You should've followed your own reasoning a little bit further. The argument is non-theistic, not atheistic. The argument is neither based on the existence or the non-existence of a deity or any belief or non-belief in any such deity. Which makes it non-theistic rather than atheistic. If I argue that a piece of metal is heavier than water because it sinks if dropped in water, it's not an anti-semitic argument simply because it isn't a semitic argument is it? No, it's "non-semitic" as there is no correlation between the density of water versus that of a given metal and semites.

The girl didn't specify the absence of any deity as being part of her argument, hence claiming that it's an "atheistic" argument because she didn't include anything theistic is a logical fallacy.

Simply making assumption or another logical fallacy? Doesn't matter, you're off the mark either way. Anyway, the "bad light" part was to explain why I called it a load of crap instead of just illogical reasoning. Lack of logic doesn't stink - agendas like that do.

I think I'll just wait for Starmaker to say if he/she meant to say anything about atheism or not - if it's all the same to you.

I'd like to know, however, why you're comparing my actions to those of a "religious zealot"? Why not just a zealot, a nitpicker, hair-splitter or whatever? Do you assume that I'm viewing "religious zealots" as my "enemies" and by extention being offended by it? I can inform you though that being an atheist is somewhat different to what you seems to think - when you "have no bladder" wetting the bed would be the achievment, not the other way around.

You left one thing out from your comparison - Starmaker's part about the poem being a "pink" poem. And that's exactly the part I object to. Basically for the exact same reasons you cite - the colour of the paper has nothing to do with it - so why call it a "pink" poem unless you think the colour actually matters?

Yes there is - see above. It makes about as much sense as saying that you're no longer a christian but an atheist when you hand pick the tomatoes you want when buying groceries.

Well, it's not the only option left - another logical fallacy - nor is it correct, but I guess there's nothing wrong with a giggle.

Feel free to reply to this if you like, but please keep the insults to what you can actually back up with valid reasoning.

Well, I OP'ed a thread about The Witcher 2 leaving me "cold and bothered" about what I perceived as rather a vile representation of gays in that game (Dethmold character).

It is my perception the tone of discussion was stepped up in an agressive manner becuase it was assumed I was a gay male.

Gender neutral might also assume that girl-gamers have no requirements cum preferences about characters and writing in games, which is not true methinks.

You said CUM hahahahahah the real spelling is COME not CUM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mLXeG5H6eE

I could not help it :)

AGH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Call it a fricken "popsicle-based argument" for all I care. NAMES DO NOT MATTER. I'm not a linguist, far from it.

It's implicit, she mentioned not believing in evolution, yadayadayada.

"Logical fallacy" ? In three sentences, one of which was an exclamation, one a rhetorical question and the last a meaningless elipses ?
See - this is the problem with formal logic - you can't apply it willy-nilly to every utterence imaginable. You CAN, however, use your damn mind and try to UNDERSTAND what I am trying to say. I know hermeneutics are tough but... gee.

Well - I don't care. I'm not your therapist, I'm not specifically trying to find out who you are, what you think and what troubles you. I simply tried to explain the best I could what I though one of out forumers meant and make a snide remark on the disproportionate and misaimed intensity of your reaction. THAT'S IT.

Are you serious ?

Because that's FUNNY in the context. No flux in semantical waves, no daggers hidden in cloaks of gentlemen, deep within dark alleys... No further chess piece is set to fork a queen and check the king - I was merely amusing myself in hopes that this will also amuse others. Apparently - you don't particularly appreciate that...

Would "speaking in prose" be an easier metaphor to swallow ?

Why the *** not ?
That's all.
You'd ask him "Starmaker... Why the fsck are you calling this the 'pink' poem ? There is nothing about pink in it, what's the deal ?" and he might go "Well - I found it written on a pink slip of paper, so I though it was a fitting name". You might further inquire "Well - why not 'paper' poem ? That makes just as much sense." and he could end the discussiong by saying "I just felt like it. I also think it has a nice ring to it"...

Speculation - now in fictional dialog form ^^ !

In a certain way it could make sense to say that... When driving a car, is a priest more a priest than a driver ?
Please don't frantically try to figure out what I am trying to accomplish by saying this - many tried, all of them failed, since I mostly have no clear goals ;P...

You know - we seem to operate similarly, to a degree. The difference is that I'm actually trying to understand people instead of merely dissecting what they say, mindlessly...
It's also sad, since you seem to be most fond of disproving things that I never even intend as serious assertions in the first place. Honestly - I could say "All purple dots can be ultimately arranged in the shape of a cat" and I wouldn't be surprised if you tried to crack that stuff down... Then again - you mostly rely on "that doesn't follow" and "this proves nothing", so...
First of all - do me a favor - prove to me that the physical world exists. Otherwise we'd be making far-reaching assumptions, wouldn't we ;) ? Until a sufficient proof is presented, I shall regard all statements as merely very shaky hypotheses ;P.

I half expected you to forbid me to giggle. Thanks a lot, man. You're a generous guy (Aaaa ! That doesn't follow D: !)

Well, golly, don't mind if I do...

I... I don't think you understand how insults work.
Here's a tip (13:14 to 13:54).
Also - I don't really like to insult people, I prefer an atmosphere of mutual understanding and relaxation. Life can be tense enough as it is, there's no need to add anto that.
Which does seem relevant, since the whole point was that you seem to have overreacted and have so far refused to explain why. This is not a matter of logic, though, so I'm not keeping my hopes up...

