Debating Theists.... So Impossible
- Thread starter notme2000
- Start date
twisted twisted twisted. Seek help.
Ok... Maybe I should explain my hostility... What gives you the right to choose what religion is good for someone and then to convert them? Manipulation is bad... Even if you are trying to help them. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. U act like you are God yourself... Which checks out with the fact that you seem to worship yourself.
Ok... Maybe I should explain my hostility... What gives you the right to choose what religion is good for someone and then to convert them? Manipulation is bad... Even if you are trying to help them. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. U act like you are God yourself... Which checks out with the fact that you seem to worship yourself.
My sentiments exactly.
However Tiassa can do SOME good things. But when it comes to talking about atheists and theists, she acts like the shemale that he is and starts spouting shit about how theists are obviously superior, that theists have already won all the intellectual wars, etc.
And then there's the fact that he changes religions every time she gets the chance to. Sometimes I ask myself what kind of a person Tiassa would have to be for her to say such things about atheists, theists, and himself, but alas, the sano-religious Tiassa is trapped somewhere deep inside of her. Too bad we can't talk to it...
And why is it that both our *smart* theists here are atheists that think they're theists? puh-leeze!
[edit to add:
thanx much,
Mark
]
Should I just turn your own response back at you?
--Tiassa
Generally speaking, the person in question gives me that right. They ask advice, I give advice. If that advice changes their perspective, so be it. But I'm not about to give what I think is bad advice. Not even for the sake of their God.
Well, that explains the thing about atheists. No good intentions, no road to hell ....
This from someone to whom "Kiss my ass" equals a reasonable response? Cute.
Can't do that until the legion of slaves finishes sculpting the four-hundred foot statue.
--Tiassa
Advice doesn't involve figuring out there religious weaknesses and using them against the person... Advice is your honest opinion, which they can choose to accept or discard.
Witty, I'll give you that. But you must really have a hatred for athiests to asume that. Before you go using the name of this thread against me, all it states is a debate between theists and athiests is impossible because both parties abide by different rules, I never said anything bad about theists themselves (as a whole, you seem to embody the horrible stereotype of a theist given by those who embody the horrible stereotype of an athiest). Plenty of athiests have good intentions, and are commendable for it concidering they have no heaven to reward them or hell to punish them.
Why thank you, I do my best.
Good luck on that
The mighty intellect of an atheist?
I mean, why would you bring something like that up? Really? So I comment on it and you have some sort of problem with this?
I mean, think about it:
•_Simply because they do not incorperate logic in to the debate
• kiss my ass, i do what i want
• So there.
• Debating theists is kinda like trying to fight a drunk idiot using only orthodox boxing rules.
• And what's more, he's too stupid and drunk to know he's defeated if he is, so he keeps on going
• Impossible, just conclude that theists are beyond repair and have pity and mercy on them.
I mean, you tell me, GB-GIL, what kind of people do they have to be to think this kind of balbutive passes for debate?
If atheists don't want to hear how well I can trash-talk them, perhaps they should set out to attain a better standard of debate than calling people drunk, stupid, idiots, or beyond repair. I find it a little ironic that Notme is asking what gives me the right while Zero is having supremacist fantasies of pity and mercy. Sure, they're different people, but the irony is cute to say the least.
You know, when people are reduced to saying, "You're so warped!" I feel sorry for them. I didn't mean to confuse them. I didn't mean to make it too hard for them to understand. But I would no more dumb it down for someone and pretend they're understanding the actual concept than I would intentionally give bad advice.
I mean, what kind of person are you, GB-GIL? Is gender-bending the best you can do? It's such a brilliant expression of the atheist mind. We're all in awe of that stale-in-fourth-grade crap.
Think of it this way: as far as I can tell from Sciforums, atheists generally argue against Christianity at about the "trailer-trash" level; this is generally reflected in my experience outside Sciforums as well. I would hope y'all are better minds than that. If not, well, I can understand why "smart" theists would puzzle a person.
So I'm tempted to answer that the reason it seems that way to you is probably because its easier to assimilate them in your own mind than to figure out what they're attempting to communicate.
Look--people can either have debates or you can go on genderbending, calling people "twisted", or "stupid" or "idiot" and dancing through supremacist fantasies. What of atheism do you think has been represented in this topic?
(And no, I have not missed ReasonableDoubt's fine post. Nor is Tyler's sentiment on the topic in general unappreciated. But what and who are the persistent voices? I hate to point this out, but it's not a pretty picture on the atheist side of the aisle.)
thanx,
Tiassa
Well, if you don't want me reflecting on such stupid statements as won an arguement that hasn't even happened, perhaps you shouldn't bring it up, eh?
