| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/10/2010 02:30:05 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Louis keeps claiming he doesn't care what I believe, yet he's always here to correct me. |
But I don't care. I couldn't care less. Please, please believe anything you like. Whatever will make you a happier person. I really don't know how much more plain I can be. I just don't give a shit what nuttiness people believe. A good friend was a famous believer in alien abduction, until my non-belief got the better of the friendship. It didn't matter to me, but it sure as hell mattered to them.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
He then pushes back. That's fine and completely his right. BUT, it's hypocricy to think that his pushing back is justified while everybody else's is delusional thinking based on fairy tales and mumbo-jumbo. |
Really? Are you justifying your stated call by saying you have the right to proselytize if I have the right to refute it, if I have the right to deny something I find impossible to believe? Did I misunderstand? I certainly hope so. |
It seems to me that when Jason says you care what he really means is that he cares. It seems quite apparent to me that he needs these threads so that he can continue to convince himself of his own beliefs. Deep down I think he's still on the fence. His beliefs are but a loosely tethered lattace held together more by familarity than rationality. Just my opinion of course. Speaking of which, does that constitute a religion? I could use the money...
|
|
|
|
09/10/2010 02:33:24 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by yanko:
It seems to me that when Jason says you care what he really means is that he cares. It seems quite apparent to me that he needs these threads so that he can continue to convince himself of his own beliefs. Deep down I think he's still on the fence. His beliefs are but a loosely tethered lattace held together more by familarity than rationality. Just my opinion of course. Speaking of which, does that constitute a religion? I could use the money... |
I think you are pretty wrong here, but don't even get me started on you.... :P |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 03:06:18 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by yanko's subconscience:
It seems to me that when Yanko, Louis and Scalvert say you care what they really means is that they care. It seems quite apparent to me that they need these threads so that they can continue to convince themselves of their own lack of beliefs. Deep down I think they're still on the fence. They're beliefs are but a loosely tethered lattace held together more by familarity than rationality. Just my opinion of course. |
(edited to reflect a very similar, but inverse opinion)
I don't think I have seen a religious thread on DPC that our resident atheist proselytizers have not felt compelled to jump into. (not counting this thread since it's original post was already more anti-religious) |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 03:13:51 PM · #104 |
Let me add that while it's one thing to debate the faith or religion itself, all I see you guys end up doing is ganging up with personal attacks on the people (who happen to be the overwhelming majority of inhabitants of this planet) who hold them.
Speaking of irrational, you should really ask yourselves why you get so fired up at the idea that other people simply believe and choose to discuss their beliefs with people who CHOOSE to listen. |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 03:19:55 PM · #105 |
At the most fundamental level, Proselytizing is the attempt to convert another to your position or belief.
At the most fundamental level, Preaching is to speak or argue in favor of a position or belief.
So they DO have a commonality, but they really are not synonyms. In particular, when a pastor preaches to his congregation, conversion is not an issue. And a pastor, of course, is never in the position of proselytizing his own congregation, for they, by definition, are already "converted".
What's going on here, what's being expressed by the various debaters, is more properly labeled preaching than it is proselytizing. I'm not really aware that any participants herein are actively attempting to convert others to their beliefs. At least not the *religious* participants...
R.
Message edited by author 2010-09-10 15:20:41. |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 03:26:30 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I still don't know what thesaurus you're using. I checked Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com and neither one has preach listed as a synonym of proselytize. |
Maybe because those aren't thesauri? I was using my computer's built-in thesaurus because it's handy. Try Thesaurus.com:
Main Entry: evangelize
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: preach
Synonyms: homilize, preachify, proclaim, proselytize, sermonize |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 03:32:21 PM · #107 |
Art, I'm sorry you think this thread was created to insult religious people. It was quite the opposite that was intended. I wanted some dialogue on the Koran situation because I hadn't read up on it much. I wanted to hear it from you or anyone else here. It was going along just fine until someone mentioned burning a human being instead of a book. I took offence and I think that's what derailed this POS thread. Now it's a us vs them gang bang of a thread and it's time it was closed.
Again Art, I'm sorry you feel this way. I had hoped we could talk about some idiot in Florida and have a laugh but no.
At least I did one thing right, I put it in Rant and I saved a couple clicks for the SC.
Now close this please before the overwhelming majority of inhabitants of this planet start seeking out my address. ;|
Message edited by author 2010-09-10 15:34:06. |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 03:44:32 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I don't think I have seen a religious thread on DPC that our resident atheist proselytizers ... |
Yeah, just repeating descriptors doesn't make them apply to everyone. Calling a spade a spade is not a challenge. It's a fact.
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Let me add that while it's one thing to debate the faith or religion itself, all I see you guys end up doing is ganging up with personal attacks on the people (who happen to be the overwhelming majority of inhabitants of this planet) who hold them. |
Takes two to keep the fires burnin', friend. Argument ad populum ignored.
