That justifies feeling attacked? Someone dismissed your argument and you throw a little hissy fit and cry foul. How old are you? Someone disagreed with you move on.
My religion? Now you are trying to speak for me? How characteristically cliche of a theist. Then attempt to use a loaded question to misdirect from the original issue of your cherry-picked fallacious argument. Lol
You have to see the irony of @Sherlock-Holmes responding to you highlighting his use of a Texas sharpshooter fallacy, with a straw man fallacy. Thatâs pretty funny, albeit unintended on his part.
But tt wasnât my argument it was an excerpt from a book on the history or of eugenics and the role establishment science played in its development and support. In that program disabled people and those with downeâs syndrome were being targeted for sterilization but guess what? No Bibles, no Churches were involved.
The title of this thread refers to Downeâs Syndrome and Eugenics took a particular interest in such people.
No you didnât disagree, you disparaged and me, referred to âfallaciesâ which even if true are not mine, theyâd be in the book I quoted from.
No, Iâm accusing you of having a religion yet calling yourself an atheist - atheism is a religion!
@Sherlock-Holmes, this is baiting. This subject has been discussed already. Youâre well aware how posters here view this assertion.
You need to stop this sort of baiting. This is an official warning.. Stop it or you will be put in time out again.
Actually it was a straw man and a poisoning of the well fallacy, it needs no dismissing as it is irrational.
He did disagree, and he disparaged your irrational argument, referring to fallacies is not disparaging the person, thatâs just your fragile ego, though I can see why someone who seems incapable of avoiding using them would feel threatened by arguments that expose your relentless use of those fallacies, stop using them, and you take those arguments away.
Indeed, but since not one person here has said otherwise, nor excused the behaviour of anyone who did, you simply reacted emotionally to a criticism of the behaviours of religious people, with a straw man fallacy, and poisoning of the well fallacy, would you like a quote? Actually I will provide it anyway:
See not one person has ever said, implied or thinks any aspect of science is foolproof, nor have they expressed âblind trustâ in any scientist or group of scientists, they have said the opposite repeatedly to you, so youâre lying again. You also dishonestly switched from your lie about science being a religion, to a false equivalence fallacy claiming atheism was religion. So just how dishonest are you prepared to be in this thread to evade facing the erroneous and contradictory claims you donât want to answer elsewhere? On second thoughts I think that should be a rhetorical question.
Which superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods are you claiming atheist worship? Youâre lying again, and all anyone need do is Google the definition of those words to know that youâve lied.
I must now ask, what is it you hope to gain from obvious lies?
You mean how atheist posters view it because I doubt very much a theist or agnostic would care in the slightest, I had no idea all atheists were so sensitive.
Let me ask, for something to be âbaitingâ must it be posted by a theist? could an atheist bait? if so can you give me an example of something youâd regard as a bait posted by an atheist, just so I can be clear.
Can one even discuss the question? could one start a thread for example asking âIs atheism a religion?â or is that taboo here?
I am an agnostic, and I care, I am also an atheist, and this does not involve the worship of any superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods, So again, youâre lying.
Now you claimed all beliefs must be derived from initial beliefs, then when I asked you where the initial or first belef came form, you admitted you didnât know, and said it was an interesting question.
yet when I ask how you can stand by that claim when you donât know where the initial belief comes from, you refuse to answer, has it sopped being interesting now you realise you may have to admit you may have been wrong, or did you just lie again?
Id like to answer but as you can see Iâm not allowed to discuss that subject, it is so sensitive that Iâd end up being banned or something, perhaps even imprisoned as was Galileo when he questioned dogma, when asked uncomfortable questions.
Not true, I refuse to repeat my answer, over and over, I wonât waste my time doing that. Clearly you have not understood my answer so what is the point even continuing to labor this with you.
I donât believe you, and not just because your relentless mendacity is manifest, but because this is clearly another lie, you know you canât justify, as does anyone who Googles the definition of atheism. Which is of course why I took the trouble not just to quote that definition when you lies, but linked it as well, for anyone to see your duplicity.
Is any self awareness working through your rhetoric and trolling yet? those neutral observers you referenced will be reading this long after you are gone.
As is your lie that you made no claims about initial beliefs. You havenât explained why you have not recanted two of those claims, as they contradict the other one, or recant the original claim of course, you canât lie your way out of this, as your posts and claims are easy to requote.
To me a religion is where you worship one or more gods and abide by some âreligious rulesâ to please those gods. Iâm not convinced gods exist so I am out on those religions because I do not buy the answers peddled by religious theory.
Iâm sorry but I cannot answer your question, I was recently told that to suggest atheism was itself a religion was to âbaitâ and baiting is against the rules and Iâd be punished, really Iâd love to answer your question but donât want to get barred.
Oh I think that warning was because you were offering a bare claim, and it had all the hallmarks of trolling at that time, but all anyone need do is read a dictionary: