The irrational "rationality" argument

[Starman]

The atheist claim of "rationality" is utterly irrational.

Overwhelmingly, atheists claim to have been believers, who turned to atheism on the basis of rational thinking... while they were believers.

So can atheists be believed when they assert their own rationality, and deny that of Christians, whom they insist are not rational, when their own "rational" decisions were made while they were "irrational"?

Is this not one of the many conundrums of atheism?

Finally, is it "rational" to claim that one singular belief (in atheism) instantly confers rationality, reason and intellect, as atheists insist? Are intellectualism and rationality achieved so effortlessly?

[Starman]

Are you under the impression that generalisations about large groups of people (atheists, theists, scientists, , etc) have sufficient specificity to form worthwhile debating points?

Are you not?
Have atheists not submitted debating points based on generalizations of large groups of people? Indeed they have. I will name just a few atheist generalizations about large groups of people.

1. Atheists are rational, far more so than *xtians*.
2. Science is separate from *religion*. They are mutually exclusive in fact.
3. *xtians* are ______________ (fill in the blank).
4. "xtians" are gullible and ignorant to believe all these fairy tales about a man who died and then flew away.

I repeat:
Atheists don't debate. They use verbal gymnastics, and very unconvincingly.

[Box Whatbox]

Are you under the impression that generalisations about large groups of people (atheists, theists, scientists, , etc) have sufficient specificity to form worthwhile debating points?

Are you not?
Have atheists not submitted debating points based on generalizations of large groups of people? Indeed they have. I will name just a few atheist generalizations about large groups of people.

1. Atheists are rational, far more so than *xtians*.
2. Science is separate from *religion*. They are mutually exclusive in fact.
3. *xtians* are ______________ (fill in the blank).
4. "xtians" are gullible and ignorant to believe all these fairy tales about a man who died and then flew away.

I repeat:
Atheists don't debate. They use verbal gymnastics, and very unconvincingly.

Feel free to go through all of my posts, and find one example of me using any of the generalisations listed here.
Failing that (and you almost certainly will!) admit that your charges should be rephrased 'SOME atheists...,' accepting the implication 'NOT ALL atheists..'
Then repeat the process, with the posts of other atheists on this site, verifyng the corrected phrase.
Not all atheists, and not all theists, debate rudely.
Not all atheists, and not all theists, debate politely.
Not all atheists, and not all theists *(_______) fill in the blank

[DanieltheDragon]

Are you under the impression that generalisations about large groups of people (atheists, theists, scientists, , etc) have sufficient specificity to form worthwhile debating points?

Are you not?
Have atheists not submitted debating points based on generalizations of large groups of people? Indeed they have. I will name just a few atheist generalizations about large groups of people.

1. Atheists are rational, far more so than *xtians*.
2. Science is separate from *religion*. They are mutually exclusive in fact.
3. *xtians* are ______________ (fill in the blank).
4. "xtians" are gullible and ignorant to believe all these fairy tales about a man who died and then flew away.

I repeat:
Atheists don't debate. They use verbal gymnastics, and very unconvincingly.

I think this is a prime example of stereotyping a group. You complain about atheists generalizing a group in a pejorative manner, whilst simultaneously doing the same thing. This is the very essence of intellectual dishonesty.

Can you state that you are not stereotyping atheists?

How can you complain about being stereotyped when you yourself stereotype?

Is this not quintessentially the pot calling the kettle black?

[Starman]

I think this is a prime example of stereotyping a group. You complain about atheists generalizing a group in a pejorative manner, whilst simultaneously doing the same thing. This is the very essence of intellectual dishonesty.

Can you state that you are not stereotyping atheists?

How can you complain about being stereotyped when you yourself stereotype?

Is this not quintessentially the pot calling the kettle black?

On your first point, I stand by my comments that atheists generalize in a very pejorative and condescending manner. "xtians", "Flying Spaghetti Monsters", "redneck creationists", "bible thumpers" and countless other personal attacks are so widespread and universal that atheists should assign them numbers to speed up their commentaries.

OF COURSE there are exceptions to every generalization. That need not be stated, but you do nonetheless. Exceptions do not disprove the claim, however. You pretend that they do.

How is one to point out irrationality without generalizing? Atheists claim to be far more rational and smart than "religionists". If that is not a generalization, nothing is. What is very troubling is the paucity of atheists who condemn ad hominem attacks on "xtians," calling them/us irrational and stupid.

Your second claim - of course I am stereotyping atheists by way of generalizing, based on conduct I have seen and experienced for decades. Women usually have longer hair than men. - Stereotype.
Americans tend to be more prosperous than Africans. - Stereotype.
Argue against those if you wish, for some women are bald and some Africans are filthy rich. The stereotypes/generalizations stand as stated.

Third claim: Deny that atheists hurl pejoratives and demands at xtians relentlessly if you wish. You would clearly be wrong in saying that, and I am right to point it out. Never have I claimed "all" do anything.

Last claim: If the kettle is black, and if the pot could talk, the accusation is true, isn't it. It is not hypocrisy to state facts. It is simply stating facts, spin it however you wish.

[Haven]

On your first point, I stand by my comments that atheists generalize in a very pejorative and condescending manner. "xtians", "Flying Spaghetti Monsters", "redneck creationists", "bible thumpers" and countless other personal attacks are so widespread and universal that atheists should assign them numbers to speed up their commentaries.

When has any atheist here made these comments? Show me where this has happened. If you can't, then please stop making these false accusations. This is a site for civil, adult debate. Other members of this forum have shown respect to you, so why can't you show it to us?

[otseng]

Atheists don't debate. They use verbal gymnastics, and very unconvincingly.

Atheists don't debate. They use verbal gymnastics, and very unconvincingly.

Moderator Final Warning

Several warnings have already been issued to you. Please do not disparage any groups or make blanket statements about others.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Regens Küchl]

Starman already conceded that he has a special axe to grind with atheists with the main reson that they mishandled hin in debate before he came to this forum.

Out of interest I would ask starman for examples abaout the form of these debates.

Did he roam forums like atheist forums.com
atheist forums org
and happy atheist forum
like I suspect or were this personal debates.
If he just wrote angry mails to Dawkins or Hawking or P.Z Myers receiving no answer I would not call this debate nor proof that atheists are arrogant and hold no answers.