Reply to Christians touchier than atheists?

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Christians touchier than atheists?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=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.[/quote]

Doesn't mean anything...

[quote]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.[/quote]

You keep saying this as though you'd shown it, but we still have no examples other than some vague recollection of your past offense.

[quote]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.[/quote]

Excellent example of hair trigger touchiness. LOL.[/quote]

Wow, could you have put any less effort into "constructing a thoughtful response"? If this is an example of atheists' "logic" and "constructive responses," I'm underwhelmed.[/quote]

Sorry, GIGO.

Look. Obviously the "historical origins of the FSM don't make it a critique-proof argument". No one ever claimed they did. PP claimed that FSM was an insult, and that it served no other purpose. My point was that it was intentionally absurd--and for good reason--which is different. To that you added "it's not a critique-proof argument". As I said, that doesn't mean anything because it doesn't address either the OP or my arguments.

Oh, and this reminds me of another important difference: atheists tend to get upset when they think someone is not arguing in good faith, or being disingenuous in their arguments. For example, PP implied that racial minorities who are subject to racial epithets is just like someone who is in the hyper-majority of religious worshippers having to hear their deity compared to an arbitrary godlike creature with an insufficiently reverent name. I wrote back with a long exigesis explaining that no, those two things are not at all similar. At the end of my my post, I implied that someone who is so quick to claim the mantle of victimhood they're willing to ignore many centuries of racial genocide might just be a tad hasty.

So of course, rather than speak to the meat of the argument in my post, you chose to clutch your pearls and sniff over my choice of the term "hair-trigger". Oh, and BTW, it wasn't '"hair trigger" touchiness'. It was "a hair-trigger tendency to don the mantle of victim." Completely apropos and pretty restrained given the context.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics