Originally posted by Great King RatDid you see the one where he decided that someone is only heterosexual while actually engaged in sex with someone of the opposite gender, all so that he wouldn't have to admit that his prior statements about homosexuals were ridiculous?
It's the often outrageous mental gymnastics theists have to do to make sense of their theism. Robbie Carrobie once had to come to the conclusion that he wasn't sure anymore if he believed in Santa Clause or not all so that his theistic card house wouldn't come crumbling down.
That one was hilarious.
Are we mocking him, or showing intellectual interest in his behaviour?
That was very funny indeed. Until he concluded that a "lesbian" being raped by a man is heterosexual during the rape. That's when it went from funny to creepy.
Mocking or intellectual interest? Both, I'd say. You could ask divegeester, although he might have trouble answering it seeing how it was an atheist vs. JW debate. Which side to choose??
-Removed-I think that is because the question has been answered many times before, and the title of your thread suggests that you are aware of that and presumably have read at least some of the many detailed answered previously provided. It has been assumed in this thread that the subject is mockery and whether or not our answers in previous threads were cover for a secret desire to mock.
1 edit
-Removed-First, absolutely there are times when mockery is the most appropriate response. I see no reason why anyone should be ashamed of mockery per se. A good argument gets a serious response. A laughably bad one does not deserve it.
(And it's fun. Don't tell me you weren't laughing when you thought of that 'kook aid' dig because I won't believe it. 🙂 )
Second, I can offer some other reasons for posting here. I have learned a great deal from threads like bbarr's "general argument from evil" thread. There were other interesting discussions like one I had with jaywill on whether it was apt to compare certain Bible stories to Aesop's Fables. Galveston in another thread presented a good argument (maybe cribbed, but still was good either way) that the Bible does not support the idea of eternal torment in Hell. vistesd has offered many insightful threads on religions like Buddhism and Judaism that do not get as much coverage as the big two (Christianity and Islam).
I have been greatly entertained by some of the old "Bible yomama" threads and also vistesd's "Argumentum Spiritualensis" thread which was nothing but parodies of bad spiritual arguments (but not necessarily targeted at anyone in particular; sometimes it was even people making fun of themselves. The tone was overall light-hearted.)
1 edit
-Removed-Well my understanding of what atheism means has certainly changed since arriving.
Even though many self-proclaimed atheists have shot down my spiritual ideas via so called reliable science, it seems that I may be the biggest atheist yet.
So as an atheist I believe there is no God or ruler as the true nature of the universe.
As an atheist I can still entertain an afterlife or lives or conjure a spiritual (non-physical) world which "intertwines" with the one we know.
I can proclaim that the "light is the way" and other such sayings.
I can believe in so many different spiritual views and still remain an atheist.