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Speaking of irrational, you should really ask yourselves why you get so fired up at the idea that other people simply believe and choose to discuss their beliefs with people who CHOOSE to listen. |
We don't. We (or at least I) get fired up at the idea that other people believe and choose to force-feed it to those who don't believe, i.e., the "I'll pray for you and hopefully by god's grace" yada yada, and the "you are not 'saved' except by" drones, and the "my religion is so inviolate you may not even intone the name of my whatever", and the weekly door knockers, not to mention the activists you can find on any urban street corner, or lurking in school meetings. Keep it to yourselves. If only this sort of silliness was discussed amongst willing listeners. Unfortunately, we are fairly drowning in this stuff. |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 04:00:39 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
He then pushes back. That's fine and completely his right. BUT, it's hypocricy to think that his pushing back is justified while everybody else's is delusional thinking based on fairy tales and mumbo-jumbo. |
Really? Are you justifying your stated call by saying you have the right to proselytize if I have the right to refute it, if I have the right to deny something I find impossible to believe? Did I misunderstand? I certainly hope so. |
I think you did misunderstand. I'm saying everybody has the same right. I'm also saying that everybody who approaches someone with hopes of converting their position is, in essence, proselytizing. Finally I'm saying that I find it hypocritical when people who are obviously aggressive about their position are annoyed at the aggression of others. |
Nah, I'm just annoyed that to maintain equilibrium (or something of the sort) I have to be damned aggressive.. As a matter of a fact, that's what I mostly read into your comment regarding "New Atheists" becoming indistinguishable from religion... Effectively, the kafir, infidel, anti-christ, etc,etc are finally hitting back a little... Indeed it is funny when the playground bully gets a bloody lip isn't it? It's interesting, that we each see the other as the bully.
Message edited by author 2010-09-10 16:05:54. |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 04:04:46 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by yanko's subconscience:
It seems to me that when Yanko, Louis and Scalvert say you care what they really means is that they care. It seems quite apparent to me that they need these threads so that they can continue to convince themselves of their own lack of beliefs. Deep down I think they're still on the fence. They're beliefs are but a loosely tethered lattace held together more by familarity than rationality. Just my opinion of course. |
(edited to reflect a very similar, but inverse opinion)
I don't think I have seen a religious thread on DPC that our resident atheist proselytizers have not felt compelled to jump into. (not counting this thread since it's original post was already more anti-religious) |
If I'm doing that what is it that I'm trying to convert people to? I'd love to see which posts I have made that would be evidence of that. Serious question.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2010 04:16:45 PM · #111 |
Well, perhaps this is going to break ranks with some of my fellow non-believers on these threads, but I will admit that I definitely do care about the beliefs of others - not necessarily about what others believe, but certainly about how and why they believe. I think that history and current political and social trends clearly show that non-evidence based belief is, on balance, harmful to the well-being of individuals and society. The rise of Christian evangelicalism in the United States, and fundamentalist religiosity more generally internationally, has brought about a less stable and less secure world.
I am very much an advocate for skepticism, evidence-based reasoning, science and scientific thinking. There is clearly a strong and organized anti-science, anti-rationality movement at work in the United States and abroad, that has been building strength and gaining traction for the last couple of decades. I, like others who care about science and evidence-based reasoning, feel a duty to speak out and confront these anti-science/anti-rational trends.
Again, I do not necessarily care what you think, but, having said that, I do acknowledge that there are some very clear consequences for those who accept scientific reality and evidence-based modes of reasoning. I do think there is an inherent conflict between science and religious belief, for example, even though it is certainly empirically true that people are able to rationalize certain personal religious beliefs with acceptance of scientific fact.
For myself, answering or challenging the believers, whether out in the world or in a thread like this online, is not so much about an attempt to convince the believer, but about making sure that non-evidence-based assertions of belief are not presented in a public sphere without challenge. Perhaps I will succeed in making the true-believer step back and examine his or her own bias, but I know that the odds are not good. Rather, I hope that I can provide an example of the type of person and thinking for which I am advocating. (One of the reasons that atheists, skeptics and evidence-based rationalists are becoming so "strident" is because they are being asked to shut up and go back in the closet "where they belong.")
I try to do this in a respectful manner (but with a reservation of the right to call out bullsh*t when needed). The problem (from the believer's viewpoint) is that standing up and saying, no matter how respectfully phrased, that religious belief is false, irrational and without any evidentiary basis is taken as an attack on not just the believer's worldview, but his or her very identity. So, on a one-on-one basis, politeness wins out and I'm unlikely to take the "hard line" unless invited to do so, but in a public or semi-public forum like this, all parties are either explicitly or tacitly inviting response and critique to their position.