I mean, why would you bring something like that up? Really? So I comment on it and you have some sort of problem with this?
What's that? I'm not narrow-minded? I can sympathize with perspectives not my own? Oh, how awful. How f@cking twisted ....
Well, I like to think that I'm the authority to speak on the subject of myself. But of atheists, I wonder the same thing: what kind of people do these have to be?
I mean, think about it:
•_Simply because they do not incorperate logic in to the debate
• kiss my ass, i do what i want
• So there.
• Debating theists is kinda like trying to fight a drunk idiot using only orthodox boxing rules.
• And what's more, he's too stupid and drunk to know he's defeated if he is, so he keeps on going
• Impossible, just conclude that theists are beyond repair and have pity and mercy on them.
I mean, you tell me, GB-GIL, what kind of people do they have to be to think this kind of balbutive passes for debate?
If atheists don't want to hear how well I can trash-talk them, perhaps they should set out to attain a better standard of debate than calling people drunk, stupid, idiots, or beyond repair. I find it a little ironic that Notme is asking what gives me the right while Zero is having supremacist fantasies of pity and mercy. Sure, they're different people, but the irony is cute to say the least.
You know, when people are reduced to saying, "You're so warped!" I feel sorry for them. I didn't mean to confuse them. I didn't mean to make it too hard for them to understand. But I would no more dumb it down for someone and pretend they're understanding the actual concept than I would intentionally give bad advice.
I mean, what kind of person are you, GB-GIL? Is gender-bending the best you can do? It's such a brilliant expression of the atheist mind. We're all in awe of that stale-in-fourth-grade crap.
I'm curious why you think that. I mean, it's also likely that you just don't get it, GIL. It is entirely possible that you ask that question because you do not understand the nature of theism they deal with.
Think of it this way: as far as I can tell from Sciforums, atheists generally argue against Christianity at about the "trailer-trash" level; this is generally reflected in my experience outside Sciforums as well. I would hope y'all are better minds than that. If not, well, I can understand why "smart" theists would puzzle a person.
So I'm tempted to answer that the reason it seems that way to you is probably because its easier to assimilate them in your own mind than to figure out what they're attempting to communicate.
Look--people can either have debates or you can go on genderbending, calling people "twisted", or "stupid" or "idiot" and dancing through supremacist fantasies. What of atheism do you think has been represented in this topic?
(And no, I have not missed ReasonableDoubt's fine post. Nor is Tyler's sentiment on the topic in general unappreciated. But what and who are the persistent voices? I hate to point this out, but it's not a pretty picture on the atheist side of the aisle.)
thanx,
Tiassa
HA! Sympathize with perspectives not my own? BS. You mean pretend to symptathize with them, so you can talk like a moron and hope that makes all athiests look like morons...
Secondly, I've explained that the kiss my ass thing was cause I was gettin sick of people bad-mouthing me in a debate I had long given up on, but now I'm back, and my more-than-"kiss my ass" statements seem to be getting under your skin... If you don't want to hear how well I can trash-talk you, perhaps you should set out to attain a better standard of debate than calling people "cute"...
And when people say they have the right to manipulate people's religious belief for their own good, I feel sorry for them.
You know why I got so frustrated with this thread and told you to kiss my ass, i do what I want. Cause you were givin me nothing but the trailer trash level and it wasn't worth my time. Angry trailer trash is a step up though, so keep it up.
That you have no idea what it's really about, nor do you care to break your all-too-simple view point on it.
I agree, but the more you reply the more you keep it balanced...
Part One, it seems ....
• How silly would I look yelling at a deaf man?
•_How effective should I expect to be if I choose to speak to a four-year-old using nothing less than three syllables per word?
•_If I speak Spanish to a Chinese man?
These are not allegorical in the sense that I wish to characterize anyone as deaf, childish, or Chinese. Rather, what I'm after is that they're all miscommunications.
A morbid historical footnote: When the Spaniards strode through the Americas, they would approach whatever tribe of indigenous people they came across and read a document called Requerimiento. The Requerimiento was a harsh document: submit your property. lives, minds to us the Holy Roman Empire of Spain, give yourselves to the Pope and to the King, and to God Almighty, ad nauseam or else we will destroy you, your homes, your lands, your wives, your children .... We can both imagine that this did not go over well. However, the Spaniards learned an important lesson somewhere along the line. They had an indigenous slave read the document as best he could to the newly-encountered tribe, essentially trying to have it said in their language. Prior, shorter versions of that had been read to individual persons upon encounter--often shouted--but in Latin. The Spaniards had to shoot a few for noncompliance before they figured out what they were doing wrong.
Unless the situation stands on legal pins and needles, I try to give advice according to my honest assessment of the factors. If those factors are, say, Biblical, I have kind of a choice.
• I could tell my friend how stupid or idiotic or drunk or pitiful or beyond help they were for being Biblical, or ...
• I could consider the Biblical factors as well as I know them in the most appropriate context I can determine and give my honest assessment as if I was of the faith.
That second one--it keeps me honest. Always advise sympathetically.
Inexorably, when my advice is religious, it tends away from the center of the religion. Namely, I can point to the fact that the narrower interpretation--that of the person seeking my advice who happens to have a faith conflict--has a conflict in the first place while the resolution lies in a different interpretation. That my interpretation is more liberal and is farther from the center is predictable. Over a long period of friendship, it is possible to help your friends learn to think for themselves. Their religions will still play certain roles in their lives, but campaigning to extinguish those roles can lead to a firming of the faith foundation. All in all, it's not worth the risk. People are better off when they are (A) healthier and (B) happier. I can't guarantee that order, though.
But it helps more than I can quantify if I can advise according to their terms. Introducing foreign paradigms tends to confuse people.
If my advice completely blows the situation out my ass, well ... it doesn't matter what language, vernacular, or paradigm I adjust to.
You had a legitimate question before you: In what way do you find logic absent from the debate?
And you chose to ignore it.
You even had a proposition before you in support of that question: Any specific aspect of debate you could pull out would be helpful in finding a more effective answer to offer you.
And you chose to ignore it.
What do we get? If you want to have an intelligent debate go to the religion/Religion is a pop-culture thread.
Are you unable or unwilling to answer the simple question, to consider the simple proposition?
Look at the things I've bulleted in other posts in this topic. Look at the things your atheist brethren say. Look at your own participation.
What? Which cheek would you prefer I kiss?
Or what else did you expect?
• Woo-hoo: they can join the club.
• I'm actually aware of this. However, I wish it was more evident in their behavior. I've known some pretty crappy attitudes that had good intentions. Oh, yeah, the road to hell ... and we're back where we started. :bugeye:
thanx,
Tiassa
Observation, trial and error, and countless repetition have advised me that, when communicating, it is technically the obligation of the broadcasting party to ensure proper communication. To wit:
• How silly would I look yelling at a deaf man?
•_How effective should I expect to be if I choose to speak to a four-year-old using nothing less than three syllables per word?
•_If I speak Spanish to a Chinese man?
These are not allegorical in the sense that I wish to characterize anyone as deaf, childish, or Chinese. Rather, what I'm after is that they're all miscommunications.
A morbid historical footnote: When the Spaniards strode through the Americas, they would approach whatever tribe of indigenous people they came across and read a document called Requerimiento. The Requerimiento was a harsh document: submit your property. lives, minds to us the Holy Roman Empire of Spain, give yourselves to the Pope and to the King, and to God Almighty, ad nauseam or else we will destroy you, your homes, your lands, your wives, your children .... We can both imagine that this did not go over well. However, the Spaniards learned an important lesson somewhere along the line. They had an indigenous slave read the document as best he could to the newly-encountered tribe, essentially trying to have it said in their language. Prior, shorter versions of that had been read to individual persons upon encounter--often shouted--but in Latin. The Spaniards had to shoot a few for noncompliance before they figured out what they were doing wrong.
Unless the situation stands on legal pins and needles, I try to give advice according to my honest assessment of the factors. If those factors are, say, Biblical, I have kind of a choice.
• I could tell my friend how stupid or idiotic or drunk or pitiful or beyond help they were for being Biblical, or ...
• I could consider the Biblical factors as well as I know them in the most appropriate context I can determine and give my honest assessment as if I was of the faith.
That second one--it keeps me honest. Always advise sympathetically.
Inexorably, when my advice is religious, it tends away from the center of the religion. Namely, I can point to the fact that the narrower interpretation--that of the person seeking my advice who happens to have a faith conflict--has a conflict in the first place while the resolution lies in a different interpretation. That my interpretation is more liberal and is farther from the center is predictable. Over a long period of friendship, it is possible to help your friends learn to think for themselves. Their religions will still play certain roles in their lives, but campaigning to extinguish those roles can lead to a firming of the faith foundation. All in all, it's not worth the risk. People are better off when they are (A) healthier and (B) happier. I can't guarantee that order, though.
But it helps more than I can quantify if I can advise according to their terms. Introducing foreign paradigms tends to confuse people.
If my advice completely blows the situation out my ass, well ... it doesn't matter what language, vernacular, or paradigm I adjust to.
