Vociferous Atheists vs. Fundamentalist Christians AKA Spot the Fallacies!

[wolven7]

Composition, Poisoning the Well, Guilt By Association, Ad Hominem, Appeal to Force, Irrelevant Conclusion (Straw Man and Non Sequitor), Ad Populum, Argument from Ignorance, False Cause, Slippery Slope

HASTY GENERALIZATION!

Accident, Begging the Question, Equivocation, Accent, Composition, Division.

The preceding list applies to ALL SIDES of this on-going and increasingly mind-numbing and vomitously hypocritical argument.

Now get the fuck out of my sight, all of you.

Comments

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

Argument from Ignorance

Is that the technical term for the atheist guy who tells me that the kamikaze pilots were all fundamentalist Buddhists who believed in an afterline because only believers in an afterlife would perform a suicide attack and furthermore the Tamil Tigers didn't exist?

Can I give it a snappier name? Like, say, "argument from total fucking ignorance?"

yrs--
--Ben

[wolven.livejournal.com]

No, that's just plain DUMB. The latter suggestion is accurate.

Argument from Ignorance is when you say that we don't know something ISN'T true, so we might as well believe it is, and vice-versa.

What is at stake?

[plantyhamchuk.livejournal.com]

Oh I don't know, it doesn't seem any worse than the "fight" between any other pair of ideologies that view themselves as being diametrically opposed.

Reason has nothing to do with it.

Re: What is at stake?

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Well, when the vociferous atheists claim reason as their stronghold, it seems like it should.

Re: What is at stake?

[plantyhamchuk.livejournal.com]

People claim to use reason all the time. Doesn't mean that they are.

Is there a reason why what these people do is bothering you?

Re: What is at stake?

[wolven.livejournal.com]

The hypocrisy, the threats, and the blind ignorant hatred.

Re: What is at stake?

[plantyhamchuk.livejournal.com]

All sounds pretty human to me, and par for the course for anyone who has bought into any particular paradigm/ideology/identity.

Re: What is at stake?

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Doesn't mean I have to like it, doesn't mean I have to accept it, doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't work to point it out and change it, when I can.

I think the world is a far worse place with this kind of deep-level ideological intolerance in it, and it breaks so many, on every side, more than they see, and they think they aren't doing damage. I don't want to do damage. I want to show people the damage they do, and convince them that they can do Far better things.

Re: What is at stake?

[plantyhamchuk.livejournal.com]

People aren't going to see unless they're ready and willing. I'm not saying to give up your dreams, or that I don't support your efforts, it's just that getting (what appears to be) really frustrated when people act like, well, people, probably doesn't serve you all that well. You're using words of violence here, yourself.

Re: What is at stake?

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Yes, because if I could shake them all until they learned better, I would, but I know it won't help.

I have anger. Anger at the state of things goes hand-in-hand with my drive to change them, it goes step by step with the processes I use to enact that change. Here, in my space, my anger is mine to display to those on a cusp, those who are closer to me, and who have chosen to come this far.

Out there, the anger takes a different form, a colder, clearer form. Precision and analysis.

But this is here, and I was, and to an extent, still am, pissed.

[cailement.livejournal.com]

*hugs*

Speaking of religious arguments, last night, at Pisala, my friend Jeff (7th day adventist), myself (recovering catholic turned Yes), and Nana (Japanese Buddhist/Shinto mix) had a conversations about the different bits of Christianity. Nana had NO idea (as in seriously, she didn't know). It was an awesome conversation.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I bet that was. :)

*hug*

[momentai.livejournal.com]

tl, dr.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

*extends middle finger*

[necrophonic.livejournal.com]

So is your objection to the debate, or the Vociferous and Fundamentalist aspects of the extreme ends of each side?

Were an atheist and a christian to debate calmly and rationally in such a way as either side might actually convince/sway/prove to the other side a grain of "truth", would THAT piss you off, or just the pissing contest held by the assholes?

[necrophonic.livejournal.com]

oh, and I agree whole-heartedly with your summary of events of any given jerk-filled theological debate, extending beyond even the atheist/christian, science/creationism carnival.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Pissing contest and assholes. If people can talk and understand each other (which I'm not fully convinced that so-called rationalists and so-called religious people can do, but that's a much longer whatever), in a way that allows each to better know themselves, as well?

Well, then I'll count my work here as done.

And be bored for a little while.

[necrophonic.livejournal.com]

Gotcha.

And yeah, I'm not so sure that those are two groups that can really understand each other, at least not at the far ends. Oh do I have youtube links to prove THAT...

[thehobbit.livejournal.com]

My God. Can I friend you?

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Feel absolutely free.

[vortex.livejournal.com]

Can't we all just dance, drink rum and have a good time?!...

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Well. It IS the Holiday season. So Yes. Yes we can.