Atheist hypocrisy

[Anonymous]

Do we have any proof that the mean atheists are the ones that are saying that they are good? Or that what OP classifies as being mean would coincide with the atheists' own definition? Because if the answer to those two questions is no, then we would not appear to have any hypocrisy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, are you boozing it up before church again? Your post makes no sense.

When you sober up, look up "hypocrisy".

QED

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, are you boozing it up before church again? Your post makes no sense.

When you sober up, look up "hypocrisy".

QED

No, not QED. This proves that atheists can be snarky, not that they are hypocritical.

[Anonymous]

Let's parse this.

Anonymous wrote:
Sorry OP but I don't think getting down and dirty in a debate on an anonymous message board is "mean" enough to make an atheist "not good". If the atheist is not embezzling millions from their religious organization, molesting little children, or participating in the systemic degradation of women as religious tradition, or... etc. etc., then your whining about atheists being mean is just so..... lame.

You are confusing (probably deliberately) (a) debate and reasoned argument with (b) sheer nastiness and trolling. The two are totally different. I hope you understand that.

Anonymous wrote:It's so telling that you start your post with, I don't want to talk about the hypocrisy of religious people, only atheists - cuz you SO know that is a fight that religious people cannot win.

Oh puhleeze. It's only that there are million existing threads on the hypocrisy of religious people. And you object to one single, solitary, thread about yourself? Hahahaha.

Anonymous wrote:You keep on tolerating hate, bigotry, backwards superstition and systemic corruption in your faith. See you on DCUM!

These gross over-generalizations and stereotyping contribute nothing to any conversation. But you knew that, it's just that you don't want to *have* a conversation, you just want to be abusive. Point taken.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, are you boozing it up before church again? Your post makes no sense.

When you sober up, look up "hypocrisy".

QED

No, not QED. This proves that atheists can be snarky, not that they are hypocritical.

It's a form of ad hominem (in effect, it's calling OP drunk and stupid). The post above is cheap, sleazy, avoids the issue, and... it's absolutely hypocritical if you're trying to claim the high ground.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, are you boozing it up before church again? Your post makes no sense.

When you sober up, look up "hypocrisy".

QED

No, not QED. This proves that atheists can be snarky, not that they are hypocritical.

It's a form of ad hominem (in effect, it's calling OP drunk and stupid). The post above is cheap, sleazy, avoids the issue, and... it's absolutely hypocritical if you're trying to claim the high ground.

Where did PP try to claim the high ground? They just pointed out that OP's post made no sense.
To prove hypocrisy you need to find a person making one claim while doing something in contradiction to that claim.

Demonstrating that some atheists can be snarky proves nothing. I am not sure why this is so hard for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: A handful of DCUM's atheists are thoughtful, introspective, and willing to engage in discussion. But the majority -- not so much..

A handful of DCUM's users are thoughtful, introspective, and willing to engage in discussion. But the majority -- not so much..

There, fixed it for you.

On a side note: seems like there's been 1 or more posters who've been compulsively correcting others' grammatical mistakes recently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think a big problem with conversations about faith between believers and non-believers, is the use of the bible as a source. Believers believe the bible is truth while atheists don't. We cannot have a discussion where one person is using a source that the other thinks is completely in left field. The believer thinks that by completely dismissing the bible, the atheist is being disrespectful. I don't know how to get past this first barrier of contention.

This, completely and whole heartedly.

I think we see the terrible examples (on either side) posting on dcum.

I do enjoy reading a good discussion about religion. I left the church and won't go back, but I still enjoy reading and yes, even debating and asking questions. Not to be rude or disrespectful but because I simply don't get it. Quoting the bible does nothing to explain it to me. That's when I get annoyed.

I know why I left the church. When I reference that I'm referring to myself.. not every believer posting on a thread on dcum. Yet my views are seen as disrespectful. Maybe I don't always make sense but that's because I don't have everything all figured out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a big problem with conversations about faith between believers and non-believers, is the use of the bible as a source. Believers believe the bible is truth while atheists don't. We cannot have a discussion where one person is using a source that the other thinks is completely in left field. The believer thinks that by completely dismissing the bible, the atheist is being disrespectful. I don't know how to get past this first barrier of contention.

This, completely and whole heartedly.

I think we see the terrible examples (on either side) posting on dcum.

I do enjoy reading a good discussion about religion. I left the church and won't go back, but I still enjoy reading and yes, even debating and asking questions. Not to be rude or disrespectful but because I simply don't get it. Quoting the bible does nothing to explain it to me. That's when I get annoyed.

I know why I left the church. When I reference that I'm referring to myself.. not every believer posting on a thread on dcum. Yet my views are seen as disrespectful. Maybe I don't always make sense but that's because I don't have everything all figured out.

Actually, I and undoubtedly many other believers don't see your views as disrespectful when you express them respectfully. Disrespectful = the atheists who accuse believers of being drunk or brain-dead. That's what we're talking about here.

[Anonymous]

OP, what do you consider "good"? Can you list examples (not involving the church or God) that make a person good in your opinion? What sorts of behaviors make a person good?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, are you boozing it up before church again? Your post makes no sense.

When you sober up, look up "hypocrisy".

QED

No, not QED. This proves that atheists can be snarky, not that they are hypocritical.

It's a form of ad hominem (in effect, it's calling OP drunk and stupid). The post above is cheap, sleazy, avoids the issue, and... it's absolutely hypocritical if you're trying to claim the high ground.

Where did PP try to claim the high ground? They just pointed out that OP's post made no sense.
To prove hypocrisy you need to find a person making one claim while doing something in contradiction to that claim.

Demonstrating that some atheists can be snarky proves nothing. I am not sure why this is so hard for you.

Sigh. "Good without god" is claiming the high ground. Why is this so hard for you?

There are 1-2 atheists who deliberately twist and misunderstand on every thread. Guessing that's you? Buh bye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a big problem with conversations about faith between believers and non-believers, is the use of the bible as a source. Believers believe the bible is truth while atheists don't. We cannot have a discussion where one person is using a source that the other thinks is completely in left field. The believer thinks that by completely dismissing the bible, the atheist is being disrespectful. I don't know how to get past this first barrier of contention.

This, completely and whole heartedly.

I think we see the terrible examples (on either side) posting on dcum.

I do enjoy reading a good discussion about religion. I left the church and won't go back, but I still enjoy reading and yes, even debating and asking questions. Not to be rude or disrespectful but because I simply don't get it. Quoting the bible does nothing to explain it to me. That's when I get annoyed.

I know why I left the church. When I reference that I'm referring to myself.. not every believer posting on a thread on dcum. Yet my views are seen as disrespectful. Maybe I don't always make sense but that's because I don't have everything all figured out.

Actually, I and undoubtedly many other believers don't see your views as disrespectful when you express them respectfully. Disrespectful = the atheists who accuse believers of being drunk or brain-dead. That's what we're talking about here.

Yeah.. ok I see that. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:note: Yes, of course some believers are hypocrites. But that's not the subject of this thread. If you want to talk about religious hypocrisy, there are a baziliion DCUM threads already dedicated to that subject. So you're welcome to take yourself to one of those threads and bash hypocritical believers there. Let's stick to the header subject on this thread.

This thread is about those atheists who talk about being "good without god" and then slam believers for being brainless. Or those atheists who hijack discussions of faith to talk about sheeple and fairies at the bottom of the garden and that oh-so-worn-out FSM. Or the anti-Catholic bigots (I'm not Catholic).

"Good without god"? It doesn't often seem that way. A handful of DCUM's atheists are thoughtful, introspective, and willing to engage in discussion. But the majority -- not so much.

Discuss.

Sounds like you're really insecure, OP. Where is your god now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, what do you consider "good"? Can you list examples (not involving the church or God) that make a person good in your opinion? What sorts of behaviors make a person good?

Not calling somebody brain-dead just because you differ with them on anything at all, like religion or favorite colors or Virginia vs. MD.
Not calling somebody drunk or stupid because you want to avoid responding to a question.

A respectful discussion of belief and atheism? Let's do it! I'm fine with that! Unfortunately, it will likely get derailed within one page by the "believers are braindead" posters.

[Anonymous]

I don't see the hypocrisy either. I can see how OP might not enjoy talking with atheists about religion, but I don't see what's hypocritical here.