Christians touchier than atheists?

[Anonymous]

I understand that you think it's an oh-so-sophisticated "critique." You don't understand what a false analogy is.

Almighty Dollar! Almighty Dollar! Nanny nanny boo boo!

See how stupid and annoying that is? So are you and your FSM.

[Anonymous]

Can I have an acronym too? It's so much easier.

AD! AD! AD!

[Anonymous]

"You don't understand what a false analogy is."

I understand you're upset by the comparison (if it's a false analogy, surely you could come up with a single reason why it is so) but the larger point is that sometimes an argument upsets us because it's out-of-bounds. Other times it upsets us because it's completely on-point.

As an example, your Almighty Dollar jibe doesn't bother me in the least. You might just as well call all atheists "squid-kissers". It would be every bit as nonsensical and off-topic.

FSM on the other hand seems to drive religious literalists around the bend. Why is that? I think it has to do with the fact that it really is impossible to explain how the belief in any particular godlike being (but not all) can be justified without falling back on special pleading.

Perhaps it gets back to why "believers" are so much touchier than atheists--as the OP suggested.

Anyway, thanks for the pleasant dialogue!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"You don't understand what a false analogy is."

I understand you're upset by the comparison (if it's a false analogy, surely you could come up with a single reason why it is so) but the larger point is that sometimes an argument upsets us because it's out-of-bounds. Other times it upsets us because it's completely on-point.

As an example, your Almighty Dollar jibe doesn't bother me in the least. You might just as well call all atheists "squid-kissers". It would be every bit as nonsensical and off-topic.

FSM on the other hand seems to drive religious literalists around the bend. Why is that? I think it has to do with the fact that it really is impossible to explain how the belief in any particular godlike being (but not all) can be justified without falling back on special pleading.

Perhaps it gets back to why "believers" are so much touchier than atheists--as the OP suggested.

Anyway, thanks for the pleasant dialogue!

I've seen people on DCUM try to explain why FSM is a wrong-headed analogy. I've tried myself. You guys just don't listen.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. So....

AD! AD! AD!

[Anonymous]

I've seen people try to explain why it's a failed analogy, too. Haven't seen anyone make any kind of credible argument though. (Perhaps you could link to one of these rebuttals?)

My larger point is that, when someone is just plain off-base, atheists generally point it out but what's the point of getting worked up? I think if theists had a valid critique for half of this stuff, they'd chill out a bit.

[Anonymous]

If somebody says they're insulted by a racial epithet, do you keep using that epithet? I doubt it.

You keep using terms that believers find insulting, though. We're going to have to conclude that you don't think we deserve the same respect. In fact, the sneering nastiness from atheists runs all through this thread. That's what the FSM is about: it's not about logic, no matter what you pretend. The FSM about being deliberately offensive, like a racial epithet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've seen people try to explain why it's a failed analogy, too. Haven't seen anyone make any kind of credible argument though. (Perhaps you could link to one of these rebuttals?)

My larger point is that, when someone is just plain off-base, atheists generally point it out but what's the point of getting worked up? I think if theists had a valid critique for half of this stuff, they'd chill out a bit.

How do you "critique" an intentional insult? That's really what we're talking about here.

It's a "gotcha" game. If I say atheists worship the Almighty Dollar, some if you are going to get offended. Then I can follow up with "Atheiets are so touchy!" I think someone in the 1970s wrote a book on these types of games.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"You don't understand what a false analogy is."

I understand you're upset by the comparison (if it's a false analogy, surely you could come up with a single reason why it is so) but the larger point is that sometimes an argument upsets us because it's out-of-bounds. Other times it upsets us because it's completely on-point.

As an example, your Almighty Dollar jibe doesn't bother me in the least. You might just as well call all atheists "squid-kissers". It would be every bit as nonsensical and off-topic.

FSM on the other hand seems to drive religious literalists around the bend. Why is that? I think it has to do with the fact that it really is impossible to explain how the belief in any particular godlike being (but not all) can be justified without falling back on special pleading.

Perhaps it gets back to why "believers" are so much touchier than atheists--as the OP suggested.

Anyway, thanks for the pleasant dialogue!

No, you go first. I asked you first to explain why atheists don't believe in the almighty dollar, and you still haven't done that.

What? You don't have the energy to debunk a stupid idea for somebody who probably isn't going to listen anyway? Join the club.

[Anonymous]

If I argued that the US was the greatest country in the history of Earth, you compared it to Ancient Rome, and I took *incredible* offense to that comparison, would you keep making similar comparisons?

For whatever it's worth FSM is absolutely about logic. The genesis of the FSM was in response to right-wing Christianists who were attempting to codify Creationism in public schools. The FSM was conceived as a way of showing that every single argument made by the Creationists to leverage the fundamentalist Christian god into schools could be made for any arbitrary supernatural being.

Again, because you don't bother to understand a critique doesn't mean it's illogical. And while I'm sorry there are a small minority of "believers" who don't understand and are offended by the analogy, the absurdity is a necessary part of the perfectly rational argument.

