. Not logical, not funny, not worthy of Jeff Foxworthy. As a matter of fact, none of them are funny. What I want to know is - what is a Fundy Atheist?

Unas

10th March 2003, 03:45 AM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
What does it take for a "semi ad-hom" to metamorphose into a "blatant ad hominem attack"? Apparently, all it takes is a little revisionist thinking on the part of Whodini.

Skeptical Greg

10th March 2003, 04:58 AM

Originally posted by Whodini
This deserves a post every once in a while. Some of them really hit home (some do not though):

http://www.tektonics.org/fundyath.html

Why? ( does it deserve a post once in awhile )

Just something to do in the absence of substance?

Is this your new " If you can't beat em ( the flamers and trolls ) ' join em' ." approach?

Upchurch

10th March 2003, 06:52 AM

The thing I found most interesting about the link was how amazingly universal it was. Some of the examples and counter examples could have been drawn directly from this board. There was even an "a-theism" spelling in number 9.

I wonder, was this board used as a source? Or do a lot of boards use the same examples?

Skeptical Greg

10th March 2003, 07:02 AM

We have been treated to the ideas of Mr. Holding before.

The Rest of the Story (http://www.tektonics.org)

Interesting that Mr. Whodini finds him to be a rational voice for the interests of Christians everywhere.

10th March 2003, 07:30 AM

----
Interesting that Mr. Whodini finds him to be a rational voice for the interests of Christians everywhere.
----

Did I say that?

No. Therefore, it is apparent that Diogenes is lying.

I posted the link because (like I said the VERY FIRST post) I find some of the entries funny and accurate (and some not so funny or accurate).