Okay everyone Calm down. But that Anita Sarkeesian has me all riled up she's a feminist who is hell bent on destroying the last part of a guys Night in Videogame wait for it 'misogyny' W.T.F.

hollly childerns of god this thread is having a philosophical blast, should post them on afterlife facebook, Socrates may find his answer at last

You know what I love about internet message boards? It's their ability to take random, unrelated topics and seemlessly bleed them together.

And you want to know what I like most about this thread, people stating the obvious :D

Ahh the Internet... Where men are men, women are men and children are FBI investigators (but small small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri ARE real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.)

Allow me to enlighten you as to what I said means, in terms like the ones used in the youtube clip you linked to: Please don't talk shit in your reply.

There are so many false assumptions and - you guessed it - logical fallacies, in your reply that it'll take longer to go through than I care for, so I won't do that. I'll let you in on a little secret, though, all this logic that makes your head hurt is there because I'm of the opinion that if you disagree with someone, you kind of owe them to explain why as well - or just shut up about it. Unsubstantiated claims are basically worthless, but can still can further "pollute" others' understanding of a given matter.

I understand why theologists avoid logic as logic doesn't apply to theology (in logic, nothing can be both true and false, while in theology it not only can but must) but not everything is to be understood through theology, and it's important to differ between what can and can't. Allow me to illustrate, not by proving that the physical world exists, but by "proving" that there is no god:

Take the equation 2 + 2 = 4. There's no theistic element here whatsoever, right? It's what you (and Starmaker) would call an atheistic equation. Next, is it true? Yes, it is. It's an atheistic truth, if you like. Now, what would that equation look like if there is a god, e.g. god is actually a factor in the equation - the same?

If yes, then athism equals theism, which means that whatever the number of deities, everything's the same. Not proof that god doesn't exist, but god's out of the picture anyhow - god's existence is irrelevant.

If no, then 2 + 2 = 4 is false. There's a story in the bible about a few breads and fishes that fed a quite large crowd of people, and afterwards there were more left-overs than they started with. Seems to prove that god exists as here 2 + 2 clearly wasn't 4, right? Not quite. We can't say for sure if that was a true story or not, but we do know that today it's not the way things are. If you have two apples and get another two apples you have four apples. The only conclusion we can draw from this is that maybe god existed back then, and maybe he didn't, but he sure doesn't exist now.

---

The above makes sense, right? You UNDERSTAND what I mean? We can all agree that god is either irrelevant or doesn't exist? What, no? You disagree? Ok, we'll just have to agree on disagreeing then. You tell people your version, and I'll tell people my version - wanting to get to the bottom of it, explaining why the above is invalid would be a too intense, misaimed and disproportionate reaction, right?

It might not look that way to you but I can assure you that I'm not at all worked up about this. And, believe it or not, I'm not doing this to "defend" atheism in any way - what's to defend anyway - but because I don't like wrongful labeling. "God hates fags" can be labeled a "christian" argument using the same rethoric Starmaker used to label the drivel of that 14 year old girl as an "atheistic" agrument. (I can show you if you want but I'm guessing you don't want me to).

Oh, one last thing: Here's a bunch of smileys - apply them throughout this post as you see fit - I know I often falsely come off as dead serious when writing long, dry posts/rants, but that's rarely the spirit they're written in; I just suck at being congruent:
=) =) =P =] =D =) ;-) ={ =/ 8-) =) =) =P =] =D =) ;-) ={ =/ 8-) =) =) =P =] =D =) ;-) ={ =/ 8-) =) =) =P =] =D =) ;-) ={ =/ 8-) =) =) =P =] =D =) ;-) ={ =/ 8-) =) =) =P =] =D =) ;-) ={ =/ 8-) =) =) =P =] =D =) ;-) ={ =/ 8-) =) =) =P =] =D =) ;-) ={ =/ 8-) =) =) =P =] =D =) ;-) ={ =/ 8-) =) =) =P =] =D =) ;-) ={ =/ 8-) =) =) =P =] =D =) ;-) ={ =/ 8-) =) =) =P =] =D =) ;-) ={ =/ 8-) =) =) =P =] =D =) ;-) ={ =/ 8-) =) =) =P =] =D =) ;-) ={ =/ 8-) =) =) =P =] =D =) ;-) ={ =/ 8-) =)
(hm.. think I maybe over-did it with the copy/paste there - don't feel like you have to place everyone of them)

Didn't you know? Nothing's random, and everything is related! ☮☮☮ (I know it looks like a sad alien, but it is the peace sign.. no, wait - it's both a sad alien and the peace sign! Peace makes the aliens sad! What a revelation; I need to sit down.. and find some food, lots of food..)

Derailing this thread even further, but have you seen The gods must be crazy? Apart from the (obviously) impressive clicking, it's actually a quite good movie in my opinion. It makes me happy at any rate.

I saw The Gods Must Be Crazy when it came out in movie theaters the second time (around 1986 I think?) - now that shows how old I am :) I also own it on DVD (twice) and have shown it to just about every EFL class I've taught in Thailand. It's HILARIOUS and such an interesting style of humor just about any culture can see the humor in it. Highly recommend it.

Thanks for reminding me about it. Haven't watched it for about 2 years. I may just watch it again tonight :)