Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
There is irony here, they have communicated with each other an unbelievable number of times. Hatred creates proximity. And then we know what hatred is close to.
Preaching?
- Thread starter Mr. Hamtastic
- Start date
It wasn't directed specifically at you, but all the theists here who claim that it's unfair, and that only the atheists are the ones who don't know how to conduct themselves.
I personally don't see any bias. I do see people on both sides actin' the fool, (Q, for one. Stranger, for another, but not always) and I call them both out on it. I think picking on one side or the other is just spinning your wheels.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
It's not about the atheists, it's about the moderation. In the rules it refers to preaching as a no no. If theists can be called on preaching - which happens - can atheists. That's the issue. Stereotyping seems permissible on all sides as far as I can tell, despite the rules.
Ibid.
I found this thread useful because I often react, sometimes unconsciously, to the mocking and insults - and have also done it myself. I realized in this thread a better strategy for me is simply to label.
What is labeling, and how do you do it?
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Whole text : generalization/stereotyping
Unsupported psychological hypothesis.
Unsupported ontological claim.
Irrelevent/ad hom.(implicit if poorly formulated)
I'm colorblind, friend...oh, wait...nevermind, the words are in the code. Sweet!
It would be interesting if you caused JDawg Simon Anders Me and SAM to join forces, though. You're more powerful than I thought!
So much for yet another one of your claims.
What does that make you if I have to constantly correct your false assumptions?
It might help if you knew the definitions of 'preaching.'
Q-Ask- and you shall receive!
preach (prch)
v. preached, preach·ing, preach·es
v.tr.
1. To proclaim or put forth in a sermon: preached the gospel.
2. To advocate, especially to urge acceptance of or compliance with: preached tolerance and peaceful coexistence.
3. To deliver (a sermon).
v.intr.
1. To deliver a sermon.
2. To give religious or moral instruction, especially in a tedious manner
preach (prch)
v. preached, preach·ing, preach·es
v.tr.
1. To proclaim or put forth in a sermon: preached the gospel.
2. To advocate, especially to urge acceptance of or compliance with: preached tolerance and peaceful coexistence.
3. To deliver (a sermon).
v.intr.
1. To deliver a sermon.
2. To give religious or moral instruction, especially in a tedious manner
wait, oh that's right, if you go back to the start of the thread, see, in post 2, Simon, amusingly the one who you're suggesting doesn't know what the word is, posted the definition, and investigated far more thoroughly than I'm going to.
On JDawg-He's embarrassed by you. Your corrections are usually foolish. Don't make it worse for him.
As for me, you have as much humor as you do astuteness.
On JDawg-He's embarrassed by you. Your corrections are usually foolish. Don't make it worse for him.
As for me, you have as much humor as you do astuteness.
He has some definitions, I found this one, too included in a Websters Lexicon: Speak, plead, or argue in favour of.
That would count for everybody here. Clearly, the preaching being referred to as unacceptable is the "religious sermon".
re·li·gion (r-ljn)
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
I want to consider this carefully, treading foolishly here simply will not do.
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
I want to consider this carefully, treading foolishly here simply will not do.
so-definition 1 is unarguably theists. Definition 2 doesn't fit with preaching contextually. Definition 3 covers pagans, buddhists, etc. Definition 4. Hmm. Is atheism a cause, principal, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion?
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
With Q on ignore I cannot experience him directly. I do get the sense he exists via the reactions of others. I would say that even though I cannot directly contact him, I am quite sure he is not dead. I know he exists and even what he is 'doing' via the texts of others. I may not accept everyone's reactions to him as accurate information about what he is saying. However I do think he exists and feel I can draw some conclusions about him - like he is still an atheist and he is not pleased with what some people are saying. I am a believer.
A fascinating thing.
And as I pointed out in my earlier post one can preach and be a non-theist. The question is whether this is enforced.
Last edited:
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
You don't even have to show that atheism is such a cause. One can have as a cause pointing out the flaws and dangers of theism. This may come from your atheism - if it is more than a mere lack of belief in God - it may come from bad experiences with a church. In fact, the burden is not on the listeners or readers to come up with the source of one's cause.
Besides the whole point of the thread is whether the rules themselves are too restrictive.
If one can go on and on lecturing and insulting from both pro and con positions in relation to theism, shouldn't the idea in the rules be that one does not do this. You don't want one rule for theists and another for atheists, who merely lack a belief, so it would be odd to group them anyway.
Simon-good points all.
The latest suggestion was that religious preaching was the problem, thus there are rules against being in favor of theistic beliefs. Perhaps I misinterpreted, which is why I wanted to ponder the definition of religious better. Religious preaching and preaching religiously seem to have very different meanings on investigation.
The fact is, if something is not well defined in the rules, the rule is null. If there is a rule against preaching, it should be defined and modded properly. If it is ignored, doesn't that weaken confidence in the moderative abilities of those holding the post? At what point does ignoring a rule tread the ground of supporting anarchy? Do all sides of the debate have an equal footing, or are some views more equal than others? I'd be interested to know admin's position on this.
The latest suggestion was that religious preaching was the problem, thus there are rules against being in favor of theistic beliefs. Perhaps I misinterpreted, which is why I wanted to ponder the definition of religious better. Religious preaching and preaching religiously seem to have very different meanings on investigation.
The fact is, if something is not well defined in the rules, the rule is null. If there is a rule against preaching, it should be defined and modded properly. If it is ignored, doesn't that weaken confidence in the moderative abilities of those holding the post? At what point does ignoring a rule tread the ground of supporting anarchy? Do all sides of the debate have an equal footing, or are some views more equal than others? I'd be interested to know admin's position on this.
OK, Hammy, I think I speak for everyone when I say we've had enough of your preaching!!!!
...
:bawl:
Aww, damn...OK, I take it back. Preach from highest mountain, Hammeneggs!
Maybe I'll even attend one of your Bible thumpings--er, I mean, studies. Bible studies.