Need Some Help

184 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sheldon's picture
Fair enough, it's the same

Fair enough, it's the same tedious line in apologetics that threw me.

Neel "bla blah blah....GOD.

Me That's a logical fallacy, you're begging the question by asserting in your argument the point you're trying to argue for.

Neel "No you are"

Me Actually I asked a question, I wasn't making an argument?

Neel "You're begging the question again"

Me What?

Neel "just admit you are begging the question as well"

Is this really what people base their religious beliefs on? Leaving aside how petty his responses were, why do theists think we won't notice they haven't addressed their use of logically fallacious arguments, haven't even acknowledged you pointed it out? They deflect, obfuscate, then move onto the next claim, and pretend nothing has happened. Meanwhile I get private messages telling me he's keen to continue the "discussion". I'm being groomed for some sort of cult aren't I?

Mithridates's picture
We should be fair to Neel, he

We should be fair to Neel, he hasn't responded with any statements that are not civil. And it takes a lot of dedication to actually host a thread to inquire into other's thoughts when no one agrees with you. I respect that so give him a break.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
He did a great job.

He did a great job.

LogicFTW's picture
I made a post sticking to the

I made a post sticking to the topic at hand and answered questions he/she posted in the OP.

I got zero response from him/her. Perhaps it got lost in the shuffle for him/her? I got some likes and dislikes that indicates at least a couple people were able to find and read my post.

I did not attack him/her or even, religion in general, I only posted my own world view. His/her lack of response makes me think this person is not as interested in collecting world view opinions from atheist as he/she stated in the original post.

mykcob4's picture
I disagree. The fact that

I disagree. The fact that Neel is trying to be nice means nothing. Eddie Haskel was always respectful in front of Beaver's parents. He was still a sceeming little shit.
The fact is that Neel is part of a group of theists that has embarked on an organized attempt to "apologize" in order to redefine terms and spin the truth to fit a predetermined narrative. A subtle test was the discussion of whether morality is subjective or objective. This is important to theists as it is the basis for projecting prejudice against all that don't obey and believe in their god. The attempt is to "win" in increments. First, they attempt to get others, in this case, atheists, to agree that it is merely a difference of opinion and ignore the hard and historical fact. The let's agree to disagree ploy. Once any atheist concedes to that degree they move to redefine things like what a historical fact really is. It is a tactic used over and over throughout history. A typical negotiating method used by tyrants that rely on the common decency of people to relent.
The very definition of "apologist" is liar. I think Neel came here not to write a paper as he claims but instead to test his apologist skills. William Craig is an apologist. He uses the very same tactic albeit much more demonstrative. I abhor these people with every ounce of my being. They actually make me sick. Liars, propagandist, disseminators of misinformation, pseudo-scientist, history revisionist, are all among the worst people in the world. Just because someone is nice doesn't mean that they respect you. Just because they say that they retract a previous statement doesn't mean that they really do. A smart lawyer ALWAYS states something that will be objected to and sustained but the damage is already done and that lawyer knows it.
If you didn't know, Neel is a youth minister at his church, some of the most devious people in theism today who are tasked with warping the minds of young men and women. Remember Hitler started the "Hitler Youth" organizations and every major corporation targets the young purposely.
So I am not inclined to be "fair" to Nel or give him the benefit of the doubt. I would rather be skeptical than gullible!

David Killens's picture
He never did answer my

He never did answer my question ...

@Neel

Although he answered (from my recollection) every other post, he did not answer my question.

My impression is that he is that person, charged by this large and wealthy religious organization to deliver propaganda to impressionable children. And I do believe he is taking an apologetic class to familiarize himself with dealing with us nasty atheists

And now he runs away. I urge anyone who is PM'ing him to not discuss anything in private in order to force him from under his rock and face the light of examination.

But I sincerely believe he did not receive any PM's. He just ran away.