Nope. I'm just making a point about atheistic hostility. It's most poignant if one happens to be an atheist who sees religion as a mental illness. Then it becomes a direct question of healing the sick. Nonetheless, there are more compassionate ways for atheists to deal with religion. Some of them might even work. Come on, progress ... it's what atheists want, right? It's not just a rush from being oppositional, is it?
The bit about logic bugs me. Some of the most logical people I know of are theistic.
Don't inspire me to the role. Actually, I hadn't thought of it that way.
You had a legitimate question before you: In what way do you find logic absent from the debate?
And you chose to ignore it.
You even had a proposition before you in support of that question: Any specific aspect of debate you could pull out would be helpful in finding a more effective answer to offer you.
And you chose to ignore it.
What do we get? If you want to have an intelligent debate go to the religion/Religion is a pop-culture thread.
Are you unable or unwilling to answer the simple question, to consider the simple proposition?
Look at the things I've bulleted in other posts in this topic. Look at the things your atheist brethren say. Look at your own participation.
What? Which cheek would you prefer I kiss?
Or what else did you expect?
Two points:
• Woo-hoo: they can join the club.
• I'm actually aware of this. However, I wish it was more evident in their behavior. I've known some pretty crappy attitudes that had good intentions. Oh, yeah, the road to hell ... and we're back where we started. :bugeye:
I'm sure you do.
Yeah, but where the hell am I going to get slaves in this day and age?
thanx,
Tiassa
Part 2, as such ....
But are you telling me that the whole contribution of atheists in this topic is aimed at the idea that I have no idea what atheism is about? Should I be honored? I'm not even wearing a tie ...
Seriously, I don't get it. I enjoy getting down in the wallow from time to time, but I can't figure out why you enjoy existing here.
thanx,
Tiassa
So much for your good intentions, eh?
Irony can be very cute!
So you never give anyone advice? Why do you bother posting your opinions? You're having an effect on people's religious perspectives. Do you feel sorry for yourself?
I'm so happy I could raise your standards. Next time try setting standards that have no degree of trailer-trash in them. I would much prefer to debate you in that arena. Oh, well. It's progress. You see? By communicating in the terms you set, I have been able to effect progress in the terms of the debate. We've moved from the mere trailer-trash standard you set to a new standard of angry trailer-trash.
Actually, my perspective on atheism is more complex than most atheists. Collectively, however, atheists are more complex than they know. Check out some of those old threads I referred you to. Atheists had a hard time agreeing on what atheism was.
But are you telling me that the whole contribution of atheists in this topic is aimed at the idea that I have no idea what atheism is about? Should I be honored? I'm not even wearing a tie ...
That's it, raise those standards!
Seriously, I don't get it. I enjoy getting down in the wallow from time to time, but I can't figure out why you enjoy existing here.
thanx,
Tiassa
So much knowledge, so little wisdom. You don't need to impress me (I'll admit, I am impressed) with all you know about history, and what books you have read, etc... Just make your point. Adding all the rest makes me assume you aren't confident enough to make the point on it's own.
You'd think that after a long period of time you'd realize they already do, and if not, would if you'd let them.
True, I HATE to be assimilated with those athiests, which I made you do with my earlier kiss my ass coments, lol. But I stress again, the motive behind that had nothing to do with theists at all, I just wanted to end the debate, but now it's going somewhere. I don't see theism as a mental illness. I realize how strong you have to be to be a theist, and that is extremely commendable. You see, I can sympathize too. But realize how strong you have to be to be an athiest. The only difference to me, is that theists have to be strong because they are fighting to keep a lie alive. Athiests have to be strong to accept a truth they don't like.
Guilty of generalization, as made clear by so many. By that, I meant in the debate of God, to me, I see no logic... Let me put it simply, and for this I know I will recieve a very LONG or very SHORT answer. Why believe in a God? Not why do YOU believe in a God, but just plain "Why believe in a God?"
I am trying to prove my point with the previous question (hate to answer a question with a question, but I believe it will work).
I was hoping for the debate to take on a life of it's own without guidance, which it finally has.
I was at the time, but not for reasons you'd like.
Is this really all you got against me? I can sympathize someone else's situation as well, and I see many points I have left open to debate, yet you always return to my one "kiss my ass" statement.
Many athiests are in the scientific fight against cancer. Just one exemple. I'm sure many athiests have murdered before as well. As with all groups, you get your good and bad.
Good question.... Send some this way if you figure it out though, people in my general area are in need of a new God. (Just jokes
)P.S. About the
, that's just smug, look me in the eyes and lets debate as equals, otherwise we get nowhere without realizing we might actually learn something from one another...I do give people advice, but I think we've established our definition is differed.
But then you'd be all alone.
Don't flatter yourself.
As do christians, or any other religion.
No, but if that's what you learn, maybe you will be encouraged to learn more... Though you don't seem up to taking suggestions.
Ouch, that hurts.
Anyway, I gotta get to bed, I will continue this tomorrow. Even with all the mean mean things you've said to me, good luck on whatever you strive for. Just give the victims some warning.
Moving toward peace, it seems ... I hope.
Or, more apropos that atheist attitude I find so disturbing, Because it is the representation of our ignorance.
At that point, humbling yourself before God is to be humbled by that which you do not know. This can be either a good thing or a bad thing. But if we care not for what we do not know, whence comes discovery?
That is, when our atheists are ready to get over the "stupid", "drunk idiot" bullsh@t, I'm happy to play ball. But when this site was swarmed by rabble-rousing Christians, I didn't take this kind of crap from them either.
I would prefer that the lot of y'all grow up some. And I will even tell you approximately what I mean by that.
• Before Seinfeld the TV show there was Jerry Seinfeld the comedian. I never quite understood why people thought he was so funny. Admittedly, the laundry bit and the dog-walking routine are funny, but the portion of his style that carried him, that was satirized and parodied, that questioning of funny circumstances, that playing with words--it wasn't funny because there was often a logical, even scientific answer to it. I heard someone tell a joke in a similar vein about how you get some kind of solvent or cleaner or remover to stay in its container. It was a cute play on words but that was it. To me, the joke isn't funny because it relied on the audience being stupid.
A rhetorical question, then: Are atheists stupid? No, of course not. What I don't get, though, is why atheists worry about the stupidest, most ridiculous parts of a religion. If atheists wish to reduce the influence religious institutions have on society and therefore their lives, it is best to understand the religions a little better because often they can be best unraveled from the inside out. Take modern American Christians, for instance. Most have no clue what philosophical history lies behind various soundbites about love and redemption and goodness and the Devil and so-forth. I know a Christian who picked up a saying of Jesus about kindness from a "prophet" (one of those churches) ... it was about letting the coin sweat in your hand until you knew to whom you were giving it. It's just a saying from an extrabiblical source sometime around the third century; the Didache, I believe.
Here's something that seems like a non-sequiter: I don't say the phrase shit from Shinola.
Why? Because part of that history of the phrase is racist--Al Jolson. In the similar way, I found it odd that an anti-Catholic would be quoting a text that generally has no credibility whatsoever outside the Catholic Church. (This particular Christian's Church published pamphlets claiming the Pope is Satan ... really, I found it odd.)
The thing is that the more I learn about the history behind this bizarre church called Christianity, the more it's reduced to the appearance of a mass-psyche farce. I mean, it sounds easy enough to say that these people are deceived, deluded, or whatever, but that offers no real result.
Knowing a bit about a given religion helps you understand the general boundaries to how a person is thinking. That is, while the aspects of Christianity that leave a bitter taste in my mouth are no more palatable, they make more sense to me and I have a better idea of how to deal with them. Thus when the Christian hordes come riding in for some distasteful public spat, I have something better to offer my corner of the debate than the kind of crap we're going through here.
And that's essentially why I'm down here slinging it with you.
There is a certain degree of American Christianity which demands such a low intelligence that I'm left speechless. I think it would be helpful to just about everybody if this simian comedy was left behind.
We had a topic, once, called The Crucifixion Was a Fraud. You might enjoy that topic. One of our atheists started with something one of our Christian advocates said and extended it toward its philosophic end. I was ecstatic that someone chose to try a topic at that level. It did confuse many of our Christians, though. And, as a bonus, you can see a Christian on the other end of my wrath--my attitude declines not quite as quickly as it did in this topic. Some Christians were quite astute, so it's worth mentioning that you can see my attitude reflecting that, as well. But the grander point is that this was a good topic and it's not as common as it should be that atheists choose to address religion on this level. You can really see minds working hard at that level, and since it's Christianity ... well (and I get included in this because it was a tough topic for me, too) ... we're not even to the tricky part of dealing with religions. Christianity is about as straight a debunking as one can ask for. It's very nice to see when the level of debate steps up to something with a little more meat on it.
I mean, if you go back into the search result I provided in my first response to the present topic, somewhere in there you can see atheists writing about God as a bearded dude in the sky, or that God should show up on radar or something.
Column A? Column B?
Is it really too much to ask that atheists get past the childish anti-identification, the grasping for an inward sense of superiority? Stupid? Idiotic? Drunk? Generalizations about logic (yes, I saw your note ... but I'm asking you to look at the collective, not the specific).
