Please explain to me how you think you have come to know that I have seen a worst abuse of the slippery slope argument than that one.
Why?
You appear to think that the neutral position is superior. You certainly act as though you think being neutral gives you some kind of moral high ground.
Things are not always as they might appear Mister Agenda. You misinterpret my expression. I am strongly against people using derogative insult as part of any argument. I find it is a sad use of intelligence. Taking a stand in saying so should never be seen as taking a superior stance although it is something of a moral high ground, but that should not be regarded as insidious or the wrong thing to do, anymore than you perhaps would see no wrong in taking the moral high ground in relation to religious hypocrisy. I am simply expanding that net to include any sort of hypocrisy. The moral high ground is not to be frowned upon and yes - the neutral position offers this as a matter of natural course.
They believe their position is the most logical one to have.
Well from the perspective you are positioned, I can understand that you have want to say this is the case, but what of that? It isn't.
Maybe you should stop introducing terms into the conversation that the conversation is not about, then.
To be sure, unless I am mistaken, the OP itself introduced the 'superior' notion Mister Agenda. The inference to do with Positive
vs Negative atheism invites argument and from all accounts, the superior position most strongly argued by a majority of the posters concurs that that is 'positive atheism' is believed to be the superior one of the two.
I know differently and have also asked various questions of these posters as to why they think so and what kind of a world it would be if everyone were to take that particular position. "Nothing significantly different would happen" seems to be the general answer.
Also there is the addition of these ones called 'antitheists' whom some are saying are the ones who are using derogatory expression against others in their arguments. Where does 'antitheism' sit in relation to positive atheism?
No kidding. Is it about condescension? Because if so, you might actually be winning.
I condescend you not.
Or who can say the most while conveying the least.
Or who can ignore and skirt the relevance of the statement...
Navigator:
It isn't even about winning, Mister Agenda. Or who has the biggest 'whatever' or who has more intelligence or who has more heart, or who is more black or more white or more red or more yellow or more grey or more friends or more family or more money or more influence or more audacity or more brownie points...
...by spouting this irrelevant piece of misdirection:
Mister Agenda:
"Or who can say the most while conveying the least."
A somewhat childish and irrelevant remark really, < and that is not me being condescending either.
Right. Anyone can become a monster 'under the right conditions'. That's what makes your vague assertions so mealy-mouthed. You're accusing the group of (mostly) humanists that you're talking to of having some particular proneness to becoming murderous jack-booted thugs because some of us argue for the correctness of our positions on an online discussion forum. But you haven't supported at all that we are more prone to that than, say, you.
It is sad that you have chosen to see things in this light. It hasn't been fully established just what position those posters who are expressing derogatively - are the really 'positive atheists' or are they 'antitheists'?
Brian_M brought antitheism to my attention (post #377)- I am now wondering if I have been mistaking that type expression as coming from positive atheists.
Navigator wins another round of 'stuff no one disputed in the first place'.
But it was brought into the argument. I was simply showing that children could indeed be instrument of murderous intent, at least indirectly.
But yes, I did win that one.
Do you really believe that?
No. I know it from personal experience. Try it and find out for yourself.
Guess what? We have no reason to do that and no belief that they would ever deserve to be murdered either.
'We' who? Are you not able just to make a statement personal to you and your motives and agendas?
Apparently that is something you need to believe about yourself in order to justify your belief that it's okay to accuse us like that.
"Us' who? Are you feeling that I am saying that the group 'positive atheists'
are could commit atrocities?
I am only saying this based on the fact that others have made comment that the atrocities of the world would not cease if everyone became a positive atheist.
And please remember, the context of the ongoing attempt at discussion is that some posters (?who may be antitheist rather than positive atheists?) are arguing against 3 particular religions as if that idea of god is purely murderous and those who argue this are backing up their stance with passages from various books to do with these religions. When I point out that there are also passages in those books where the god is advocating love and acceptance, my argument is ignored.
My argument is that it isn't religion which is causing people to act atrociously toward each other, just as it is also the argument that if positive atheism was the major influence of human consciousness that, while nothing significant would change in relation to how humans act atrociously toward one another, it would
not signify that positive atheism was therefore the
cause for this being the case.
What is unreasonable or different about my argument, just because it is not focused on atheism but on theism?
Maybe if you didn't talk about us like the world would be better off if we were gotten rid of before we start massacring people, that would come off as more sincere.
Well I am not doing that at all. But I am able to take your advice to heart and contemplate it.
Are you able to do the same? Are you able to concur that derogatory, generalization of particular positions contrary to you own deserve the same consideration as what you are asking me of?
Or, does the position of positive atheism prevent you from being able to do so?
I am asking. What say you Mister Agenda? Is it a fair and reasonable request all round?
Are you one of those people who think anything they say is okay as long as they didn't use any 'bad' words?
Like I said, I am contemplating what you have said to me here and would like to know if you think it fair and just that you do the same, and furthermore, when you see it happening that you take a stand against it as you seem to be doing with me.
Perhaps it really is the antitheists who are doing this thing - spouting imbalance and negative insult at this particular god idea and refusing to acknowledge any good and uplifting advice also found in the same religious books?
But are you and I able to agree that this practice needs to stop, or are you quite willing to continue to turn a blind eye
unless the same imbalanced conclusions are reached and expressed in relation to positive atheism?
No. The first is known to be the case by me, and the other is a statement of a particular position.
From the perspective you are positioned, I can understand that you have want to say this is the case, but what of that? It isn't.
