Kuurokocchi
The one comment that bothers me the most about what you've stated is the fact that you think that I hate all things stated by aetheists.
Please point to where I said that I think you hate all things stated by atheists (you're spelling it wrong, by the way). Can you do that?
I know the answer to that in advance, but I want you to seriously go back and see if you can find where I actually said what you're claiming. There is a reason for this.
Quote:
That is not true, whatsoever.
Now that you've had a chance to go back and look at what I actually said again, I can properly address the rest of what you're saying. Your inability to reason is showing here, and I am going to demonstrate that to you. You are at this point in the process of setting up a
strawman.
Quote:
I may have asked if he was one, but by no means was I going to use it as a force of hate.
Again, did I mention at any time that your intention was to introduce what might be - and I am guessing what you mean here, because it is not, in fact, stated clearly - "the mention of atheism" as a force of hate?
The answer to this is also one I know in advance. I said nothing of the sort, in the first instance or in this one. By misrepresenting what I said, you have erected a strawman argument to burn in place of what I actually said. This is logically fallacious, in that the intended purpose of burning a strawman is the desire to avoid what is actually being presented and divert the attention to what the person erecting the strawman believes he is best able to defend.
In short, it's dishonest. You're not addressing what I said. You're substituting something else, possibly based upon your emotional reaction to being challenged, but there may be other reasons. You need to consider very carefully what those reasons might be, because they are what is clouding your ability to think rationally.
Quote:
As if I have not reiterated it enough, I really don't care what you are, I was simply curious as to what the "driving" force behind his comments were, or in other words,
why he was making said comments.
This demonstrates a significant misunderstanding of what atheism actually is, which is not uncommon in society. This does not make it any less incorrect for being a common misunderstanding, mind you. Atheism is a lack of belief. An absence, if you will. An absence is not something that could operate as a driving force.
Quote:
That's cool that you are one, but that doesn't mean I have to just sit back and take the comments.
It also does not mean that you have to resort to strawmanning the responses you do get.
Quote:
And let it be known, that I am Christian, but not as avid of one as others.
I respect your right to hold a belief that you think is true. I do not respect religions, however, and the degree to which you are "avid" is irrelevant to me. How avidly one believes in something for which there is insufficient evidence matters not.
Quote:
However, that being said, I do not appreciate it when mine or again, any other one is criticized.
Do you think you appreciate it more or less than I appreciate having my argument strawmanned and atheism misrepresented? Are you under the mistaken impression that as a religious person your indignation is somehow more valid than mine?
Quote:
Yes, a religion does not have feelings, but that does not mean that those who follow it don't and as such, we have a right to defend what we believe in and this fact is not limited to just religion, but any sort of "belief" a person may have.
At no time did I claim that people do not have feelings. If you cannot separate yourself emotionally from a concept, you need to address that elsewhere. I for one am not going to go easy on your argument when it's fallacious just because you happen to hold a belief as dear. Your persistence in burning strawmen rather than addressing my points logically offends my reason. The difference between you and me is that I understand the difference between attacking me and attacking my reasoning.
Quote:
Even chefs defend what is said against their food and why they chose what they did sometimes, so I don't see why this is so different.
It is not even similar and your choice to compare cooking to holding a religious belief allows for an excellent demonstration of the difference. I am considered to be a rather good cook myself. It is reasonable to be personally invested to something I have created using my own hands, which displays my own creativity and skills, but if someone does not like my food that is not a criticism of me as a person because it is a matter of personal opinion based upon what we know to be a variable human sense of taste. I also know that cooking is demonstrably chemical in nature, and if you choose the incorrect combinations of chemicals your recipe will fail. If I have made errors in cooking that can be improved upon, in technique or choice of ingredients or something of that nature, criticism should be welcomed as it can possibly improve my own abilities.
There is a significant difference between skill at chemistry and ancient belief systems which have been passed down and enforced by others which have no basis in fact. Your example is very poor and logically absurd. A chef is not a preacher, and he who eats because he must eat in order to live as a result of being a mammal is not similar to he who believes in things which are not demonstrably real.
“When you are studying any matter or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only: what are the facts, and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe but look only and surely at what are the facts.“ -- Bertrand Russell.
100
175
100