Edited by mod to remove personal info about another poster. No poster should do this. Anonymity needs to be protected here in the AR forums. If you have concerns, contact the person via PM or PM CyberLN about it.

mickron88's picture
he made a comeback....

he made a comeback....

disagreeing with all of our post..hahahahaha...

pity, that's all he can do..
hahahah....

pretty lame if you ask me...

algebe's picture
For some reason, Neel Skelton

For some reason, Neel Skelton saw fit to take this discussion out of the forum and into private messages.

His message asked the following questions.

Why do you think we have a conscience? Where did that come from? Obviously I would argue that a conscience is a reflection of God's image in us. How would you respond to that?

I think we have a conscience because without it we'd all be sociopaths with no empathy, even toward our own families and children. That wouldn't be a survival trait for humans. So I think conscience evolved as a mechanism that helped us to survive.

I find the idea that conscience is god's image insulting. It insults our humanity by suggesting that we can't be good and decent without a sky-fairy looking over our shoulders. It's an insult to all-believers because it implies that only a god worshipper can have a conscience.

It's also illogical. If I'd done any of the awful things attributed to god in the bible, my conscience would be driving me insane. Imagine raping a teenage girl and making her pregnant, and then manipulating the son she bore into being tortured to death. No. My conscience is certainly not an image of that disgusting character.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
If he took into private

If he took it into private messages, why make it public?

mykcob4's picture
Because we can

Because we can

mickron88's picture
nice one myk..

nice one myk..

"why make it public?"

is it a big deal if he did?

algebe's picture
It's my discussion too. I

It's my discussion too. I choose to engage in it in public. I won't waste time in his silly divide and conquer gambit.

As you know, I wouldn't bring a private matter into the public forums.

EDIT: This in response to John Breezy's comment.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Divide and conquer lol.

Divide and conquer lol.

algebe's picture
@John: Divide and conquer lol

@John: Divide and conquer lol.

Why do you think he suddenly switched to private messages? His purpose here is to proselytize. That's easier one-on-one.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
It wasn't suddenly, he stated

It wasn't suddenly, he stated as much in the OP: "If you would be willing to engage in this conversation with me over email, please respond here or in a private message with your email to let me know. Or we can do it on this forum if that works better." Anyone who values their time would have gone one-on-one as well.

From what I saw, I think this deserves a name:

Atheist Paranoia - the constant fear of being converted or being made to look foolish by a theist; the state of constant defensiveness and aggressiveness when engaging with a theist.

mykcob4's picture
Oh, bullshit Breezy. How

Oh, bullshit Breezy. How could discussing things in public instead of private be paranoia? Quite the opposite. I'd say it was Atheist Confidence! More like evangelical apologist paranoia!

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
That's not confidence. Not if

That's not confidence. Not if you need a forum full of atheists to step in and defend you; otherwise you wouldn't mind engaging one-on-one. In fact you would prefer it, as it gets rid of distraction.

Your paranoia is also present in the statement that you rather be skeptical than gullible.

mykcob4's picture
FYI Breezy I did engage him

FYI Breezy I did engage him one on one and he ran. I don't need anyone to help me. I never ask for help. The problem with private messaging is that HE can avoid questions. That is the problem. He is scared of the replies. He is the one that is paranoid!
Your unqualified analysis just proves that you should never have a job in healthcare of any type!

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
First of all, dude said he

First of all, dude said he was here for an assignment. If you're asking the questions instead of answering them, that's a problem.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Breezy

@ Breezy
Thus pontificates the man who conceals his fundamentalism. The man whose mendacity has become legendary on these forums. The man who has more twists and turns in a debate than a packet of twisties.

Oh the delicious irony. Bwwwahahhahah
I think you may have a sense of humour!

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
I've actually never hidden my

I've actually never hidden my beliefs nor my denomination; what I have done is not engage with the Straw God Fallacy

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Breezy

@ Breezy

Yes you have, and yes you have. But just in case I missed it what is your faith and denomination/sect?