Thank you so very much.
Without sarcasm.
Is this something that can be remembered during more scornful moments?
But that's the unfortunate thing. I thought I was looking you in the eye down there. I'll meet you on the topside, too. Honest.
thanx,
Tiassa
And when "the rest" is all you've got?
That the thought impulse takes place within their body does not satisfy the requirement of "thinking for themselves". Some people don't. Some people never grow past the stage of slogans and formal rites, and some never stop seeing the bogey-man. If it is possible to increase their happiness through those things they ask of you, why should one bury their integrity and merely encourage them in their unhappiness?
Fair enough. But I don't think one need see theism as a mental illness before one acts kindly to another's advantage. Think of your assertion that theists are fighting to keep a lie alive. Many of them are. But at the same time you're justifying my position against your "manipulation" accusations. However, being such as it is, are you angry at the liars or sympathetic to those lied to? There are times when it is appropriate to be angry at the liars. Pick your specific issue--censorship, sexuality, health & medicine .... But when responding to the general malaise of theism, you might bear in mind that the liars often are liars because that is what they have learned as the truth. Would you rather ridicule the wrongly-steered or help them to be harmonious and happy in their lives not only to their own profit but that of their community?
I'll go with the short answer: Because it is the representation of all that is mysterious to the human experience. Because it is an expression of fundamental values of human life.
Or, more apropos that atheist attitude I find so disturbing, Because it is the representation of our ignorance.
At that point, humbling yourself before God is to be humbled by that which you do not know. This can be either a good thing or a bad thing. But if we care not for what we do not know, whence comes discovery?
Well, I'm perfectly willing to meet you at whatever level of debate you prefer. In the meantime, I would ask that you review your causes for anger in light of the fact that I'm only responding to the tone of the topic to begin with.
That is, when our atheists are ready to get over the "stupid", "drunk idiot" bullsh@t, I'm happy to play ball. But when this site was swarmed by rabble-rousing Christians, I didn't take this kind of crap from them either.
I would prefer that the lot of y'all grow up some. And I will even tell you approximately what I mean by that.
• Before Seinfeld the TV show there was Jerry Seinfeld the comedian. I never quite understood why people thought he was so funny. Admittedly, the laundry bit and the dog-walking routine are funny, but the portion of his style that carried him, that was satirized and parodied, that questioning of funny circumstances, that playing with words--it wasn't funny because there was often a logical, even scientific answer to it. I heard someone tell a joke in a similar vein about how you get some kind of solvent or cleaner or remover to stay in its container. It was a cute play on words but that was it. To me, the joke isn't funny because it relied on the audience being stupid.
A rhetorical question, then: Are atheists stupid? No, of course not. What I don't get, though, is why atheists worry about the stupidest, most ridiculous parts of a religion. If atheists wish to reduce the influence religious institutions have on society and therefore their lives, it is best to understand the religions a little better because often they can be best unraveled from the inside out. Take modern American Christians, for instance. Most have no clue what philosophical history lies behind various soundbites about love and redemption and goodness and the Devil and so-forth. I know a Christian who picked up a saying of Jesus about kindness from a "prophet" (one of those churches) ... it was about letting the coin sweat in your hand until you knew to whom you were giving it. It's just a saying from an extrabiblical source sometime around the third century; the Didache, I believe.
Here's something that seems like a non-sequiter: I don't say the phrase shit from Shinola.
Why? Because part of that history of the phrase is racist--Al Jolson. In the similar way, I found it odd that an anti-Catholic would be quoting a text that generally has no credibility whatsoever outside the Catholic Church. (This particular Christian's Church published pamphlets claiming the Pope is Satan ... really, I found it odd.)
The thing is that the more I learn about the history behind this bizarre church called Christianity, the more it's reduced to the appearance of a mass-psyche farce. I mean, it sounds easy enough to say that these people are deceived, deluded, or whatever, but that offers no real result.
Knowing a bit about a given religion helps you understand the general boundaries to how a person is thinking. That is, while the aspects of Christianity that leave a bitter taste in my mouth are no more palatable, they make more sense to me and I have a better idea of how to deal with them. Thus when the Christian hordes come riding in for some distasteful public spat, I have something better to offer my corner of the debate than the kind of crap we're going through here.
And that's essentially why I'm down here slinging it with you.
There is a certain degree of American Christianity which demands such a low intelligence that I'm left speechless. I think it would be helpful to just about everybody if this simian comedy was left behind.