In short, believe what you want, but be prepared to back it up when you move that belief into the public square.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2010 04:21:02 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by yanko:
If I'm doing that what is it that I'm trying to convert people to? I'd love to see which posts I have made that would be evidence of that. Serious question. |
All of "you" collectively, the dis-or-non-believers, give every appearance of trying to "convert" believers. It's just how it looks. There even seems to be a belief among some of you that *ridicule* is a valid tool for proselytizing, as if by mocking a believer's faith you can somehow make him/her accept the idiocy of it, and become apostate. It's an undercurrent that runs throughout these threads and that is, IMO, a much stronger presence than the occasional attempt by some of our more fundamental members to "make Christians" out of you.
R. |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 04:22:46 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Well, perhaps this is going to break ranks with some of my fellow non-believers on these threads, but I will admit that I definitely do care about the beliefs of others - not necessarily about what others believe, but certainly about how and why they believe. I think that history and current political and social trends clearly show that non-evidence based belief is, on balance, harmful to the well-being of individuals and society. The rise of Christian evangelicalism in the United States, and fundamentalist religiosity more generally internationally, has brought about a less stable and less secure world.
I am very much an advocate for skepticism, evidence-based reasoning, science and scientific thinking. There is clearly a strong and organized anti-science, anti-rationality movement at work in the United States and abroad, that has been building strength and gaining traction for the last couple of decades. I, like others who care about science and evidence-based reasoning, feel a duty to speak out and confront these anti-science/anti-rational trends.
Again, I do not necessarily care what you think, but, having said that, I do acknowledge that there are some very clear consequences for those who accept scientific reality and evidence-based modes of reasoning. I do think there is an inherent conflict between science and religious belief, for example, even though it is certainly empirically true that people are able to rationalize certain personal religious beliefs with acceptance of scientific fact.
For myself, answering or challenging the believers, whether out in the world or in a thread like this online, is not so much about an attempt to convince the believer, but about making sure that non-evidence-based assertions of belief are not presented in a public sphere without challenge. Perhaps I will succeed in making the true-believer step back and examine his or her own bias, but I know that the odds are not good. Rather, I hope that I can provide an example of the type of person and thinking for which I am advocating. (One of the reasons that atheists, skeptics and evidence-based rationalists are becoming so "strident" is because they are being asked to shut up and go back in the closet "where they belong.")
I try to do this in a respectful manner (but with a reservation of the right to call out bullsh*t when needed). The problem (from the believer's viewpoint) is that standing up and saying, no matter how respectfully phrased, that religious belief is false, irrational and without any evidentiary basis is taken as an attack on not just the believer's worldview, but his or her very identity. So, on a one-on-one basis, politeness wins out and I'm unlikely to take the "hard line" unless invited to do so, but in a public or semi-public forum like this, all parties are either explicitly or tacitly inviting response and critique to their position.
In short, believe what you want, but be prepared to back it up when you move that belief into the public square. |
Nope, you're squarely in the middle of the right track I think...
I care deeply what these groups think and what they believe, largely because it can and does affect me... Abortion? Yeah, those people who seem to think we need more unwanted children are off their rocker IMHO.. One example among many, and a total sniper shot I know, shitty thing to do, but a good example of how this affects others, in huge and dramatic ways... I think every anti-abortionist needs to talk with 50 truly unwanted children... I think you'll find the mostly don't want themselves either... That's right, I feel the children you "save" as teenagers (and beyond?) will resent you for forcing them into this place as an unwanted child.
I care, and so should everyone, actually those of you who've said you don't care, well... Maybe you should reconsider that stance a bit, and start caring before it's too late. |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 04:25:31 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yanko:
If I'm doing that what is it that I'm trying to convert people to? I'd love to see which posts I have made that would be evidence of that. Serious question. |
All of "you" collectively, the dis-or-non-believers, give every appearance of trying to "convert" believers. It's just how it looks. There even seems to be a belief among some of you that *ridicule* is a valid tool for proselytizing, as if by mocking a believer's faith you can somehow make him/her accept the idiocy of it, and become apostate. It's an undercurrent that runs throughout these threads and that is, IMO, a much stronger presence than the occasional attempt by some of our more fundamental members to "make Christians" out of you.
R. |
:) that which you give will be returned ten fold. Or at least many religions believe that... I'm just doing my small part to ensure that this particular belief is held to be true. :)
And, really, I don't have any hope of converting the faithful, nor do I desire to. I just want to make sure there are an equal number of voices talking on each side of this issue. :) |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 04:27:25 PM · #115 |
Well, we could go down the abortion track, but that would totally derail the conversation (which is probably already derailed).
SP, I enjoyed the post (as usual) even though I disagree with some of it. Thanks for the thought out input.
Message edited by author 2010-09-10 16:27:38. |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 04:29:39 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, we could go down the abortion track, but that would totally derail the conversation (which is probably already derailed).
