Dishonest, definitely.

The pot/kettle are the ones who get to me the most.  In fact I've been pondering writing a blog/essay on the very subject of how the majority a significant proportion of the arguments from theists are hypocritical and the reverse of the words that come out of their mouths.

7. Willfully Ignorant: Has learned the facts over and over, yet chooses to ignore them because they don't fit the view they'd like to have.

8. Hypocrite: Virtually every offense they level at anyone else they are guilty of themselves.

9. Projector: Makes claims like "I can't be an atheist because it takes too much faith" because they want to ascribe their own poor thinking skills to others. In this case I've have never a theistic argument that isn't a projection of its flaws.

 

Lastly... no theist can avoid being either ignorant or dishonest (or both) when defending their god. I have yet to see it in 10 years of reading hundreds of thousands of posts from them online, the day has yet to come.

 

I think this is the only kind of theist that really bugs me. The rest, with enough time, patience, and education can ultimately be convinced. These are just a waste of time.

This, the hypocrit and the pot/kettle are one in the same, aren't they?  Just as

and

Are the same. 

 

The most annoying would be, equally, every theist who stumbles onto our board to spread their mirthful wisdom with us. Every single one of them tends to be unable to grasp that they simply don't much at all about the topics they wish to debate. They all offer an ever flowing fountain of urban legends, irrational assumption and violent ignorance. I get evolutionary theory from high school students who are barely passing chemistry, I get lessons on moral philosophy from people who's sole training in philosophy was a freshmam Philosophy 101 class, I get lessons in metaphysics from some 54 year old  accountant who needs to convince himself that he's a scholar (despite the fact that he's not read more than 5 books since finishing his Associates degree in 1972), or else he'll have to face the fact that he really hasn't done a damn thing of significance in his life...

I've been debating theists for years, I've never seen one good argument, and I've probably only met a handful who were reasonable at all. On the other hand, I've met more of my share of angry, hateful, spiteful, arrogant, viciously dishonest types like Frank Walton or Paul Manata - people who have such self loathing that all they can do is attack people all day... their real goal isn't prostelyzing... in fact, their real goal is just ot spit out hatred at humanity, because the existence of the rest of humanity is a constant reminder to them of just how pathetic they are...

But, this said, this isn't just a problem in theological debate, you see the same thing in other subjective topics: politics, morality, etc, any field where a knowledge base is not required in order to form an opinion. The less a person knows, the louder they shout. There's a reason why it's often said that one should never discuss politics or religion at dinner - because it doesn't facts, or even brains, to assert an opinion in these fields, and a challenged unsubtantiated opinion leads to anger, and violence.... The less facts there are to decide an issue, the more violence becomes the mode of settling disputes.

 Go look at what people think a 'political discussion' is, whether on the internet, the radio, or television, and then actually look at a real political discussion (friday nights on PBS, for example). The difference is the difference between Britanny Spears and Mozart. Yet ask the average person for an expert on politics, and they'll tell you all about Rush Limbaugh.

The average person knows jack shit about all of these subjects. Period.  But for the average person to admit that, he'd have to admit that he doesn't really know much about the world, and that's just too painful to concede... so instead, he's gonna come here and just prove to you how much he does know...

It's one thing not to know something, but it's quite another to shout your ignorance at the top of your voice, as if it were substantiated fact. Yet most discourse is little more than two ignoramous revealing how little they learned in high school and undergrad...

The balance between humility and certainty is entirely off... and the more ignorant tend to be the least humble.

I recently barged into a discussion on stickam, where st. michael was asserting from his vast pool of ignorance on cosmology, a bunch of claims that no cosmologist on the planet holds to.... while his atheist interlocuter was hardly doing much better... claiming that ex nihilo creation is impossible, even as both Edward Tryon and Tim Ferris and Andre Vilikin have all demonstrated that nothing in physics is violated by ex nihilo accounts for our universe.

Both were trading high school level urban legends, completely oblivious to what an actual cosmologist had to say.

Now if I, as a psychologist who simply enjoys cosmology as a hobby, was able to break and and point out basic, fundamental errors on both sides of the debate, tell me: what would an actual physics major have to say? Or better, yet, would would Tim Ferris or Briane Greene or Martin Rees have said?

Most debate on the internet involves an assertion from ignorance, followed either by insults, or a purely confirmatory search for anything that appears to back you up - with total disregard for anything disconfirmatory. And then, somehow, it actually devolves from there...  