We had a topic, once, called The Crucifixion Was a Fraud. You might enjoy that topic. One of our atheists started with something one of our Christian advocates said and extended it toward its philosophic end. I was ecstatic that someone chose to try a topic at that level. It did confuse many of our Christians, though. And, as a bonus, you can see a Christian on the other end of my wrath--my attitude declines not quite as quickly as it did in this topic. Some Christians were quite astute, so it's worth mentioning that you can see my attitude reflecting that, as well. But the grander point is that this was a good topic and it's not as common as it should be that atheists choose to address religion on this level. You can really see minds working hard at that level, and since it's Christianity ... well (and I get included in this because it was a tough topic for me, too) ... we're not even to the tricky part of dealing with religions. Christianity is about as straight a debunking as one can ask for. It's very nice to see when the level of debate steps up to something with a little more meat on it.
I mean, if you go back into the search result I provided in my first response to the present topic, somewhere in there you can see atheists writing about God as a bearded dude in the sky, or that God should show up on radar or something.
Column A? Column B?
Is it really too much to ask that atheists get past the childish anti-identification, the grasping for an inward sense of superiority? Stupid? Idiotic? Drunk? Generalizations about logic (yes, I saw your note ... but I'm asking you to look at the collective, not the specific).
Thank you.
Thank you so very much.
Without sarcasm.
Is this something that can be remembered during more scornful moments?
Of course it's smug. And don't forget condescending.About the
But that's the unfortunate thing. I thought I was looking you in the eye down there. I'll meet you on the topside, too. Honest.
thanx,
Tiassa
Well, maybe not. Mean things?
Well what right do you have to tamper with people's paradigms by generalizing (remember ... collective overview not just the specific offense) a lack of logic skills? What right does anyone have to tamper with people's paradigms by ridiculing them, as seen on the part of multiple atheists in this topic? Is there a reason religion seems like a reason for a pep rally to many atheists? Is the identification really all there is? And how does that license the supremacist attitude that leads to pity on and mercy for the drunk stupid idiots who are devoid of logic?
It's a fairly persistent murmur of condemnation and horsepucky. This kind of crap is one of the primary reasons I ditched my own atheist standard several years ago, but I never experienced it as thick or simmering or dedicated as I see motivating the primary atheist advocacy at Sciforums.
Whatever. Thank you, I suppose.
thanx,
Tiassa
I must admit, I find your objection politicized and, technically, only an issue because you insisted on it. But that's just me.
Specifically, I won't have to be so unlucky as to step in it. That's one of the big reasons I'd appreciate that elevation of your standards.
Well, you said it was a step up.
I'm not sure what this has to do with it. It seems to me that sort of thing is in religion's "minus" column.
You know, you asked me if that was all I held against you. Why keep bringing it up? Give me reason to keep bludgeoning your position with it?
Well? I mean it when I say I enjoy getting down in the wallow from time to time. Letting go and venting is healthy for anyone. But I just don't understand the persistent level of vitriol spewing from the atheistic corner. Why is it so hard for so many atheists to consider the religious issues they choose to consider without first finding something or someone to ridicule? I understand the presumption of conflict when religion spills into the political arena. But I don't understand what the point of all the atheistic bitching is. I mean, look at part of our conversation: what right do I have to tamper with people's paradigms in their best interest when entrusted with the authority to affect future actions?
Well what right do you have to tamper with people's paradigms by generalizing (remember ... collective overview not just the specific offense) a lack of logic skills? What right does anyone have to tamper with people's paradigms by ridiculing them, as seen on the part of multiple atheists in this topic? Is there a reason religion seems like a reason for a pep rally to many atheists? Is the identification really all there is? And how does that license the supremacist attitude that leads to pity on and mercy for the drunk stupid idiots who are devoid of logic?
It's a fairly persistent murmur of condemnation and horsepucky. This kind of crap is one of the primary reasons I ditched my own atheist standard several years ago, but I never experienced it as thick or simmering or dedicated as I see motivating the primary atheist advocacy at Sciforums.
All the mean things?
Whatever. Thank you, I suppose.
Ah, "victims" implies they're somehow innocent. I generally tell them what I find offensive. And warning people only seems to encourage them, so I'll think of you and toss a coin.
thanx,
Tiassa
Tiassa, I find it strange that you don't know when one atheist stops and the next stars.
Theists are so hypocritical.
Why are theists named Tiassa? Why are theists all obsessed with the idea that atheists argue mostly over the more prevalent notion of god instead of the smaller ones that theists believe in?
Theists are so strange, theists are all imac users, theists are all asians with glasses.
Theists are so hypocritical.
Why are theists named Tiassa? Why are theists all obsessed with the idea that atheists argue mostly over the more prevalent notion of god instead of the smaller ones that theists believe in?
