Isn't time that Humanity was more important than any religion
- Thread starter river
- Start date
Yes, its not uncommon here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hp6J6PF47CM
perhaps that would make sense if you could indicate where I started hurling abuse at Marquis.But really LG, considering your behaviour on this site, I guess what it comes down to is don't throw stones when you live in a glass house yourself.
His abuse, on the other hand, just came right out of nowhere (even before he was made aware of my nationality, which, in your view is a valid grounds for hurling insult) and doesn't make the pretense of addressing the thread much less anything I've said in it. That's what gives his posts a sock like aroma ... or at the very least the suggestion he has been working under one or two handles beforehand ...
Last edited:
While I don't support Marquis' attitude toward you (and other theists), it is something I can relate to.
In part, I share Marquis' and some other atheists' plight.
Although I usually express myself much more politely and analytically than they do.
Marquis has addressed here essentially the same points I have been addressing with you and other theists for years.
It's about the standard epistemological, ontological and interpersonal problems that go with (attempts to) belief in God.
Your defensive attitude suggests that you might not actually be in possession of a philosophy and way of life that would be higher than other people's.
If you would really be in possession of a philosophy and way of life that would be higher than other people's, then I think you would be able to defeat others in argument with skill, and not by resorting to hold other people to specific social norms.
Maybe if, just as an experiment, you'd stop seeing non-theists as your sworn enemies, you might actually see where we're coming from, and you might be able to relate to us - and communication would probably be much more meaningful and with much less strain for both sides.
mod queue
While I don't support Marquis' attitude toward you (and other theists), it is something I can relate to.
In part, I share Marquis' and some other atheists' plight.
Although I usually express myself much more politely and analytically than they do.
Marquis has addressed here essentially the same points I have been addressing with you and other theists for years.
It's about the standard epistemological, ontological and interpersonal problems that go with (attempts to) belief in God.
Your defensive attitude suggests that you might not actually be in possession of a philosophy and way of life that would be higher than other people's.
If you would really be in possession of a philosophy and way of life that would be higher than other people's, then I think you would be able to defeat others in argument with skill, and not by resorting to hold other people to specific social norms.
Maybe if, just as an experiment, you'd stop seeing non-theists as your sworn enemies, you might actually see where we're coming from, and you might be able to relate to us - and communication would probably be much more meaningful and with much less strain for both sides.
While I don't support Marquis' attitude toward you (and other theists), it is something I can relate to.
In part, I share Marquis' and some other atheists' plight.
Although I usually express myself much more politely and analytically than they do.
Marquis has addressed here essentially the same points I have been addressing with you and other theists for years.
It's about the standard epistemological, ontological and interpersonal problems that go with (attempts to) belief in God.
Your defensive attitude suggests that you might not actually be in possession of a philosophy and way of life that would be higher than other people's.
If you would really be in possession of a philosophy and way of life that would be higher than other people's, then I think you would be able to defeat others in argument with skill, and not by resorting to hold other people to specific social norms.
Maybe if, just as an experiment, you'd stop seeing non-theists as your sworn enemies, you might actually see where we're coming from, and you might be able to relate to us - and communication would probably be much more meaningful and with much less strain for both sides.
A person has to start somewhere.
Some beginnings may not be particularly noble or praiseworthy in some people's eyes, but they are beginnings.
These things are on the same spectrum.
Can you think of any particular argument that can function without holding people to social norms?
can you think of any successful argument that can function without holding the other party to a social norm?
For instance if someone is so damaged and full of self loathing that they can't even enter the general arena of civil discourse, all channels of civil discourse (which would encompass "argument") are simply not available to them.. so generally one wouldn't weigh an argument as successful if it depends on effecting change in such persons.
No, actually, I think you are encountering some of those subjects right here at the forums, on a daily basis.
And they are not fancy subjects on the color of God's belly-button or some such.
Instead, they have to do with how to talk to actual people about God, meeting these people wherever they may be on their paths in life.
I'm sure you feel very confident in your ex-cathedra approach to preaching. But you are apparently forgetting that nobody here agreed to take courses lectured by you.
Fortunately or unfortunately, at a forum like this, you are just one out of many, your views are just one out of many. At a forum like this, the authority of the instances that you consider authoritative has not yet been established; they are just one out of many.
You mean this is an internet forum?
Arguably, an enlightened being could do precisely that. And devotees are enlightened, are they not?
You're not the first devotee whom I have met who grossly underestimates how personally many people tend to take these topics about religion, whether they are theists or atheists.
And because they take them so personally, they don't talk about them in the aloof, detached manner that professional philosophers or theologians do.
Remember, there are four kinds of people who are interested in the topic of God, and only two of them are into philosophy (or, more strictly, only one kind of them is into philosophy).
You apparently take other people's rudeness as a sign of them being damaged or full of self-loathing, when in fact neither may be the case.
But change is what you want to effect in others, do you not?
I mean that you should know better, with all that about time, place and circumstance.
It is inevitable that humans who are not already theists, place their own humanity above everything else.
That is the glory and the doom of being human.
A "start" or "taking a stab at" religious conversion is not equivalent to accomplishing religious conversion.
No, they are not. Willpower requires consensual participation of the individual with their own goals. Such cooperation is not necessarily indicative of controlling others and definitely contrary to the forceful control attempted in any war.
So you want to play God now, so that you get to decide whether another person's conversion is genuine or not?
Some people think, and try to act accordingly, as if other people would be no different than, say, the items in a room one wishes to clean and organize.
Arguably, not at all.
Since discussion does involve two people, there is also the question of the second party innvolved
and don't forget the 4 types who aren't, all of which are essentially attitude problems to the topic at hand
If one hates who they are talking too (and even themselves too) it does tend to impede the reception of information
sure, but how do you think that change occurs? That someone just gets magically zapped totally absolved from any personal responsibility or attitude issues that frame the subject?
I think that while you want people to change, you simply don't care enough about them. And it shows in how ineffective your exchanges with them are.
Change is a complex phenomenon.
But here, we are talking about you wanting others to change - while you prefer to place the majority of the responsibility on them.
If you are the one who wants others to change, and you want others to change in a particular way,
then the majority of responsibility for their change is on you.
It's not clear why this is so hard for you to accept.
You and I, nor you and other posters here, have not agreed on the ways in which we are supposed to change, not on the goals nor on the standards by which to change.
We have agreed to no plan.
We have not agreed to cooperate.
You, on the other hand, seem to be coming from the perspective that it goes without saying that others should change, and in a particular way. That no plan and no agreement are necessary.
It is no wonder that some posters here resent you.
You and I, nor you and other posters here, have not agreed on the ways in which we are supposed to change, not on the goals nor on the standards by which to change.
We have agreed to no plan.
We have not agreed to cooperate.
You, on the other hand, seem to be coming from the perspective that it goes without saying that others should change, and in a particular way. That no plan and no agreement are necessary.
It is no wonder that some posters here resent you.
I am not playing god in the least, only refusing to accept your solipsist redefinition of common words. A social, economic, or political change for social, economic, or political reasons are only ulterior motives for any apparent religious conversion. And you have completely failed to make the case for it being otherwise. The only argument you have made is that if a person convinces themselves that their ulterior motives are pure, or something, then we must accept their solipsist and self-deluded justification.
People can lie to themselves all they like, it does not mean I have to buy it. Actions speak louder than words, so if the actions only indicate serving these ulterior motives, why should I believe the incongruity? You only seek to excuse these people because you are in the same boat.
Yeah, solipsists and sociopaths. The latter also tend to suffer from poor impulse control, which is the opposite of willpower. Try again.