 

 

Let's not forget:

10: Intellectual apologists: Tries to prove their religion using science, and concepts like Intelligent Design. Pretends to use logic while almost exclusively using fallacies. Once took a college course in philosophy, therefore, believes he/she can debate. Often so snooty that it is detrimental to their health (in more ways than one).

11: Crusader: Will use any and every argument to convert their mark. Relentless in their perseverance. 

Copying the rules of the Freethinker's forum here so everyone will see them as they read through the posts.

From this point forward the moderators will be destroying posts made by theists in the "Freethinking Anonymous" forum.  If you are a theist please be careful not to waste your time posting in this forum by looking at the top of the screen to determine which forum you are in when posting.  If you are an atheist and what theists to be able to weigh in on your topic, use "General Conversation" or "Atheist vs. Theist."
 
 Thanks,
 
RRS Mod Team

Can we call them "Shifters" or "Misdirectionists"? 

And/or "distracter" or the "fox hound trainer"

13. Relative to 12, it is the theist who avoids answering your specific questions because they know answering will trap them in a refutable position.

I'll just say all of the above. XD It's a touch choice.

I'd say "Intellectual Apologists". Just like those who think Occam's Razor disproves evolution. 

I hold a special hate for creationists.

I feel genuine pity for most theists who I truly believe are wasting their lives on a crazy, cross-dressing sky god, but I can't muster up any feelings other than those of contempt for people who truly argue that evolution is 'just a theory' and 'has no evidence'.

 

I also loathe the theists who, instead of actually adding anything to a debate thread, show up armed with quotes and their 'personal experiences with jesus' and start witnessing to me.

Some of these people are truly so ignorant that they believe that some atheists have just 'not heard about jesus'. Obviously this is the only reason someone would choose not to believe in him.

 

>_< 

How about calling them the "ad nauseamists"

Not only "truth", but "Truth" (capitalized) and "Ultimate Truth" and "Natural Truth"

*sigh* 

That is why I never capitalize any of their meaningless words: jesus, god, heaven, hell, faith, truth, him... etc.  

Oh yeah, don't forget Moral Truth. 

Need another name: One who posts extremely irrational stuff and when it gets countered whines about being mistreated. And keeps repeating the same thing we already countered over and over.

1.  Ones who fallacious arguments. No True Scotsman, Appeal to Authority (Einstein, C.S. Lewis, Newton), Ad Hominem Attacks ("Darwin was a racist" and "Kinsey was a pervert" were a couple I heard very recently) are the ones I see most frequently.

2.  And the ones I really dislike are the ones who use a force religion on a captive audience.  For example, I have an acquaintance who teaches Bible study in prison.  Well, if it prevents recidivism, that's great, but I don't think it does.  Training for anger management, life skills, G.E.D., addiction recovery would be far more useful than recruiting converts.  

    A more personal experience was when I was pledging a fraternity many years ago and we had to meet with each of the brothers.  We had no choice in the matter.  One of the brothers (a born again, reformed party animal) used that opportunity to force us pledges to attend a presentation by Josh McDowell.  Fortunately I was an atheist by that time and was immune. 

    Of course those who proselytize the young and try to get religion into schools or insist that the Ten Commandments be posted, fall into the second group.  

I don't capitalize most of those words too. Just for a different reason.

I find it funny when someone mentions the truth in capital letters.

Becuase it goes from fact to a character in GTA: San Andreas.

I mean, would you trust this man?

 

For me it depends entirely on context. If I am quoting directly from the bible, for example, I capitalize as it is in the text. Usually I don't capitalize "god" or "lord", but exceptions might occur. if I'm emphasizing a word like lord because the person to whom I am writing would see it that way, I might very well capitalize "your Lord" just to indicate sarcasm or scorn.

I have a new one for the list:

The pseudo medical advisor, holistic, jesus energy, naturepathy, debate dodger, whining, crying, MARTAR.

That is exactly who I was referring to... 

He was on the radio show?

my music videos "godless america" and "this man" tend to inspire ridiculously hatefull comments from theists.

my favorites are ones that tell me that i'm unappreciative of jesus' sacrifice and that their going to pray for my soul because i'm surely going to hell, and then they end it with quoted scripture.

they don't seem to realize that if you pay attention to what i say in my songs, jesus' sacrifice is meaningless and hell is about as scary to me as an ant crawling on my leg. and scripture is just more ammunition for my "blasphemy".