NineOneFour wrote:

Pathetically disingenuous.

Uhm, let's see you quote me one time in this thread or anywhere else arguing that the cause of anti-theism is a bad relationship with a person's father. You base your entire argument on trying to mind read what you believe the intention for my question in the OP is. I already said why I asked the question, you believe I'm lying, because you find yourself to be a gifted psychic.

If anyone is pathetically disingenuous is more likely to be you then me.

Paul G wrote:Theidiot, I have some questions you need to answer.

Uhm where's the question? I see one post by you on page 15 with a broken link.

theidiot wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:

Pathetically disingenuous.

Uhm, let's see you quote me one time in this thread or anywhere else arguing that the cause of anti-theism is a bad relationship with a person's father. You base your entire argument on trying to mind read what you believe the intention for my question in the OP is. I already said why I asked the question, you believe I'm lying, because you find yourself to be a gifted psychic.

If anyone is pathetically disingenuous is more likely to be you then me.

Nah, you posted the OP in the hope of getting people to talk about bad relationships with their fathers so you could then pounce.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see through your ploy.

NineOneFour wrote:

theidiot wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:

Pathetically disingenuous.

Uhm, let's see you quote me one time in this thread or anywhere else arguing that the cause of anti-theism is a bad relationship with a person's father. You base your entire argument on trying to mind read what you believe the intention for my question in the OP is. I already said why I asked the question, you believe I'm lying, because you find yourself to be a gifted psychic.

If anyone is pathetically disingenuous is more likely to be you then me.

Nah, you posted the OP in the hope of getting people to talk about bad relationships with their fathers so you could then pounce.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see through your ploy.

I suggest to theidiot to read my post if he's looking for that.

NineOneFour wrote:

Nah, you posted the OP in the hope of getting people to talk about bad relationships with their fathers so you could then pounce.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see through your ploy.

No it takes a psychic.

Your reasoning here is idiotic as someone going around and saying, "All those who said they have a good relationship with their father are lying, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see their dishonesty. They don't want to admit it because it gives theists more tools in their arsenal. All atheist have bad fathers, those that claim not to are lying."

If your capacity for inference was the norm, we'd probably be dealing with a haven of retards.

It's funny, you infer all this from a single question in the OP of a 17 page thread. Man, your mind reading skills are quite impressive, or just pathetically disingenuous.

theidiot wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:

Nah, you posted the OP in the hope of getting people to talk about bad relationships with their fathers so you could then pounce.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see through your ploy.

No it takes a psychic.

Your reasoning here is idiotic as someone going around and saying, "All those who said they have a good relationship with their father are lying, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see their dishonesty. They don't want to admit it because it gives theists more tools in their arsenal. All atheist have bad fathers, those that claim not to are lying."

If your capacity for inference was the norm, we'd probably be dealing with a haven of retards.

It's funny, you infer all this from a single question in the OP of a 17 page thread. Man, your mind reading skills are quite impressive, or just pathetically disingenuous.

I'd say NineOneFour is just simply more familiar with the tactics of religious debaters, especially lay-men such as yourself.

MattHunX wrote:First of all I have one father, who's tangible and by no means imaginary.

Second, my feelings and attitude towards my father in particular is based his behavior.

There's nothing to say here. Some atheist have bad relationship with their father, some have good ones, just like it would be for non-atheist. I asked a question about correlation between the two, but there doesn't seem to be any. I never claimed there was.

Well...not explicitly anyway.

Fallible wrote:Well...not explicitly anyway.

Well, especially if the father is a fundamentalist, or even just the ordinary, devout, (not necessarily) church-going, drone type.

MattHunX wrote:

theidiot wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:

Nah, you posted the OP in the hope of getting people to talk about bad relationships with their fathers so you could then pounce.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see through your ploy.

No it takes a psychic.

Your reasoning here is idiotic as someone going around and saying, "All those who said they have a good relationship with their father are lying, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see their dishonesty. They don't want to admit it because it gives theists more tools in their arsenal. All atheist have bad fathers, those that claim not to are lying."