SP, I enjoyed the post (as usual) even though I disagree with some of it. Thanks for the thought out input. |
I think rants by definition are derailed... ":) |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 04:31:39 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, we could go down the abortion track, but that would totally derail the conversation (which is probably already derailed).
SP, I enjoyed the post (as usual) even though I disagree with some of it. Thanks for the thought out input. |
I think rants by definition are derailed... ":) |
Well, let me just ask you this: If you had to summarize your bit about abortion into a generalized moral precept. What would it be? |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 04:34:50 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
I just want to make sure there are an equal number of voices talking on each side of this issue. :) |
On DPC that probably means you should shut up... ;P |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 04:38:09 PM · #119 |
| I believe I already said that I start caring when the issues are dumped in my lap. What shutterpuppy has said reflects my own thinking, whether i was clear or not. |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 04:40:47 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I believe I already said that I start caring when the issues are dumped in my lap. What shutterpuppy has said reflects my own thinking, whether i was clear or not. |
He said it much better and with more grace. :P |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 04:45:37 PM · #121 |
Wow, I can't believe I'm going to put my own thread on ignore. I've heard enough bull for one day...
Have fun folks.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2010 04:59:19 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yanko:
If I'm doing that what is it that I'm trying to convert people to? I'd love to see which posts I have made that would be evidence of that. Serious question. |
All of "you" collectively, the dis-or-non-believers, give every appearance of trying to "convert" believers. It's just how it looks. There even seems to be a belief among some of you that *ridicule* is a valid tool for proselytizing, as if by mocking a believer's faith you can somehow make him/her accept the idiocy of it, and become apostate. It's an undercurrent that runs throughout these threads and that is, IMO, a much stronger presence than the occasional attempt by some of our more fundamental members to "make Christians" out of you.
R. |
I totally disagree. Ridiculing indefensible positions isn't the same as ridiculing one's personal beliefs. I have yet to see the latter in these forums and if they do occur they are most certainly rare. What often happens is someone like johnnyphoto or DrAchoo tries to make some widely illogical argument comparing apples to oranges and they get called out for it. Granted, there are the occassional ad hominem attacks made through frustration. Louis' DrAchooHatesFags.com was certainly one of them but lets stop pretending one side has the higher ground here. Jason has made repeated personal attacks on me over the years that he tries to laugh off and I've not once returned it in kind. Then again I'm use to that. I live in a world where it's expected that the non-believers simply except all the garbage religious fanatics want to force down our throats legally, socially, economically.
Message edited by author 2010-09-10 17:00:53.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2010 05:03:15 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yanko:
If I'm doing that what is it that I'm trying to convert people to? I'd love to see which posts I have made that would be evidence of that. Serious question. |
All of "you" collectively, the dis-or-non-believers, give every appearance of trying to "convert" believers. It's just how it looks. There even seems to be a belief among some of you that *ridicule* is a valid tool for proselytizing, as if by mocking a believer's faith you can somehow make him/her accept the idiocy of it, and become apostate. It's an undercurrent that runs throughout these threads and that is, IMO, a much stronger presence than the occasional attempt by some of our more fundamental members to "make Christians" out of you.
R. |
I totally disagree. Ridiculing indefensible positions isn't the same as ridiculing one's personal beliefs. I have yet to see the latter in these forums and if they do occur they are most certainly rare. What often happens is someone like johnnyphoto or DrAchoo tries to make some widely illogical argument comparing apples to oranges and they get called out for it. Granted, there are the occassional ad hominem attacks made through frustration. Louis' DrAchooHatesFags.com was certainly one of them but lets stop pretending one side has the higher ground here. Jason has made repeated personal attacks on me over the years that he tries to laugh off and I've not once returned it in kind. Then again I'm use to that. I live in a world where it's expected that the non-believers simply except all the garbage religious fanatics want to force down our throats legally, socially, economically. |
It probably bears to remember that when you are on the receiving end it feels personal, but when you are on the giving end it doesn't. So while it may feel that I've personally attacked you, it doesn't feel that way to me. And while it seems to you that you have never attacked me, it seems that way to me. It's quite possible neither of us has meant any personal attacks. |
|
|
|
09/10/2010 05:15:10 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
In short, believe what you want, but be prepared to back it up when you move that belief into the public square. |
That's where the problems occur. A personal religious belief cannot win a public debate. It's simply not equip to do so, which is why it always loses miserably, and why it inevitably resorts to brute force at some point for it's continual survival.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2010 05:17:03 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
In short, believe what you want, but be prepared to back it up when you move that belief into the public square. |
That's where the problems occur. A personal religious belief cannot win a public debate. It's simply not equip to do so, which is why it always loses miserably, and why it inevitably resorts to brute force at some point for it's continual survival. |
(big eye roll) For real? |
|