And making up a new 'fallacy is hilarious. You should get an agent.

Sheldon's picture
That's a risible lie wheezy.

That's a risible lie wheezy. Your arbitrary refusal to discuss honestly and on a level playing field has been cited by many on here. I understand it's difficult to engage an audience that disagree with you, but that is your choice and it was Neel's choice.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
A risible lol. I want

A risible lol. I want whatever thesaurus you own.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Risible Breezy

@ Risible Breezy

Here have mine..the words are all good and readily describe your post...
risible
adjective
provoking laughter through being ludicrous.
"a risible scene of lovemaking in a tent"
synonyms: laughable, ridiculous, absurd, comical, comic, amusing, funny, chucklesome, hilarious, humorous, droll, entertaining, diverting, farcical, slapstick, silly, facetious, ludicrous, hysterical, uproarious, riotous, side-splitting, zany, grotesque;

Many of your arguments do remind me of a couple having sex as a tent slowly collapses upon them...

Oh and which 'denomination were you? I must have missed your prompt and honest reply...

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Ask the forum; they know.

Ask the forum; they know.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Breezy the phantom cultist

@ Breezy the phantom cultist

"Ask the forum; they know." But I am asking you...

Sheldon's picture
" If you're asking the

" If you're asking the questions instead of answering them, that's a problem."

Yes, we wouldn't want theism being submitted to any kind of critical scrutiny would we. Why do you think it's ok to ask questions but refuse to answer them? This has been an unpleasant trait of your posting from day one. Its rank dishonesty, it's a lack of intellectual integrity to try and ring-fence your beliefs in such a way.

Neel has used PM to carry on a dialogue he had conducted in a dishonest fashion in public. As for the idea atheists are ganging up on him, that's just hilarious for any number of reasons, this is an atheist forum he came to of his own volition, and no one is threatening him with eternal torture just for disagreeing with them.

algebe's picture
@John 61X Breezy Atheist

@John 61X Breezy Atheist Paranoia

LOL. Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean the Christians aren't out to get me.

How about Christian sociopathy: The urge to marginalize, ridicule, convert, exclude or persecute anyone who does not subscribe to (or pretend to subscribe to) Christian beliefs.

Sheldon's picture
This what he asked me:

This what he asked me:

Two questions:

1. As fallible evolved primates, why have we not become more moral? As human beings, if morality can be attached to evolution, shouldn't we be becoming more moral? Would you argue we are?

2. If we disagree on what is moral, as you state we would, who or what decides who is right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

They're the usual cliches I've come to expect from religious apologetics. Note the misnomer about evolution as if it is a linear progression towards an end goal, and the incoherent nature of the question, more moral than what? Then the bait and switch trap at the end of Q1. Human morality is just the concept humans have of differentiating between right and wrong behaviours. In order to understand why we think something is moral or immoral we must first understand what we wish our morality to accomplish. Strict adherence to rules isn't objective morality, it's amoral. We are not becoming more anything, human morality has been given a leg up by the industrial revolution, as people in post industrialised democracies have a great deal more time and freedom to think and reason over complex moral dichotomies.

Note the the straw man in Q2, that oversimplifies morality to the point of absurdity by implying morality is limited to just two subjective opinions, also note how these loaded questions tend to avoid specifics. It's impossible to ignore that atheists on the whole are at least as moral as theists. They keep insisting morality is meaningless with religious absolutes, yet atheists are moral. They never ever get around to demonstrating objective evidence for the existence of their deity, or for how they claim to know what it wants, or most telling of all how they know what it wants is moral at all. If only a deity can know what is objectively moral and all humans can do if follow the rules, then it logically follows they are obeying rules they can make no moral assessment of.

HE didn't stay long enough of course, but you just know another subjective rationalisation is coming at that point, and their deity will conveniently give them a private reassurance they're on the right track. Note again theists are never phased that opposing theistic views are justified in the same way.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.