Now, the truly sad thing about your post is your implicit comparison of the hegemonic class of American Christians--who have a long history of curtailing the rights of minorities--to the minorities that have been oppressed.

Sorry, calling a black person the n-word (with the long history of our nation) is a far cry from saying that the belief in one god is no more plausible than any other.

I think this kind of hair-trigger tendency to don the mantle of victim supports the OP's thesis.

[Anonymous]

OP here -- I'd say that based on this conversation, there's plenty of touchiness to go around.

I hope it's just a phase, though and that some day soon neither side will feel the need to defend itself so much.

I do feel that Christians are more touchy right now, but that it doesn't really relate to their religious beliefs so much as that they sense that they are losing the privileged status that they've had for so long -- sort of like men in the sixties when women's lib started up and white folks before that when the civil rights movement cranked up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"You don't understand what a false analogy is."

I understand you're upset by the comparison (if it's a false analogy, surely you could come up with a single reason why it is so) but the larger point is that sometimes an argument upsets us because it's out-of-bounds. Other times it upsets us because it's completely on-point.

As an example, your Almighty Dollar jibe doesn't bother me in the least. You might just as well call all atheists "squid-kissers". It would be every bit as nonsensical and off-topic.

FSM on the other hand seems to drive religious literalists around the bend. Why is that? I think it has to do with the fact that it really is impossible to explain how the belief in any particular godlike being (but not all) can be justified without falling back on special pleading.

Perhaps it gets back to why "believers" are so much touchier than atheists--as the OP suggested.

Anyway, thanks for the pleasant dialogue!

No, you go first. I asked you first to explain why atheists don't believe in the almighty dollar, and you still haven't done that.

What? You don't have the energy to debunk a stupid idea for somebody who probably isn't going to listen anyway? Join the club.

Atheists do worship the AD. At least some do. Same with religious folks. But again, you misunderstand the critique. Your task is not to "debunk" the idea that theists worship the FSM. It's to show in what discernible way the existence of the Christian god is more plausible than any arbitrary godlike being.

The fact that this is an impossible task is what seems to truly anger literalists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here -- I'd say that based on this conversation, there's plenty of touchiness to go around.

I hope it's just a phase, though and that some day soon neither side will feel the need to defend itself so much.

I do feel that Christians are more touchy right now, but that it doesn't really relate to their religious beliefs so much as that they sense that they are losing the privileged status that they've had for so long -- sort of like men in the sixties when women's lib started up and white folks before that when the civil rights movement cranked up.

Damned good point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here -- I'd say that based on this conversation, there's plenty of touchiness to go around.

I hope it's just a phase, though and that some day soon neither side will feel the need to defend itself so much.

I do feel that Christians are more touchy right now, but that it doesn't really relate to their religious beliefs so much as that they sense that they are losing the privileged status that they've had for so long -- sort of like men in the sixties when women's lib started up and white folks before that when the civil rights movement cranked up.

That doesn't make any sense. 90% of the country describes itself as religious, and this is still a Christian nation. That won't change anytime soon.

The problem atheists face is it's kind of hard and inherently negative to be against something. We know what you're against. But what are you for? And please don't talk about secular humanism -- all of those concepts derive directly from Scripture.

[Anonymous]

1. I'm no fan of Creationism, but the historical origins of the FSM don't make it a critique-proof argument. Twinkies have a history but that doesn't mean they were good for you.

2. Meanings change over many decades. I know you will be surprised by this, but it's true. Being a "boy scout" or a "greaser" were good things back in the 50s and 60s, too, but now both are associated with intolerance, one as the oppressor, the other as the oppressed immigrant. Go back and look at context and you'll see that FSM is used on DCUM to insult not debate.

3. We're having a discussion about whether FSM is insulting and you start throwing around words like "hair trigger" touchiness. I call foul. I could start calling your arguing style sleazy -- or hair-trigger touchy -- but I haven't. Until now. Sleazy.

But you knew all this. At least I hope so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here -- I'd say that based on this conversation, there's plenty of touchiness to go around.

I hope it's just a phase, though and that some day soon neither side will feel the need to defend itself so much.

I do feel that Christians are more touchy right now, but that it doesn't really relate to their religious beliefs so much as that they sense that they are losing the privileged status that they've had for so long -- sort of like men in the sixties when women's lib started up and white folks before that when the civil rights movement cranked up.

What exactly is this "privileged status?" Serious question. I say this because I was agnostic for quite awhile but I did not notice any real changes in my life compared to now. It was pretty much the same. "Privileged status" suggests to me that there are some perks to being a Christian, but I'm not aware of any. I'm pretty sure that I've gotten more negative reactions from people who know that I'm a Christian. I've never gotten a job because I'm a Christian. I don't even get my holidays off because I'm Eastern Orthodox. You can be part of the majority and not have any real privileges- the middle class, for example, is a majority but I'd argue they don't really have any perks or privileges.