Fundamentalist overload

Originally posted by lemon lime
Are you asking me, or telling me? And my name is [b]not Shirley.[/b]

You said: "Why would atheists want to consider or give any credence to (legitimate) evidence that contradicts what they believe?" My lifelong experience has been that generally atheists are more inclined to consider 'inconvenient' evidence than theists are. Are you saying that, in your view, the opposite is true?

Originally posted by FMF
You've admitted to being intellectually dishonest about how you labelled yourself before you became a Christian but have not explained how your intellectual approach has changed in any way now that you happen to label yourself a Christian.

There also seems to be a subtext in what you are saying along the lines of: because you were not intellectually honest ...[text shortened]... ur mindscape seem to be cardboard cut outs that you ~ surprise, surprise ~ find easy to dismiss.

There also seems to be a subtext in what you are saying along the lines of: because you were not intellectually honest with others when you were an atheist, therefore atheists are not honest when they consider evidence that challenges their beliefs.

Intellectual dishonesty indeed... there's a name for what you just did there, it's called poisoning the well.

How can someone be honest with others if they are not being honest with themselves? I wasn't comparing my life story with anyone else, or suggesting it's exactly the same for them as it was for me. It seems you are unable to adequately disguise any of your ridiculous assertions without revealing your own flawed reasoning and intellectual dishonesty.

As for "self-labeling", I've never seen anyone label themselves the way you have labelled yourself. You have described yourself in such glowing terms I sometimes wonder if you list yourself as a reference in your own resume.

Originally posted by FMF
You said: "Why would atheists want to consider or give any credence to (legitimate) evidence that contradicts what they believe?" My lifelong experience has been that generally atheists are more inclined to consider 'inconvenient' evidence than theists are. Are you saying that, in your view, the opposite is true?

Those that toot the theory of evolution go out of their way to ignore evidence against their theory. They try to place the burden of proof on someone else to prove the theory wrong instead of on them to prove it right. But then they will not accept evidence that proves the theory wrong. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Those that toot the theory of evolution go out of their way to ignore evidence against their theory. They try to place the burden of proof on someone else to prove the theory wrong instead of on them to prove it right. But then they will not accept evidence that proves the theory wrong. 😏

LOL toot the theory?

tout the theory, toot the theory... okay, I guess that does work. I've been listening to FMF tooting his own horn for too long, I need to take a break from watching him tout himself. LOL

Originally posted by lemon lime
Intellectual dishonesty indeed... there's a name for what you just did there, it's called poisoning the well.

I don't think this is so. It is you who admitted that you juggled labels for yourself in order to avoid having to answer a certain kind of question. It was not me who introduced this stuff about you into the discussions that are going on here, it was you yourself.

Originally posted by lemon lime
How can someone be honest with others if they are not being honest with themselves? I wasn't comparing my life story with anyone else, or suggesting it's exactly the same for them as it was for me. It seems you are unable to adequately disguise any of your ridiculous assertions without revealing your own flawed reasoning and intellectual dishonesty.

This does not answer the point blank question I have asked you in direct response to what you are implying about atheists.

You said: "Why would atheists want to consider or give any credence to (legitimate) evidence that contradicts what they believe?"

This is quite clearly a rather sweeping characterization of atheists as being intellectually dishonest about their attitude to evidence that challenges them. Does this 'accusation' apply to theists as well, or are you only levelling it at atheists?

My lifelong experience has been that, generally, atheists are more inclined to consider 'inconvenient' evidence than theists are.

Your own disingenuous/manipulative self-labelling in the past aside [atheist v agnostic etc. in order to avoid having your beliefs questioned], are you saying that, in your view and in your experience, that the opposite is true and that theists handle evidence more honestly than atheists?

Originally posted by FMF
I don't think this is so. It is you who admitted that you juggled labels for yourself in order to avoid having to answer a certain kind of question. It was not me who introduced this stuff about you into the discussions that are going on here, it was you yourself.

If you looth a toot, puts it unda you pillow and the Toot Theory will take it and leaf a quarter foe you under you pillow... and the Ether Funny will lay chocolate eggs for you nexth Ether.

Originally posted by lemon lime
You never fail to use honest answers to your questions as ammunition for attacking the person answering.

What you call "attacking", others would call discussion and debate. It's what this forum is for. Some of the answers and comments you give raise more questions than they answer.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Atheism to me is simply the state of not believing in gods. It should not be a 'movement' with an 'image' any more that people who share a lack of belief in Sasquatches should be. Perhaps the best response to people who identify foremost as atheists is, "Great, but what do you believe?"

The difference between those that do not believe in Sasquatches and Atheist are, Atheist
care enough to call themselves Atheist. No one bothers to call themselves whatever the
name is for not believing in Sasquatches, is isn't a big enough deal to anyone to sort
themselves from the rest by having a name for it.

Originally posted by lemon lime
They obviously cannot ignore legitimate evidence if someone is publicly hammering away at them about it, so the best they can do is to convince themselves (along with the public) that it isn't legitimate evidence. I know you don't (or won't) believe this, but much of what is touted as legitimate science is actually publicly approved junk science.

If the evidence is compelling enough attacks on people who present can some times follow.

Originally posted by KellyJay
The difference between those that do not believe in Sasquatches and Atheist are, Atheist
care enough to call themselves Atheist. No one bothers to call themselves whatever the
name is for not believing in Sasquatches, is isn't a big enough deal to anyone to sort
themselves from the rest by having a name for it.

sasquatchists and asasquatchists... sasquatchinarians and...

Okay, I can see another reason for not giving names for non-dis-believers and dis-believers of Sasquatches.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If the evidence is compelling enough attacks on people who present can some times follow.

If this wasn't such a hot topic issue, with the potential of supporting or taking something away from a personal belief (whether it's atheism or theism), then no one in their right mind would feel the need to attack the evidence or the person presenting it.

Originally posted by lemon lime
If this wasn't such a hot topic issue, with the potential of supporting or taking something away from a personal belief (whether it's atheism or theism), then [b]no one in their right mind would feel the need to attack the evidence or the person presenting it.[/b]

Manypeople's views of themselves and the world are caught up in that discussion.

Originally posted by KellyJay
The difference between those that do not believe in Sasquatches and Atheist are, Atheist
care enough to call themselves Atheist. No one bothers to call themselves whatever the
name is for not believing in Sasquatches, is isn't a big enough deal to anyone to sort
themselves from the rest by having a name for it.

That simply isn't true.

"Given the scientific evidence that I have examined, I'm convinced there's a creature out there that is yet to be identified," said Jeff Meldrum, a professor of anatomy and anthropology at Idaho State University in Pocatello.

In response to the above statement by professor Meldrum, several of his contemporaries formed a rebuttal organisation called 'Sasquatch Squashers,' who set out to prove once and for all that such creatures did not and had never existed.

Indeed, it could be argued that Sasquatch Squashers care 'more' for their label than atheists, as they have actively chosen to call themselves such. It is however an atheist's lack of care/belief that differentiates them. In short, a Christian cares about being a Christian, while an atheist couldn't care less about a label that simply denotes he doesn't believe in God. Nothing more.

(* Some creative licence has been used for the existence of Sasquatch Squashers).

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
FIX'D

Stable.