If your capacity for inference was the norm, we'd probably be dealing with a haven of retards.

It's funny, you infer all this from a single question in the OP of a 17 page thread. Man, your mind reading skills are quite impressive, or just pathetically disingenuous.

I'd say NineOneFour is just simply more familiar with the tactics of religious debaters, especially lay-men such as yourself.

With disingenuous debaters in general. I'd say he's just annoyed his ploy didn't work.

If he was interested in fatherhood in general, he'd not have posted it in Nontheism, now would he?

theidiot wrote:
There's nothing to say here. Some atheist have bad relationship with their father, some have good ones, just like it would be for non-atheist. I asked a question about correlation between the two, but there doesn't seem to be any. I never claimed there was.

I do agree it seemed like a legitimate query. BUT it kind gave the impression of an implied relation wither you meant it or not. It would be like asking: "I'm curious what kind of education fundamentalists have? IQ? Especially the ones who are most certain. I want to know it there is a correlation between the two". You can see how some may interpret that?

MattHunX wrote:

I'd say NineOneFour is just simply more familiar with the tactics of religious debaters, especially lay-men such as yourself.

I'd say he's become delusional by it. He displays the psychology of a person robbed by a black man, who thinks that every black male is secretly trying to rob them. It's pathetic. His inferential capacity is rather lacking. I've already wrote why I asked the question in my OP, his delusions don't allow him to accept that, so he has to settle for implying that I am a liar.

It's absurd.

theidiot wrote:It's absurd.

What's so absurd about NineOneFour's assumption that you were looking for a negative correlation between anti-theism and their relation to their fathers?

This is what you said, isn't it?

theidiot wrote:I'm just looking to hear what sort of relationship anti-theist have with their fathers? I'm curious to know if there is some relationship between this and their anti-theism.

I'm not looking to hear from just any atheist, but rather by those who classify themselves as anti-theist, like Christopher Hitchens.

Wait! Were you hoping for a positive correlation? What drove you to even ask this question if not to find out if having a bad father was a cause for anti-theism?
It's not irrational to assume, in light of your previous posts, that you had hoped that being rejected by ones father would cause one to not be able to relate to or accept another authority figure... I dunno let's say "God" for example... and be bitter and angry in his rejection of him?

theidiot wrote:

MattHunX wrote:

I'd say NineOneFour is just simply more familiar with the tactics of religious debaters, especially lay-men such as yourself.

I'd say he's become delusional by it. He displays the psychology of a person robbed by a black man, who thinks that every black male is secretly trying to rape them. It's pathetic. His inferential capacity is rather lacking. I've already wrote why I asked the question in my OP, his delusions don't allow him to accept that, so he has to settle for implying that I am a liar.

It's absurd.

You can say you didn't, but how do we know what went on in your head, we can only speculate going off from previous experience with christian posters who used a tactic previously described and use it quite often.

Also, what Animavore has pointed out.

Goldenmane wrote:In response to the OP:

I went around to see my dad this morning. We had a good time, ranting and raving about the stupid shit we've seen since last we caught up, had a beer, gave each other a hug, and parted ways once more.

We get on pretty well.

"I woke up this morning and I got myself a beer..." (Jim Morrison, The Doors, Roadhouse Blues}

theidiot wrote:

Paul G wrote:Theidiot, I have some questions you need to answer.

Uhm where's the question? I see one post by you on page 15 with a broken link.

There's another about my grandfather.

dylan wrote:
I do agree it seemed like a legitimate query. BUT it kind gave the impression of an implied relation wither you meant it or not. It would be like asking: "I'm curious what kind of education fundamentalists have? IQ? Especially the ones who are most certain. I want to know it there is a correlation between the two". You can see how some may interpret that?

I did admit that I asked the question because the psychologist Paul Vitz had raised it, and he used some popular atheist as his examples, but his sample seemed rather selective to me, I couldn't really think of any popular counter examples because most of the works of atheist I'm familiar with never even talk about their own personal relationships.

I have argued a number of times about certain atheist and scapegoating, but I've never linked the anger to a single cause. Vitz did, but it sounded simplistic to me, sort of like Freud's Oedipus complex, but I was curious, and since it's rather easy to do, I just asked the question here.

I never used it as a line of argument anywhere in this thread, and just the first few responses alone revealed that Vitz argument doesn't really have any meat. I could have let the thread die, but my interest in scapegoating came up, and this thread has lived on as result of it.

It's sort of like hearing Dawkins claim that religious individuals are more scared of death than non-religious individuals. We might realize that it's a bit naive of an assumption to make, yet we might be curious enough to ask a few theist how they feel about death. This doesn't mean that you endorse Dawkins belief.

theidiot wrote:

dylan wrote:
I do agree it seemed like a legitimate query. BUT it kind gave the impression of an implied relation wither you meant it or not. It would be like asking: "I'm curious what kind of education fundamentalists have? IQ? Especially the ones who are most certain. I want to know it there is a correlation between the two". You can see how some may interpret that?

I did admit that I asked the question because the psychologist Paul Vitz had raised it, and he used some popular atheist as his examples, but his sample seemed rather selective to me, I couldn't really think of any popular counter examples because most of the works of atheist I'm familiar with never even talk about their own personal relationships.

I have argued a number of times about certain atheist and scapegoating, but I've never linked the anger to a single cause. Vitz did, but it sounded simplistic to me, sort of like Freud's Oedipus complex, but I was curious, and since it's rather easy to do, I just asked the question here.

I never used it as a line of argument anywhere in this thread, and just the first few responses alone revealed that Vitz argument doesn't really have any meat. I could have let the thread die, but my interest in scapegoating came up, and this thread has lived on as result of it.

It's sort of like hearing Dawkins claim that religious individuals are more scared of death than non-religious individuals. We might realize that it's a bit naive of an assumption to make, yet we might be curious enough to ask a few theist how they feel about death. This doesn't mean that you endorse Dawkins belief.

It would've helped if you mentioned this in the first place. This Vitz character is going off a pre-conceived notion that many religious have about atheists so you can see why when you asked the same question it was easy for people to think the conclusion of Vitz is what you were driving at.
If you had of started off This guy Vitz says X and I want to test its veracity and then lead on into the question any misunderstanding could of been avoided.

MattHunX wrote:

You can say you didn't, but how do we know what went on in your head, we can only speculate going off from previous experience with christian posters who used a tactic previously described and use it quite often.

Because there are over two billion Christians, and christian posters come in every shape, form, and size. If you want to generalize christians by your interaction with a few bad apples it says more about you than me. It reveals that you want to see all christian posters in one box, and can't bear to come to grips with the truth that many don't fit their quite as easily.

It's an example of the delusions of scapegoating. You don't know, but you associate the worst.

You can accuse me of a lot of things of being arrogant, cocky, demeaning, insulting, and I might even have to agree with you. But implying that I am a liar speaks more about your delusions than mine.

theidiot wrote:

MattHunX wrote:

I'd say NineOneFour is just simply more familiar with the tactics of religious debaters, especially lay-men such as yourself.

I'd say he's become delusional by it. He displays the psychology of a person robbed by a black man, who thinks that every black male is secretly trying to rape them. It's pathetic. His inferential capacity is rather lacking. I've already wrote why I asked the question in my OP, his delusions don't allow him to accept that, so he has to settle for implying that I am a liar.

It's absurd.

Actually NineOneFour flat out called your post disingenuous and you raised the issue of truthfulness. This all to familiar tactic of yours when taken together with your ad homs and your woeful lack of inferential skills (robberry = future fear of rape ) suggest to me that you may be engaged in a little projection. Are you unwittingly telling us something about your probity and the relationship you had with your father?