Theists are so strange, theists are all imac users, theists are all asians with glasses.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
I Think You Need A Timeout
I found Tiassa's comments to be interesting, articulate, and, as, as such, in sharp contrast to yours.
notme2000, that is NOT the way to debate Tiassa. It most certainly is not.
And perhaps I should have clarified. I don't care if theists choose to believe in their own religions, I don't take them as "my sworn enemy". They're just people, who think what they believe is right. Ok, so far so good. But then, theists do try to proselytize. Now that, I have a serious problem with. If they want to believe something stupid, fine, but don't spread it to me.
I see Tiassa making articulate and logical replies, and notme2000 yelling and spluttering. Go sit on the bench for a while and cool off.
And perhaps I should have clarified. I don't care if theists choose to believe in their own religions, I don't take them as "my sworn enemy". They're just people, who think what they believe is right. Ok, so far so good. But then, theists do try to proselytize. Now that, I have a serious problem with. If they want to believe something stupid, fine, but don't spread it to me.
I see Tiassa making articulate and logical replies, and notme2000 yelling and spluttering. Go sit on the bench for a while and cool off.
Reasonable Doubt: Don't bother
Tiassa: It's nice we can get out of "the wallows".
Now, as a closing note before I go to work. Tiassa, nice to look you in the eyes. I feel we can do alot more this way. Don't take this in a wrong way, but get over yourself. You aren't all that. I've met plenty of deeper people than you. Most of which are theists as well. My deepest respect goes to those who live by this philosophy "He who knows he is a fool is smartest of all". I try to live by this, so that when a good piece of information comes along my ego doesn't get in the way. Learning is the supreme goal right? I hope I have not offended you in this last paragraph as it looks like we're so close to peace. I do not claim to be all that either, just to step off your soap-box. You're no better, no worse, than any other person I've talked to in sci-forums or anywhere else. Look forward to your reply, got I'm of to work!
Tiassa: It's nice we can get out of "the wallows".
Please elaborate
Ok, your very first coment on the whole thing did seem warped and twisted, I still stick by that, but you have since explained yourself, so let's let it go, I no longer think you are twisted.
I don't look down on theists, though you can't tell from this debate. ALL my friends are theists, one a devout christian, and they are incredibly deep. We have the coolest conversations, and they are deep because we both realize we can teach, and LEARN.
People can lie to themselves all they want, it's their right. But when they lie to someone else, ie: convince or convert, that is not cool... I think they should get to their answer on their own.
As an athiest I have to go with this answer. But not in a condencending nature, I just look at human nature, and see religion is the logical answer to a near impossible question.
So we can be peacefull now, correct?
Couldn't agree more. If I were to subscribe to those arguments, those cool conversations with my theist friends wouldn't go too far.
Good point.
I see that as a step up. They still comit to the "lie" but are willing to at least change it with time, and when someone thinks they actually have power of a whole religion, this church says f@ck that, good for them!
K, well we've both been able to sleep on it, so let's get up, dust ourselves off, and get the hell out of these depths.
You must realize that the crucifixion is of no interest to me. As an athiest I do NOT want to prove religion wrong, but there's no point in debating a small occasion that I don't care about and which, with either answer, wouldn't change anything. I'm sure it was a very interesting debate however.
Maybe this is why as soon as I try to have a debate with one they automatically think I'm out to destroy their religion. I hope this is not how you got to that conclusion.
LOL!
All I've done by being athiest is admitted I know nothing. How is that superiority?
Let's hope so for both our sakes.
Funny, I swear I was getting down in the wallows once and a while and thought YOU existed there. For the first half of this debate I didn't want to be a part of it, the wallows, but then I got sick of it and pulled off the gloves... Now it turns out we were both only visiting, lol. Well at least our debate can go one even after the fact.
You're right, so let's drop it.
Lol, I swear I was NOT referring to the kiss my ass thing. Should thought of that, lol. My bad,
Strange, I feel the same about the religious corner. But I realize that's only one corner of something huge and not to judge the entire group on that one corner.
Now, as a closing note before I go to work. Tiassa, nice to look you in the eyes. I feel we can do alot more this way. Don't take this in a wrong way, but get over yourself. You aren't all that. I've met plenty of deeper people than you. Most of which are theists as well. My deepest respect goes to those who live by this philosophy "He who knows he is a fool is smartest of all". I try to live by this, so that when a good piece of information comes along my ego doesn't get in the way. Learning is the supreme goal right? I hope I have not offended you in this last paragraph as it looks like we're so close to peace. I do not claim to be all that either, just to step off your soap-box. You're no better, no worse, than any other person I've talked to in sci-forums or anywhere else. Look forward to your reply, got I'm of to work!